oo" 
 
 .^:^' -^^ 
 
 'S'. S'- 
 
 ^%' 
 
 ■->. 
 

 ■'^y .v^"' 
 
 
 '^^ v^' 
 
 '^ > 
 
 IP, v-^ 
 
 "^^ V^ 
 
 r 
 
s:i<'^'^^ 
 
 3goO 
 
 / S 
 
k-. 
 
THE 
 
 AMERICAN STATESMAN: 
 
 A POLITICAL HISTORY 
 
 EXHIBITING THE 
 
 ORIGIN, NATUEE AND PEACTICAL OPERATION OF CON STITUTIONAT 
 GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES ^ 
 
 RISE AND PROGRESS OF PARTIES, 
 
 THE 
 
 .ECS.. „o. ..X. r,uc TO.., „. rr..s o... no.., „„o.t..c. 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 VIEWS o. «I»XZ»OOISH.J, ST„ESME« o. .O^STIOKS 0. .OBEIO^ 
 AND DOMESTIC POLICY. 
 
 By ANDREW W. YOUNG, A.M., 
 
 AUTHOB OF "SCIENCE OP GOVERNMENr," " GOYERKMENT CLAS. BOOK" ".rn 
 
 cm. «o™m.kx.'. "kaxxo... ecokoh.," " c"« .AK^r^;"""^ ^ 
 
 GOVERNMENT AND LAW." , "■^^UAi OP 
 
 ^x ) ^ 
 
 •> REVISED AND ENLARGED BY GEO. T. FERRIS, A.M. 
 
 -" no tCi^ 
 NEW YORK: . 
 HENRY S. GOODSPEED & COMPANY, 
 
 No. 14 BARCLAY STREET, 
 
 AND \ 
 
 287 VINE STREET, CINCIN 
 
 1 
 
 \i'^'^^ 
 
 NATI, O. 
 
t./S3 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S60, by 
 
 DERBY & JACKSON, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of ths United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, by 
 
 S. "WILLARD, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New \!ork. 
 
 Re-entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1877, by 
 
 H. S. QOODSPEED, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The general diffusicn of political knowledge is essential to 
 public prosperity, and to the security of our liberties. A gov- 
 ernment, whatever its form, is not really free, when its theory 
 and practical operation are not understood by the great body 
 of those from whom, its powers are derived. Universal suffrage 
 is valuable only as its exercise is directed by an enlightened 
 public sentiment. 
 
 While these propositions are universally acknowledged as 
 self-evident truths, it must be confessed, that the knowledge 
 of our government is too limited to secure the uninterrupted 
 enjoyment of 'the benefits of good administration. A large por- 
 tion of our citizens assume the duties and responsibilities of 
 freemen, without the information requisite to a faithful dis- 
 charge of these vast responsibilities devolved upon them by the 
 constitution and l^ws. Many of them, ambitious of civil honors, 
 accept important public trusts, with attainments in political 
 science too circumscribed to enable them to render efficient ser- 
 vice to the state, or to gain to themselves an honorable dis- 
 tinction. In the character and acts of many of our legislative 
 bodies, does the truth of this remark find abundant confirma- 
 tion. 
 
 The design of this work is to bring within the reach of our 
 citizens generally, in a single volume, the greatest possible 
 amount of that kind of information which all ought to possess • 
 but which is to be obtained elsewhere only in works so volumi- 
 nous and expensive as to render it inaccessible to the greater 
 portion of the community. 
 
 A prominent and essential feature of the work is, tliat on all 
 controverted cinestions, whether involving constitutional prin- 
 
IV 
 
 PllErACE. 
 
 ciples, or mere considerations of expediency, the substance of 
 the arguments on both sides has been faithfully and impar- 
 tially given. On subjects of party controversy, the author has 
 withheld the expression of his own opinions, deeming it best to 
 leave the unconfirmed politician to the exercise of his own 
 unbiased judgment in forming his conclusions. By thus pre- 
 senting the different views of our ablest statesmen, the work 
 will be rendered valuable to the political student as a consti- 
 tutional expositor, and as a guide to the formation of enlight- 
 ened opinions on questions of public policy ; while to the 
 more advanced politician, the great variety of its matter will 
 make it convenient and useful as a book of reference. 
 
 Neither the capacity nor the design of this work, has per- 
 mitted the introduction of local politics. The selection ot 
 matter has been almost exclusively confined to subjects of a 
 national character; but the volume has 'been sufficiently ex- 
 tended to embrace most of the principal subjects of our pohti- 
 
 cal history. , , . ,. 
 
 It has been an object of much care to make the work a re i- 
 able one. Its statements are founded principally upon the 
 official records of the government. In the condensation oi 
 speeches, reports, and other documents, pains have been taken 
 to present their strongest points, as well as their true meamng. 
 Where recourse to other sources of information has been neces- 
 sary, reference has been had to approved and. standai-cl works, 
 among which are those of Marshall, Pitkin, Bancroft, Hidreth, 
 
 and others. ,. i . • 
 
 That the work, nevertheless, contains some slight maccum- 
 cies, is not improbable. It is believed, however, that it will be 
 found free from material errors ; and that it will be acknow- 
 ledo-ed to possess claims to the public i\xvor, and conduce m 
 some good degree, to a higher and a more general appreciation 
 of our political institiitioua. 
 
PREFACE TO THE COMPLETE EDITION. 
 
 The profound interest and importance of a study of national 
 politics can liardlj be overestimated in a coimtry of Ivepublican 
 institntions like the United States. The goyernmental condi- 
 tions ot most foreign nationalities preclude any share in public 
 questions, except on the part of the privileged classes. But the 
 citizens of this favored nation, one and all, are brought into such 
 near relations to the government, as to inspire them with a con- 
 stant and intelligent sympathy with all public movements and 
 measures To make snch a sympathy operative for the best dis- 
 charge of the high duties of citizenship, it is important that it 
 should be illuminated with a knowledge of the political history 
 ot the past. The progress of the United States, as reflected in 
 governoiental action, has been so consecutive and logical that 
 each link m the chain is dependent on the others 
 
 The earlier editions of the " American Statesman " were re 
 ceived by the intelligent and thoughtful public with a favor Pnd 
 appreciation worthy of the exhaustive pains and thought be- 
 stowed on them by Mr. Young, whose reputation was solid and 
 wide-spread as a political thinker and statistician. The last 
 edition brought the political history of the -nation down to the 
 close of the recent war. Before the accomplished author had 
 opportunity to continue the favorite labor of his life he died 
 and the work .passed into other hands. ' 
 
 Tlie public history of the United States since the victory over 
 the Confederacy has been one of pecuhar and exceptional interest. 
 xNew questions had to be treated, problems of constitutional law 
 solved, and emergencies provided for, unparalleled in our pre- 
 vious history. Twelve years of complicated legislation, and such 
 a brilliant contest in the halls of Congressional debate as is worthy 
 of the days of Webster, Calhoun, and Clay, attest the importance ' 
 ot the mterests involved in the conflict. The elevation of a race 
 trom the condition of vassalage to that of free and equal citizen- 
 
VI PEEFACE TO THE COMFLETE EDITION. 
 
 ship, and all the troubled questions relating to so colossal a change, 
 have taxed the ablest minds of the nation, and wrought out the 
 acts of a political drama of the deepest interest and significance. 
 The reconstruction of the Southern States, the rehabilitation of 
 the finances, and the clash and collision of the most bitter ]>reju- 
 dices and antipathies on a class of political problems, peculiarly 
 fitted to irritate the public mind, have made the last twelve years 
 a notable epoch in our history/ To present these questions and an 
 intelligent digest of their treatment in a spirit approaching judi- 
 cial calmness and impartiality has been the purpose of the present 
 enlarged and revised edition. It is difiicult to avoid color and 
 bias in the discussion of such matters, but, so far as practicable, 
 the aim has been to play the role of the faithful historian. In 
 the pursuance of this spirit, facts have been recorded rather 
 than mere theory and speculation, and the men who have 
 moulded the history of the nation have been made to speak for 
 themselves, without the glosses and partisan comments of the 
 essayists. Local State questions have been ignored, except so 
 far as circumstances expanded and heightened them into matters 
 of national importance. Fidelity to a plan, and the limits of 
 space, have compelled the writer to pass over some questions, in 
 themselves worthy of extended mention. But it is believed 
 that all problems involving legislation of permanent significance 
 and value have been fairly presented. The pui-pose has been to 
 make the last addition to the " American Statesman " no less 
 worthy of public favor than the earher portions, and to put into 
 the hands of every thoughtful and conscientious citizen, from 
 lawyer and pohtician to farmer and mechanic, a faithful and re- 
 liable record of the legislation and political growth of the nation. 
 
 G. T. F. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES, AND THEIR FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Origin Of our republican institutions, 21. Charter goTernments; landing of the 
 puritans, 22. Government of the New England colonies, 23-26. Royal or 
 provincial governments, 26-30. Proprietary governments, 30 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 TAXATION OF THE COLONIES, AND OTHER CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION.— INDE- 
 PENDENCE SECURED. 
 
 The right Of colonial taxation by England denied, 33. British navigation acts 
 35. Manufactures in colonies suppressed, 36. Stamp act, 37-39? Concrress 
 ofdeputies' petition for relief, 38. Franklin deputed to England 39 Prrlia- 
 ment asserts the right to tax in all cases, 39. Glass, paper, &c. taxed 40 
 Enforcement of the laws resisted, 41. Non-importing associations 41 42 
 General court adjourned to Cambridge, 42. Boston riots, 43. Tea destroyed. 
 43-44. Boston port bill, 44,45. Congresses of 1774 and 1776; hostilities 
 commenced, 46. Independence declared, 47. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDERATION.-TREATY WITH FRANCE.-NEGO- 
 TIATION WITH GREAT BRITAIN.— PEACE-.— CALL FOR A CONVENTION. 
 
 Nature of the confederation, 48. State governments formed. 49. Alliance with 
 France; attempts at conciliation, 50,51. Congress of Vienna 51 Treaty of 
 peace, 52. Defects of the confederation, 52. Difficulties with Great Britain 
 and Spam, 55, 56. Shay's insurrection, 66. Movements for a convention 57 
 Cession of the western lands, 58. Anti-slavery ordinance, 58, 59. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION IN FORMING THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 Constitutional convention organized, 60. Plans of government proposed, 61-62 
 Slavery and the rule of apportionment, 64-71. Compromises, 70 71 Execu- 
 tive department, plan of, 71, 72. Federalists and anti-federalists 73. Constitu- 
 tion ratified, 73, 74. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 MEETING OF THE FIRST CONGRESS.-A SYSTEM OF FINANCE ADOPTED.- THB 
 FUNDING OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.- THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Mooting Of Congress in New York ; election of Washington and Adams ; acts for 
 the encouragement of manufactures and navigation, 75, 76. Power of removal. 
 . b. Washington's cabinet ; constitutional amendments, 77. Plans of finance • 
 funding of the public debt, 78-85. North Carolina cedes her western Lands 
 Ho. beat of government, 86, 86. 
 
■"!' CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 GZCISE ON DISTILI.ee LIQUORS. — INCORPORATION OF A NATIONAL BANK. — AP- 
 PORTIONMENT BILL, WAR WITH THE WESTERN INDIANS. 
 
 Proposed increase of duties, 86. Opposition to tlje administration, 87. National 
 bank, 88-91. Kentucky admitted into ttie union, 92. Apportionment of 
 representatives, 98 Indian hostilities, 93, 94. Tariff increased, 94. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 OPPOSITION TO Washington's administration. — differences betwefn 
 
 SECRETARIES JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. WHISKY INSURRECTION. FUGI- 
 TIVE LAW. CONSTITUTION AMENDED. 
 
 Opposition to tlie administration ; Cabinet controversy ; Jefferson and Hamilton, 
 95-101. Their letters to Washington, 102-104. Whisky insurrection, 105, 
 
 106. Re-e'.ection of Wiishington and Adam?, 106. Charges against Hamilton, 
 
 107. Fugitive slave laAv, 107,108. Amendment of the constitution, 108, 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION. — RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. PROCLA- 
 MATION OF NEUTRALITY. GENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER. POLICY OF 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 French revolution, 109. Our relations with France, 110. Proclamation oi 
 neutrality, 111,112. Difficulties with Genet, the French minister, 112-118. 
 Democratic societies, 116. Affair of Little Democrat, 117. Genet recalled, 
 119. Morris recalled from France; Monroe appointed; Letters of Hamilton 
 and Madison on the proclamation, 119. British policy, 119, 120. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE THIRD CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS. JEFFERSON'S CO.M- 
 
 MERCIAL REPORT ; HIS RESIGNATION. MADISOn's RESOLUTIONS. PROSPECT 
 
 OF WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. JAy's MISSION TO ENGLAND. 
 
 The third congress meets; president's recommendations, 121,122. Jefferson's 
 commercial report, 122. Resignation, 124. Madison's resolutions, 124-129 
 Naval force against Algiers, 129,130. Difficulties with Great Britain, 130-134. 
 Jay's mission to England, 132-134. Charges against Hamilton renewed ; Neu- 
 trality law, 133. Western Indians defeated by AVayne, 133. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 DECLINE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES. FUNDING SYSTEM CONSUMMATED. RESIG- 
 NATION OF HAMILTON AND KNOX. THE JAY TREATY. — TREATIES WITH SPAIN 
 
 AND ALGIERS. MONROE RECALLED. 
 
 Washington against democratic societies, 135. Hamilton's report on the public 
 debt, 136. Hamilton and Knox resign, 136. The Jay treaty, 137. Public 
 sentiment respecting it, 139, 140. Randolph resigns ; Bradford dies ; CabineJ 
 appointments, 140. Indian treaty, 140. Treaties with Spain and Algiers, 140. 
 Presentation of French colors, 141. Debate on the Jay treaty, 142-146. Franco, 
 Spain, and Holland dissatisfied with the treaty, 146, 147. Alliance of Fraa^-V 
 and Spain, 147. Monroe succeeded by Pinckney, 148. 
 
CONTENTS. iS 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 WASHINGTON DECLINES ANCTHBR REELECTION. — HIS LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE. — 
 
 MR- PINCKNEY EXPELLED FROM FRANCE. ELECTION OF ADAMS AND JElFEa- 
 
 SON. 
 
 Washiugton declines another re-election, 148. His suspicions of Jeflferson, 149, 160. 
 The Mazzei letter, 150. Forged letters, 151. French minister and the election, 
 152. Tri-colored cockade, 153. Washington's last message, 153, 154. French 
 gcvernment refuse to receive Pinckney, 155. Election of Adams and Jefferson, 
 15t, Washington retires ; is denounced by the Aurora, 156. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 IN4CGURATION OF MR. ADAMS. — RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. — SPECIAL SESSIOK. 
 
 MEASURES OF DEFENSE. ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 
 
 Adajas' inauguration and address, 157-160. His cabinet, 160. Ministers abroad, 
 160, Unlawful decree of France, 160. Defense measures ; Stamp act. 161. 
 Envoys to France, 162. Novel diplomacy, 162-165. Acts of non-intercoursa 
 and cbfense against France, 165. Navy department established, 166. Wash- 
 ingtonagain commander-in-chief, 166. Other army appointments, 166. Opposi- 
 tion to the administration, 167. Jefferson's letters to Madison, 167, 168. 
 " Black cockade federalist," 168. Mississippi territory, 169. Alien and sedi- 
 tion laws, 170 ; Virg. and Kentucky resolutions ; Nullification, 172-176. Case 
 of Matthev Lyon, 176,177. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 DIFFICULTIES VlTH FRANCE. TREATY NEGOTIATED. DIVISION OF THE FEDER- 
 ALISTS. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
 
 A new mission toFrance; Dissensions in the administration, 178-180. Another 
 revolution in Kance, 181. Treaty negotiated, 182, 183. Ratified, 184. 
 Newspaper press, \84-186. Resistance to tax law in Pennsylvania, 186-187. 
 Sixth congress, fiist session, 187. Indiana territory, 188. Rupture in tho 
 cabinet, 188-189. Ii-esidential election, 189-192. Jefferson and Burr, 191, 192. 
 New judiciu.1 act, IK). Implication and vindication of Bayard and others, 
 192-195. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 MR. JEFFEIvSON's INAUGUKtION. APPOINTMENTS. NATURALIZATION. PUR- 
 CHASE OF LOUISIAVA BOUNDARY TREATY WITH ENGLANP. 
 
 (nanguration of Mr. Jeffer.on, and address, 196-198. His cabinet, 198. 
 Appointments and removals 198-202. Acts passed, 1801-1802; Use of the 
 I)ort of New Orleans interrupted, 204. Purchase of Louisiana, 203-209, 
 Monroe succeeds Rufus King at London, 208. Spain dissatisfied with thd 
 purcha.se of Louisiana, 209. Divisicn of the territory, 209. Attempt to 
 introduce slavery into Indiana, 2(q,210. Amendment of the constitution, 210 
 Spain refuses to ratify a treaty forindemnity. 210. Louisiana boundary, 210 
 211. Spain consoi s to the transtr, 211. Treaty of boundary with Greai 
 Britain. 211-212. 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 MR. Jefferson's re-election. — relations with France and England. — 
 
 TREATY with THE LATTER REJECTED. AFFAIR OF THE CHESAPEiiiB. — 
 
 SLAVE, TRADE ABOLISHED. 
 
 Re-election of Jeflferson, 212 Gunboat system, 212, 213. Indiana and Orleans 
 teiritoiies, 213. Jefferson's inauguration, 214-216 Relations with Spain, 
 England, and France, 216-218. Madison's statement; Seamen impressed 
 218, 219. Two million bill, 219, 220. Randolph's defection, 219, 220. Non- 
 intercourse with St. Domingo, 220. Retaliatory duties ; Act for defense, 220. 
 Cumberland Road, 220. Negotiations with Spain, 221. Treaty with England 
 rejected, 221, 222. Affair of the Chesapeake, 223-225. Slave trade prohibited, 
 
 225, 226. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 THE COMMERCIAL WARFARE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, FKAWCE, AND THE 
 
 UNITED STATES. — BRITISH ORDERS IN COUNCIL. FRENCH, BERLIN, AND 
 
 MILAN DECREES. THE EMBARGO, AC. DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. 
 
 British orders in council ; Berlin and Milan decrees of France, 226-228. Emtergo, 
 &c., 228. Suppressed documents, 229-231. Effects of embargo, 232. Non- 
 intercourse law, 232-233. British negotiation, (Erskine and Jacksoi,) 233- 
 234 Rambouillet decree, 23i. Conditional non-intercourse, 234. Caiditional 
 revocation of French decrees, 235. Non-intercourse with France revoked, 235. 
 Dipiomatic discussion between the United States and Great Britaii, (Monroe 
 and Foster.) 235-240. French restrictions still continue, 241, 242. Supposed 
 objects of Great Britain and France, 243. Secretary' Smith's resignation and 
 
 expose, 243-247. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 TWELFTH CONGRESS. — BRITISH PLOT. — THE WAR QUESTION L* CONGRESS. 
 
 DECLARATION OF WAR. 
 
 Early meeting of congress, 247. British plot, (John Henry,) 2i 3-249. Measures 
 of defence, 249. Embargo, 250. Presidential nominations, '-50. War message, 
 251. War report, 252. French doctrine of neutral rights^ 252, 253. War de- 
 claicd, 254. Address of minority of congress, 254-258 Bonaparte's decree 
 of repeal, 258,259. Orders in council revoked, 259. Departure of British 
 minister, (Foster); At Halifax; Armistice proposed .ind declined, 260,261. 
 Number of impressnients, 261. War measures, 262. idmission of Louisiana ; 
 Missouri territory, 262. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 RE-ELECTION OF MR. MADISON. CONTROVERSY fITH MASSACHUSETTS AND 
 
 CONNECTICUT. RUSSIA OFFERS TO MEDIATE. liJTIES AND TAXES. EMBAR- 
 GO. ITS SUDDEN REPEAL. OFFER TO NEGa'IATE. ACCEPTED. CAPITOL 
 
 BURNED. HARTFORD CONVENTION. BANK PjOJECTS. 
 
 Re-election of Madison, 262. Massachusetts and-'onnecticut disregard war orders, 
 
 263. Loan authorized, 263. Act to relievf importers, 263. Retaliation act, 
 
 264. Russian mediation, 264-267. Negr-iation for peace; Commissioners, 
 264-267. Duties and taxes, 264,265. Eubargo, 265. New loan, 266. Em- 
 bargo and non-intercourse repealed, 266 Restoration of the Bourbons, 267. 
 Capitol at Washington burned, 268. ^urther war measures, 2f<9. Hartford 
 convention 269-272. State of the finaces, 272. National bank proposed^ 27i;. 
 
CONTENTS. 51 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 PEACE WITH GREAT BRITAIN. — GENERAL JACKSON AND MARTIAL LAW AT H'S.VT 
 
 ORLEANS. PROTECTIVE TARIfF.— BANK. COMPENSATION, NAVIGATION, NEU- 
 
 TR> LITY, AND OTHER ACTS. 
 
 Peace concluded, 274-276. Gen. Jackson and martial law at New Orleans. 277- 
 279. Tariff of 1816, 279-281. Bank incorporated, 281. Indiana admitted, 
 282,283. Specie payments resumed, 282. Compensation of members of con- 
 gress, 282. Congressional caucus, 282. Navigation act, 283. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 ELECTION AND INAUGURATION OF MR. MONROE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH GEN. 
 
 JACKSON. CABINET APPOINTMENTS. — PRESIDENT'S TOUR. 
 
 Election and inauguration of Monroe, 284. Monroe and Jackson correspondence 
 286-288. Cabinet appointments, 288. President's tour, 289. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 THE SEMINOLE WAR. OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE OCCUPATION OF FLORIDA 
 
 BY GEN. JACKSON. RATIFICATION OF A TREATY WITH SPAIN. TREATY WITH 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN. — CESSION OF FLORIDA AND THE WESTERN TERRITORY. 
 
 Seminole war, 289, &c. Arabrister and Arbuthnot, 290 ; Trial and execution 
 of, 292,293. St. Marks and Pensacola taken by Jackson, 290-292. Jack- 
 son's conduct investigated by congress, 293-295. Jackson's memori.al, 296- 
 298. Treaties with Spain and Great Britain, 299-302. Florida, &c., ceded t(. 
 the United States, 301, «&c. Ratification delayed by Spain, 302,303. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 INVESTIGATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES BANK. OPINION OF 
 
 THE SUPREME COURT ON ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT 
 
 COURT. JUDICIAL DECISION ON BANKRUPT LAWS. QUESTION OF INTERNAL 
 
 IMPROVEMENTS. 
 
 United States bank investigated, 304. Supreme court decides it constitutional 
 805, &c. Decision on bankrupt and insolvent laws, 308, 309. Internal im- 
 provements bill vetoed by Madison, 309. Congressional report, 309-311 
 Cumberland road bill vetoed, (Monroe,) 311, 312. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 rns MISSOURI compromise, admission op MAINE AND MISSOURI INTO THB 
 
 UNION. 
 
 Admission of Missouri as a state defeated, 313. Maine and Missouri admitted; 
 Slavery compromise, 313-319. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 THS FINANCES. — THE TARIFF OF 1824. — SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WllBSTER. 
 
 MeetiLg of the 18th congress, 320. Tariff of 1824, 321, &c. Vote on tariff bill 
 in 1820, 321; On tariff of 1824, 322,323. Speech of Mr. Clay, 323-331 
 Speech of Mr. Webater, 331-340. 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 ELECTION OP MR. ADAMS —THE ALLEGED COALlTIOX BET'WEEN ADAMS AND 
 CLAY. PROPOSiriONS FOR EETRENOIIMENT AKD REFORM. 
 
 Congressional caucus, unpopular, 341. Mr. Crawford nominated, 342. History 
 of caucuses, 342,343. Mr. Adams elected, 343; Inaugurated, 344. His cabi- 
 net, 344. Alleged coalition of Adams and Clay, 345, &c. Investigation in 
 congress, '346. Propositi :»ns for retrenchment and reform, 348, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 THE PANAMA MISSION. 
 
 The Panama mission proposed, 352. Commissioners nominated, 35b; Oonflrmed, 
 355. Mission reported against, 354 ; Debate on, in the house, 355-360. The 
 congress meets at Panama, 3G0. Adjourned to Taciibaya, 36]. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA, IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE INulANS. 
 
 Removal of the Indians, 361. Treaty with the Creeks in Georgia, 362. Contro- 
 versy between Georgia and tlie general government, 363, &c. Gov. Troup 
 and Gen. Gaines, 368, 369. New treaty, 370. Georgia prepares for resistance, 
 371. Bill for the preservation and civilization of the Indians, 372-374. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 RUSSIAN AND BRITISH CLAIMS ON THE PACIFIC COAST. — OCCUPATION OF COLUM- 
 BIA RIVER. PUBLISHING THE LAWS. 
 
 Russian claims on the Pacific, 374. Treaty with Russia, 376. Claims of Great 
 Britain, 377. Occupation of Oregon, 377-382. Publishing the laws, 381, 382. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 WEST INDIA TRADE. NAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE. 
 
 Trade with British colonies, 382, &c. Mr. Gallatin sent to England; Negotiation 
 cut off, 384. New treaties with Great Britain, 386. Noi'th-eastern boundary, 
 386. Navigation of the St. LaAvrence, 386-390. 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 NOMINATION OF GEN, JACKSON. MORE OF THE '"' COALITION." JACKSOn's LET- 
 TERS ON THE TARIFF AND INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 
 
 Gen. Jackson nominated by the legislature of Tennessee ; liotter of resignation 
 as senator, 391-393. Recommends amendments of constitution, 392. The 
 " coalition" charge renewed, 393, &c. Carter Beverley's letter and Jackson's, 
 894. Buchanan's, Eaton's and Marklcy's letters, 396-399. Clay's address, 
 399. Adams' declaration, 400. Jackson's letter to the Indiana legislature ou 
 the tariff and internal improvements, 401-403. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 THE "woolens BILL." HARRISBURG CONVENTION. — TARIFF OF ISM. 
 
 A.dditional duties on wool and woolen goods proposed, 403-405. Debate on the 
 hill, 405 411. Tariff meeting in Philadelphia, 412. Harrisburg convention 
 412-414 Tariff of 1828, 414, &c. Debate en, 415-418. Feeling at the sontl 
 respecting, 419 420, 
 
CONTENTS. XUl 
 
 CHAPTER XXXII. 
 
 INTRODUCTICy AND DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND 
 
 REFORM. 
 
 Mr. Chilton's resolutions for retrenchment and reform, 421. Abuses spccifled, 
 422. Administration defended, 424-427. Union of the friends of JacksoL, 
 Crawford, and Calhoun, 427. Resolutions disposed of, 427, 428. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIII. 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONEERING. JEFFERSON's OPINIONS OF THE CANDIDATES 
 
 ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson's opinions of Adams and Jackson, 428, &c. Gov. Coles and Gov. 
 Gilmer's statements, 429-430. Garret Minor's letter, 431. Mr. Jefferson's 
 letters to Giles, 431-435. Adams and Giles controversy, 436-441. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIV. 
 
 POMTICS OF 1808. MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. CHARGE OF AS 
 
 ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 
 
 Mr. Adams' charge against the federalists ; A specification requested, 442. Mr. 
 Adams' reply, 443-449. Federalists' appeal, 449-455. Gov. Plumer's testimony, 
 455. Implication of Hamilton, 456. Judge Gould's reply to Mr. Adams, 
 456-458. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXV. 
 
 ANOTHER ALLEGED ATTE.MPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 
 
 Another disunion project charged, 459. Denial of Hayne, 460. Reply of Mitchell, 
 460-462. Hayne's rejoinder, 462. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVI. 
 
 RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE ANTI-MASONIC PARTY. 
 
 Anti-masonry ; Abduction of William Morgan, 463, 464. Participators in, convicted, 
 464. Organization and progress of the anti-masonic party, 465, 460 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVII. 
 
 BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, AND THE SIX MILITIA MEN. FUGITIVE SLAVES AND 
 
 ABOLITION. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. — ANTI-TARIFF PROTESTS. INTERNAL 
 
 IMPROVEMENT FUND. PUBLIC LANDS IN INDIANA. 
 
 Picture of the battle of New Orleans proposed, 467. The six Tennessee militiamen, 
 467* Attempt to procure the surrender of fugitive slaves from Great Britain, 
 468. Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, 468,469. Election oj 
 1828, 469,470. Protests of South Carolina and Georgia against the tariff, 470- 
 471. Dickerson's plan to distribute the revenue, 472. Debate on, 473. Indi- 
 ana claims public lands, 474. Distribution of land sales proposed, 475. Re- 
 trenchment, 476. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVIII. 
 
 INAUGURATION OF PRE8ID1 NT JACKSON. — REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. — MEETIJJQ 
 OF CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 
 
 Inauguration of Gen. Jackson, 476, 477. His cabinet, 477. New ru/e of removal 
 and appointment, 478, 479. Extent of removals, 480. Meeting of congress 
 President's message, 481-484. Power of removal discussed, 484-48t5. 
 
XIV CONTENTa 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIX. 
 
 foot's resolutions on the public lands. GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATit 
 
 Foot's resolutions for a temporary limitation of land sales, 487. Speeches ot 
 Hayne and Webster, 488-496. Debate continued by Benton, Rowan, Grundy, 
 Woodbury, Smith, and others, 496-500. 
 
 CHAPTER XL. . 
 
 UNITED STATES BANK. — MAYSVILLE ROAD BILL, AND OTHKRS. — VETOES OF THE 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 M'DufDe's report on the bank of the United States, 500-500. Smith's report, 
 506. Maysville and Washington road bills vetoed, 506-508. Hemphill's report 
 on vetoes, 508. River and harbor bill passed, 509. M'Duffie on revenue bill 
 609, 610. 
 
 CHAPTER XLI. 
 
 GEORGIA AND THE CHEROKEES. DEBATE ON THE " INDIAN BILL." OPINION OF 
 
 THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 Indian policy of President Jackson ; Cherokees, 510. Law of Georgia, and Cher- 
 okee memorial, 511. Opinion of attorney-general, 512-514. Bills for the re- 
 moval of the Indians, 514. Bills debated, 514-524. Bill passed, 524. Treaty 
 with the Choctaws, 524. Memorial of the Cherokees against the laws of Geor- 
 gia, 525. Case carried to the supreme court, 526. Execution of Tassels, 527. 
 Decision of the court, 627. 
 
 CHAPTER XLII. 
 
 WEST INDIA TRADE. MR. M LANe's ARRANGEMENT. — JOHN RANDOLPH'S MISSION 
 
 TO RUSSIA. 
 
 Mr. McLane's arrangement respecting the West India trade, 528-530. John 
 Randolph's mission to Russia, 530, 531. Post office investigation, 531. At- 
 tempt to modify the judiciary act, 532,633. Impeachment and trial of Judga 
 Peck, 533,534. Attempt to revise the tarifif, 534-536, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER XLIII. 
 
 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON IN RELATION TO OC- 
 CURRENCES IN THE SEMINOLE WAR. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun's charge against Gen. Jackson, 536. Counter-crimination add re- 
 crimination, 637. Repetition of the Florida war controversy, 637, 
 
 CHAPTER XLIV. 
 
 UISSOLUTION OF GEN. JACKSON's CABINET. — MR. VAN BUREn's REJECTION A8 
 MINISTER TO ENGLAND. — CASE OF THE CHEROKEES. 
 
 Parties in Gen. Jackson's cabinet, 547. Resignation of secretaries and attornej - 
 general ; New cabinet, 548. Supposed cause of the cabinet rupture, 649. 
 Ingham and Eaton, 549. Conflicting statements of the cabinet officers and Col. 
 Johnson, 550-552. Mr. Van Bureu is sent as minister to England, 552. DebaU) 
 on the nomination, in executive session, and his rejection, 653-555. Case oi 
 the Chei'okeef 555-559. 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 CHAPTER XLV. 
 
 PUBLIC LANDS. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. PRESIDENriA.L VETOES. TARIFF 
 
 OF 1332. APPORTIONMENT UNDER THE FIFTH CENSUS. — PRESIDENTIAL ELEC- 
 TION. RETURN OF THE LAND BILL. 
 
 The subject of public lands referred to committee on manufactures, 559. Clay's 
 and King's reports, 559, 560. Land bill, 560. Internal improvement and harbor 
 bills, 561. State claims bill, 661, 562. Tariff, sundry reports and bills, 562- 
 663. Apportionment under the fifth census, 563,564. Presidential campaign; 
 Democratic, national republican, and auti-masonlc nominations, 564. Van Bu- 
 ren elected, 565. 
 
 CHAPTER XLVI. 
 
 UNITED STATES BANK. BILL VETOED. AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 
 
 Recharter of U. S. bank applied for, 566. Dallas and McDuffie's reports, 566. 
 Veto, 567, 568. Charges against the bank, 569. Reports of the committee, 
 669,570. Mr. Adams' report, 571-575. 
 
 CHAPTER XLVII. 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA NULLIFICATION. JACKSON's PROCLAMATION. — FORCE BILL. 
 
 COMPROMISE TARIFF. PEACE. LAND BILL. CLOSE OF JACKSON's FIRST 
 
 TERM. 
 
 South Carolina prepares to resist the general government, 576, 577. President 
 Jackson's proclamation, 577-581. Nullification act of South Carolina passed; 
 Proclamation denounced ; Military preparations, 682. The president autho- 
 rized to enforce the collection of duties, 583. Mediation of Virginia, 583-585- 
 586. Clay's compromise tariff, 584,585. "Force bill" passed, 585. South , 
 Carolina boasting, 686, 587. Clay's land bill vetoed, 587. New bill, 589. 
 Close of presidential term, 590. 
 
 CHAPTER XLVIII. 
 
 THB BANK •CONTROVERSY. — REMOVAL OF DEPOSITS. — BANK INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Removal of the deposits from the bank meditated, 691, Inquiry into their secu- 
 rity, 592. Appointment of Duane, 592. President Jackson's charges, 692, 
 Duane's disobedience and removal, 594. The act disapproved, 596. Contro- 
 versy with the directors, 695-600. 
 
 CHAPTER XLIX. 
 
 CONTINUATION OF THE BANK AND DEPOSIT QUESTION. CLAy's RESOLUTIONS, 
 
 AND THE president's PROTEST. POST OFFICE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Effects of the removal of the deposits, 600. Reduction of bank loans, 601. Large 
 drafts on the bank, 601. Parties in congress, 602. House debate, 602-605. 
 Clay's resolutions, 605-607. President refuses to answer a call, 606. Mr. 
 Benton's resolution, 606. President's protest, 607. Poindexter's reply, 608. 
 President's explanatory message, 609. Poindexter's resolutions debated, 610. 
 Report? on Ijanks, 611, 612. Adams' resolutions, 618. Dispute about pensioE 
 agency, 613, 614. Rejection of directors, 614, 615. Post office abuses, 615, 616. 
 
SVl CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER L. 
 
 CABINET CHANGES. MISSION TO ENGLAND. BENTOn's EXPUNGING RESOLU- 
 TION. FRENCH INDEMNITY. POWER OF REMOVAL. BRANCH MINT. 
 
 McLane's resignation, 617. Appointment of cabinet officers, 617. RejectioD 
 of Stevenson, 617,618. His resignation as speaker; Election of Bell, 619. 
 Report of bank committee, 619, 620. Calhoun's reports — a deposit bill, 620, 
 Deposit plan; Origin of sub-treasury, 620. Benton's expunging resolution, 
 621,622. French spoliation bill, 623. Calhoun's repuit on executive patron- 
 age, and debate, 624-629. Branch mint, 629, 630. 
 
 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 FRENCH SPOLIATIONS. — PROSPKCT OF WAR WITH FRANCE. DEBATE ON THE 
 
 LOST FORTIFICATION BILL. 
 
 Senate report on French spoliations, 630. Adams' proposition, 631. Resentment 
 of the French government ; Livingston's return, 632. Tlie tliree million appro- 
 priation, 632-640. France demands an apology, 632. President Jackson asks 
 for power of reprisals, 633. Debate on the message, 634, 635. Benton's pro- 
 position of defense, 635. Debate on lost fortification bill, 635-640. 
 
 CHAPTER LIL 
 
 THE ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. — DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS. INCENDIARY PUBLI- 
 CATIONS, ATHERTOn's RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 EflFects of anti-slavery liberations, 640. Case of Williams ; Rewards for aboli- 
 tionists, 641. Opposition meetings at the north, 641, 642. Sentiments of the 
 press, 642, 643. Secession and non-intercourse suggested, 643, 644. Violation 
 of the mails, 644, 645. Anti-slavery address, 645-648. Action of congress on 
 petitions, 648-650. Senate mail prohibition bill, 650. Bill to prohibit the 
 mailing of anti-slavery papers, 650-653. Atherton's resolutions, 653, 654. 
 
 CHAPTER LIII. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS REVENUE. DEATH OF MR. MADISON. ADMIS- 
 SION OF ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION. RECOGNITION OF THE 
 
 INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS, CLAIMS AGAINST MEXICO. 
 
 Mr. Clay's distribution bill, new plan, 654-656. Mr. Madison's death, 656. 
 Admission of Arkansas and Michigan as states; Long debate, 656-C61. Inde- 
 pendence of Texas recognized, 662-665. Claims against Mexico ; Authority 
 for reprisals asked for, 665. 
 
 CHAPTER LIV. 
 
 SPECIE CIRCULAR. MEETING OF CONGRESS. RESOLUTION TO RESCIND THE CIR- 
 CULAR. — VETO. — Benton's expunging resolution. — presidential elec- 
 tion. 
 
 The specie circular of 1836, 666, 667. Meeting of congress ; President's mes- 
 sage, 667, 668. Ewing's resolution to rescind the circular, and dcoate, 668- 
 672. Bill passed, and vetoed, 672. Mr. Benton's expunging resolution renew- 
 ed, 673. Debate, and passage of the resolution, 674-676. Elect) <>n of Mr 
 Van Buren, 676,677. 
 
CONTENTS. XVll 
 
 CHAPTER LV, 
 
 MK, VAN BUREn's INAUGURATION. — SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS. — SUB 
 TREASURY. OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES. 
 
 Inauguration of Mr. Van Buren; Address, 677. State of the country; Specie 
 payments suspended, 678, 679. Congress specially convened, 679. Sub- 
 treasury and other bills proposed, 680. Debate on the bill to postpone the 
 deposits, 681-684. On the treasury note bill, 684-687. Sub-treasury bill — 
 lost, 687,688. Anti-slavery and Florida war propositions, 688. 
 
 CHAPTER L7I. 
 
 INDEPENDENT TREASURY. AGAIN DEFEATED. TALLMADGE's SPEECH. INCIDKN- 
 
 TAL DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY, CALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. — SPECIE CIRCULAR RE- 
 PEALED. 
 
 Sub-treasury bill— again defeated, 689-690. Speech of Mr. Tallmadge, 690-693. 
 Personal debate between Messrs. Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, 693-702 
 Virtual repeal of the specie circular, 702. 
 
 CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. — SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. PR0P08ITI0M 
 
 WITHDRAWN BY TEXAS. 
 
 Mr. Preston's resolutions for annexing Texas, 703. His speech, 704-709. 
 Speech of Mr. Adams against annexation, 709-712. Texas withdi'aws her 
 proposition, 712. 
 
 CHAPTER LVIII. 
 
 " PATRIOT WAR." — AFFAIR OF THE CAROLINE. — TRIAL OF m'kKNZIE AND VAN 
 RENSSELAER. TRIAL OF m'lEOD. 
 
 insurrection in Upper Canada, 712. Affair of the Caroline, 713. Facts relating 
 to the war, 714. Trials of M'Kenzie and M'Lcod, 714-717. M'Leod case in 
 congress, 717-722. Legislature of New York, 722. 
 
 CHAPTER LIX, 
 
 THE SLAVE SCHOONER AMISTAD. CAPTIVES LIBERATED. MEETING OF TUB 
 
 TWENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. SEATS OF THE NEW JERSEY MEMBERS CONTEST- 
 ED. — FLORIDA WAR. 
 
 CaptTiTe of the Amistad. 723. Demand for the surrender of i,he slaves — resisted, 
 723. Judicial investigation, 723-726. Interposition of the British government, 
 726, 727. Division of the supreme court of the United States, 727. The 26th 
 conjiress — great contest for seats, 728-732. Sub-treasury established, 732i 
 War with the Seminole Indians, 733. 
 
Xyiii CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER LX. 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1840. —CLAIMS ON MEXICO.— CLOS E OF MR. VAN 
 BUREN's ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Presidential nominations. 735. Pecuniary condition of the country, 736, 738 
 Measures to promote the election, 736-737. Mr. Tyler and his party, 737 
 Harrison and Tyler elected, 738. Claims on Mexico, 738. Close of Mr. Van 
 Buren's term, 739. 
 
 CHAPTER LXI. 
 
 IMAUGURATION OF GENERAL HARRISON.— HIS DEATH.— INAUGURATION O* MR. 
 
 TYLER. EXTRA SESSION OF CONGRESS. BANK VETOES.— DISSOLUTION OF THE 
 
 CABINET. 
 
 President Harrison inaugurated, 740. Address, 740-744. His cabinet, 744. 
 Ha convenes congress ; His death,' 744. Mr. Tyler'h aiaugural, 745 Special 
 session of congress, 746. Sub-treasury repealed ; Bank proposed, 747. Mr. 
 Tyler's veto of bank bills, 748. A new bill proposed, passed, and vetoed, 749. 
 Resignation of cabinet officers, 749. Statements of the retiring officers, 749- 
 763.°Botts' letter, 753. Webster's, 754. New cabinet appointments ; Whig 
 address, 754, 755. Bankrupt, distribution, and loan bills passed, 766. 
 
 CHAPTER LXII. 
 
 PETITION FOR A DISSOLUTION OP THE UNION.— ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MR ADAMS. 
 — CENSURE OF MR. GIDDINGS. 
 
 Mr. Adams and the dissolution of the union, 756-758. Resolutions of censuro 
 and expulsion proposed, 758. Debate on the same, 758-766. Mr. Giddings 
 presents a petition for dividing the union, 766. Case of the brig Creole, 766 
 768. Mr. Giddings' resolutions, 708. Censured by the house, 769, 770. His 
 resignation and re-election, 770. 
 
 CHAPTER LXIII. 
 
 THB TARIFF OF 1842. — PRESIDENTIAL VETOES.— BRITISH COLONIAL TRADE.— 
 NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION SETTLED. 
 
 Eeport on the tariff, 770-774. Minority report, 774-778. The revenue bill of 
 the secretary of the treasury reported, 778, 779. Bill with a proviso against 
 the suspension of the distribution act, 779. Vetoed by Mr. Tyler, 7£0. De- 
 bate on veto, 780-782. The revenue bill passed and vetoed, 782. Report ou 
 veto, 782, 783. Bill without the distribution proviso passed, 783. A distribu- 
 on bill defeated by the president, 784. Petition relating to West India trade, 
 784. North-eastern boundary question settled, 784-7ia.. 
 
CONTENIS. Xix 
 
 CHAPTER LXIV. 
 
 ANKKXATION OT TEXAS.-THE PROJECT DEFEATKD.-DEATH 01 BRCRETARIES 
 UPSHUR AND GILMER. 
 
 Southern views of annexation, 786. Annexation moyements, 787. Treaty cor- 
 respondence. 787-790. Treaty rejected, 790. Secret debate on ti.e treaty 
 /90-/93. Mr. Benton's annexation bill, 793, 794. Debate on the same 794-' 
 <98. Mr. Tyler's message to the house, 798. Explosion on the PrinTOton, 
 and death of secretaries Upshur and Gilmer 799. ' 
 
 CHAPTER LXV. 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 
 
 Messrs. Clay and Van Buren's letters on annexation, 799-808. Baltimore con- 
 ventions-nomination of Clay and Polk, 809. Mr. Clay's position, 810. Ore-ou 
 and Texas resolution at Baltimore, 810, 811. Confidential circular of protest- 
 ing democrats, 811-813. Election of Mr. Polk, 814. 
 
 CHAPTER LXVI. 
 
 TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF OREGON.- ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.- FLORIDA 
 AND IOWA ADMITTED.— UNIFORM TIME OF CHOOSING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS. 
 REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. 
 
 Bill to establish a government for Oregon, 815. Senate bills for the annexation 
 of Texas, 816, 817. House bill passed, 817,818. Votes classified, 818. House 
 bill in the senate, 818. Mr. Benton's bill, 819. Debate on annexation 819 
 i*Ir. Benton's resolutions, with Mr. Walker's amendment, adopted, 820 8'>l" 
 Opinions on annexation, 822-825. Objects of annexation, 825-828. Mr' Ben' 
 
 T ' «^o-° «oo'' T""^'' ^-^' ^-^- ^""'^^^™ s^niun^ni, 827. Nashville conven- 
 tion, 8-/, 8 8 Effect of tariff on prices, 828-830. Effects of annexation, 830 
 Honda and Iowa admitted, 831. Act in relation to choosing presidential 
 electors, 831. Postage act, 831. 
 
 CHAPTER LXVII. 
 
 INAUGURATION OF MR. POLK.-DEATH OF GEX lACKSON.-WAR .^^TH MEXICO. 
 TREATY OF PEACE. 
 
 Mr. Polk's inauguration and address, 831, 832. His cabinet, 832. Death of Gea 
 Jackson 832. Difficulties with Mexico, 833-835. Army ordered to the Rio 
 «rande, 835. War message, 836. Adoption of war measures, 836 Davis' 
 speech 837 838. Effects of the war, 838. Two millions bill and Wilmot pro- 
 viso, 8o9. President's message, 840. Santa Anna's pass and return to Mexico. 
 
 Benton «!r«u°"l'; ""^ '"'" ^"'' ^■"- ^^>^^« «^ t^^-^'-i Calhoun and 
 Benton, 842-844. Clayton's disclosure, 844, 845. A moral question .345-847. 
 Khett s theory on war power, 847. Treaty of peace, 848. 
 
XX CONTENXa 
 
 CHAPTER LXVIII. 
 
 THE OREGON QUESTION. 
 
 Nisgotiation commenced, Si9. Position of the admiListration, 849-851. Nego- 
 tiation abandoned; Various propositions, 851-853. Mr. Adams' speech, 853- 
 865. Debate continued, 854-860. Excitement in England, 8G0. Propositions 
 to " give notice," 860-863. Apprehensions of ■« ar revived, 860, 861. Debate in 
 the senate, 861-863. Mr. Benton on the boundary, 863-865. 
 
 CHAPTER LXIX 
 
 THE TARIFF ACT OF 1846. THE WAREHOUSE SYSTEM. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 
 
 SUB-TREASURY. 
 
 Attack upon the tariff of 1842; President's message, 865-867. Secretary's re- 
 port, 867,868. Mr. Stewart's reply, 868-871. Bill leported, 871. Mr. Briff 
 kerhoof's speech, 872. Bill amended and passed, 872, 873. Warehouse act, 
 873. Sub-treasury re-established, 874. 
 
 CHAPTER LXX. 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848. — ELECTION OF GEN. TAYLOR. 
 
 General Taylor and the presidency, 874-876. Nominations of Gen. Cass and Gen. 
 Taylor, 876-878. Proceedings in the whig convention, 878, 879. Allison letter 
 
 879. Utica and Buffalo conventions ; Nomination of Van Buren and Adams, 
 
 880, 881. Gen. Cass' letter to Nicholson, 881, 882. Gen. Taylor's letters ; 
 Albany meeting ; His election, 882, 883. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXI. 
 
 BILLS FOR CALIFORNIA AND OTHER TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS. 
 
 Territorial government for Oregon ; Dix and Calhoun, 884-886. Mr. Clayton's 
 bill, 886-888. Oregon bill passed, 888. Territorial government bills— again 
 unsuccessful, 888-891. Department of the interior established, 891. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXII. 
 
 INArOURATION OF PRESIDENT TAYLOR. — CONTEST FOR THE CHOICE OF SPEAKER. 
 — COMPROMISE OF 1850. 
 
 Ocn. Taylor inaugurated ; His cabinet, 892. Congress meets ; Long contest for 
 speaker, 893. Message, 894. Mr. Foote's territorial bill, 894. Mr. Clay's 
 resolutions, 895. Opposed by southern senators, 895-899. Webster's speech, 
 899-902. California state constitution received; Debate on admission, 902,903. 
 Mr. Bell's resolutions; Committee of thirteen; Their report, 903,904. Defeat 
 of the " omnibus," 904. Mr. Benton's speech, 905-909. Death of President 
 Taylor, 910. Mr. Fillmore's accession ; His cabinet, 910. Controversy with 
 Texas. 910, 911. Passage of compromise bills, 911, 912. 
 
CONTENTS. Xxi 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIII. 
 
 THE COMPROMISE OF 1850, CONTINUKD.— SPEECHES OF MESSRS. "iEWARD AND 
 
 CASS. 
 
 Cpeech of Mr. Seward on the compromise measures of 1850, 912-930. Speech 
 of Mr. Cass, 930-937. Death of Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, and- Webster, 937. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIV. 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1852. —INAUGURATION OF MR. PIERc*:. 
 
 National conventions of 1852, 937. Nomination of Pierce and King, and of Scott 
 and Graham, 937, 938. Platforms of the parties, 938, 939. Election of Gen. 
 Pierce ; His inauguration, 939-940. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXY. 
 
 THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS OF KANSAS AND NEBRASKA. 
 
 Congress meets, December, 1853 ; Election of speaker, 940. President's mes- 
 sage, 940, 941. Re-agitation of the slavery question, 941. Propositions to 
 establish a territorial government for Nebraska, 941. Mr. Douglas proposes 
 a division of the territory; His speech, 942-944. Mr. Chase's "speech, 944- 
 960. Mr. Houston's speech, 950. Messrs. Badger and Cass, 951. 952. Bill passed 
 962. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXVI. 
 
 *.ANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT.— EARLY HISTORY OP KANSAS.— TOPEKA GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Art to organize Kansas and Nebraska territories, 953, 954! Popular sovereignty 
 954. Gov. Reeder, 955. Pro-slavery secret societies, 955. Election of dele 
 gate and legislature, 955. Aid Societies, 956. Legislature meets at Pawnee 
 and adjourns to Shawnee, 957. Slave laws, 957, 958. Topeka government; 
 van, yo9. Gov. Shannon, 959, 960. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXVII. 
 
 MKETING OP CONGRESS—ACTION OF CONGRESS ON KANSAS AFPAIRS.-REPORTS OP 
 COMMITTEES. -TROCBLES IN KANSAS.— ACTS OF CONGRESS. 
 
 Congress meets December, 1855, 960. Long contest for speaker, 960. Presi- 
 dent s annual message, 960, 961. Message on Kansas affairs, 961, 962 Dong- 
 las and Collamer's reports, 962-965. Kansas investigating committee, appoint 
 ment and report of, 965-967. Kansas treason indictments, 967 Topeka 
 constitution in congress, 967, 968. Douglas' bill to reorganize Kansas, 968 
 969. Dunn s bill, 969. Appropriation bill defeated ; extra session, 969 97o' 
 Salaries of members of congress, 970. Central American question 970 971 
 R&ilroad grants, 971. 
 
XXii CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXVIII. 
 
 PaESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856. ACTS OF CONGRESS, 1856-7. KANSAS AFFAIRS. — 
 
 PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT. — 
 
 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Presidential nominations and party platforms, 9*71-974. Congress, session of 
 ISSC-Y, and Pierce's last annual message, 974, 975. Grow's bill for the relief 
 of Kansas, 975, 976. Gov. Geary in Kansas, 976. Meeting of free-state legis. 
 lature ; members arrested, 977. Territorial legislature meets, 977. Conventioij 
 net passed, 977, 978. Gov. Geary resigns, 978. Buchanan's inaugural address, 
 978, 979. Dred Scott decision, 979, 981. Cabinet appointments, 981. Gov. 
 Walker succeeds Geary, 981. Census, and election of constitutional delegates, 
 £81, 982. Topeka legislature again meets, 982. Territorial legislature elected, 
 982. Lecompton constitution, 982, 983. Secretary Stanton removed, 984. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIX. 
 
 ttr^rrMGi of congress. — president's message. — gov. walker's resignation. — popu- 
 lar VOTES on the lecompton CONSTITUTION. ELECTION OF STATE OFFICERS. 
 
 Congress meets, 984. President Buchanan's annual message, 984, 9S5. Gov. 
 Walker resigns, 985, 986. Two elections to vote on the Lecompton constitu- 
 tion, 986. Election of state officers under the constitution, and fraudident 
 voting, 986-988. President Buchanan sends the Lecompton constitution to 
 congress, 988, 989. Action of congress thereon, 989-991. Kansas legislature 
 calls a new constitutional convention, 992. State elections, 993. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXX. 
 
 MEETING OF CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. CUBA, OREGON, HOMESTEAD, AND 
 
 OTHER BILLS. KANSAS AFFAIRS. 
 
 Meeting of congress, December, 1858. President's message, 994, 995. Oregofi 
 admitted, 996. Cuba bill, 996. Veto of land grants for seminaries, 996. 
 Special message, 996, 997. Preemption and homestead bills defeated, 997, *^98. 
 Samuel Medary appointed governor of Kansas, 998. Slave laws repealed, 998. 
 Act for a new constitutional convention, 998. Republican party organized in 
 Kansas, 998. Constitution formed and adopted, 998, 999. Election of state 
 officers and delegate to congress, 999. Popular sovereignty, 999, 1000. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXL 
 
 MBHTINO OF THE XXXVI CONGRESS. — LONG CONTEST FOR SPEAKER. — THE JOHS 
 BROWN INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Consress meets Dec. 5, 1859 ; long contest for Speaker, 1000. Clark's Helper's 
 Crisis resohiiion, 1000. Mason's resohuion on the John Brown invasion, and debate 
 thereon ; adoi>ied, 10001-10. Pugh's resolution ; and defense of northern demo- 
 crats, in reply to Johnson, 1010-11. G win's reply to Pugh, 1012. 
 
CONTENTS. XXlli 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXII. 
 
 SLAVERY DISCUSSKD IN THE HOUSE. — PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE DELIVERED. OPPO- 
 SITION TO ELECTING SPEAKER BY PLURALITY. ELECTION OF SPEAKER. 
 
 Gilmer's substitute for Clark's resolution, and debate on slavery, 1012-18. Presi- 
 dent's Message, 1018-19. Debate continued, 1018- 20. Claims of mail contrac- 
 tors, 1020. Combination to resist election by plurality, 1021. Ballots for speakei, 
 1020-22. Sherman withdraws ; Pennington elected, 1022-3. Douglas's resolu- 
 tion against state invasion, 102:^-5. South Carolina sends Mennninger to visit the 
 Virginia legislature, 1025, 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXIII. 
 
 BITiLS FOR THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS. — HOME.STEAD BILL OF 1860. GOVERNMENT 
 
 CORRUPTION EXPOSED. REPORT ON JOHN BROWn's INSURRECTION. 
 
 Grow and Seward introduce bills to admit Kansas, 1026-7. Grow's homestead bill, 
 1028-9. Johnson's substitute, 1029. President's veto, 1029-30. Grow's speech.. 
 1031-4. Cause of southern opposition, 1034. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXIV. 
 
 INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT FRAUDS. REPORT OF THE JOHN BROWN INVESTIGA- 
 TING COMMITTEE. — NOMINATING CONVENTIONS OF 18'50, AND THE ELECTION. 
 
 Resolutions of Covode and Howard for investigating fraud«, 1035-6. President's 
 protest, and reply, 1036-7. Covode committee's leport, 1037-41. Testimony of R. 
 J. AValker, Wendell and Forney. 1038. Reports on the Brown insurrection, 
 1042-3. Nominating conventions of 1860, and platforms, 1843-9. Election of 
 Lincoln, 1049. 
 • 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXV. 
 
 SECESSION SENTIMENT AT THE SOUTH.— PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ON SLAVERY AND 
 SECESSION. ATTORNEY-GENERAL BLACK'S OPINION. GENERAL SCOTt'S VIEWS. 
 
 Cau.ses and evidence of meditated rebellion, 1050-5. Popular vote for presidential 
 electors, 1056. South Carolina prepares to secede, 1056. Movements of other 
 states, 1057. Buchanan's last message, 1057-61. Opinion of the attorney-gene- 
 ral on coercion, 1062-4 General Scott's advice. 1064-5. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXVI. 
 
 FRESIDENt's message on KANSAS HOUPTI COMMITTEE OF THIRTY-THREE ON THE 
 
 CRI.=*IS. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THIRTEEN. — DEBATES ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 
 
 Mr Buchanan defends the Lecompton resolution, 1066-7. House committee of 
 thirty-three, 1067. Senrte debate on the message, 1067-72. Senate committee 
 of thirtpen, 1072 Jack on's letter to Rev. Mr. Crawford, 1073. Crittonden'e 
 propositions, 1073-4. Sei.ate debate on slavery, 1074-7. 
 
XXIV CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXVn. 
 
 BKCESSION OP SOUTH CAROLINA.— MAJOR ANDERSON'S OCCUPATION OP SUMTER. — 
 SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSIONERS AT WASHINGTON. ATTITUDE OP THE REMAIN- 
 ING SLAVE STATES. DESIGNS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. PRESIDENT'S MEBSAGK 
 
 AND ACTION THEREON. 
 
 South Carolina sends commissioners to Washington , aiid her declaration of causes, 
 1077-8. Demonstration at the South, and in concrress, 1078. South Carolina 
 supplied with arms, &c., by Floyd ; resignation of Cobb and Cass, 1078. Secro- 
 taiy Thom])son's mission, 1079. Guns ordered from Pittsburg to the South, 1079. 
 Pro{)ositions for compi^mise, 1079-81. Anderson occupies Sumter, 1081. The 
 effect at Charleston, 1082. Correspondence between South Carolina commission- 
 ers and Buchanan, 1082-4. Senate committee of thirteen rei)ort, 1084. Seces- 
 sion and slavery discussed, 1084-6. Attitude of the non-seceded slave states, 
 1087,1100. President's purpose to collect duties, 1088. Border state committee 
 and its propositions, 1088. Designs upon Washington, 1088-90. Crittenden's 
 resolutions, 1090-1. House approves Anderson's occupation of Sumter, 1091. 
 President's correspondence with S. C. commissioners, 1091-2. Senators Hunter 
 and Seward on the state of the country, 1092-5. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXVni. 
 
 SECESSION OP THE GULF STATES. REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THIRTY- 
 THREE. — CABINET CHANGES. COL. HAYNE's AGENCY. COURSE OP VIRGINIA. 
 
 POSITION OF CERTAIN SLAVE STATES. RETIREMENT OF SENATORS. ADMISSION 07 
 
 KANSAS. INTERPOSITION OF VIRGINIA. PROPOSITIONS OF SEWARD AND ADAMS. 
 
 Gulf states secede, 1095-6. Committee of thirty-three report, 1096-8. Star of the 
 West, 1098. Secretaries Thompson and Thomas resign; Dix appointed, '1098 
 Mississippi senators withdraw, 1098. Vicksburg battery, 1098. Holt's^nomina- 
 nation confirmed, 1099. South Carolina proposes to treat for forts, &c. ; her 
 agent (Hayne) not lecognized, 1099. Virginia's plans, 1099-1100. Action of 
 other slave Slates, 1100. More senators withdraw, 1100-2. South Carolina's de- 
 mand ; Holt's answer, 1102. Kansas admitted, 1102. Senator Iverson's retiring 
 speech, 1103-4. Virginia's lesolutions, and request for a convention, 1104. De- 
 bate on report of committee of thirty-three, 1104-7. Seward and Adams' speeche.Sj 
 1107-10. Rifles for Georgia seized, 1110-11. 
 
 CHAPTER IJCSXIX. 
 
 THE SOUTHERN CONVENTION. DEBATE ON PEACE RESOLUTIONS. WITHDRAWAL OF 
 
 MEMBERS.— SOUTHERN MAILS. PEACE CONVENTION. SOMES ON COMPKOMISS'. — 
 
 ACTION ON THE CORWIN MEASURES.— PEACE CONVENTION PROPOSITIONS, 
 
 Southern confederacy formed, 1111. Louisiana senators withdraw, 1112. Cling- 
 man and Hale on peace convention, 1112-14. Taylor and Bouligny of Louisi- 
 ana, 1114. Debate on suspension of southern mails, 1114-16. Proceedings ol 
 peace convention, 1116-17. Petitions for compromise ; Mr. Somes' speech, 1117- 
 
CONTENTS. XXV 
 
 19. Force bills, 1119. Votes on report of committee of thirty-three, 1120. Ac- 
 tion on Corwiii's bills, 1121. Debates on peace convention propositions, 1121-4. 
 Lane, of Oregon, and Johnson, of Tenn., on coercion and treason, 1124. Tho 
 senate on Corwin's (house) constitutional amendment, 1124-5. Crittenden's reso- 
 lutions defeated, 1125. 
 
 CHAPTER XC. 
 
 EKPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE.— CONDITION OP THE TREASURY. — TREASON OP 
 GEN. TWIGGS. — FRAUDS OF COBB AND FLOYD.— THE TARIFF AND OTHKR ACTS. — IN- 
 AUGURATION OF MR. LINCOLN, 
 
 Report of the committee of five on the conduct of the secretary of the navy, and oi 
 the president, 1125-8. Conduct of Twiggs, Cobb, and Floyd, 1128-9. More oi 
 the seizure of the Georgia muskets, 1129. Condition of the treasury improved 
 1129. Tariff bill passed, 1160. Territorial governments for Colorado, Nevada, 
 and Dacotah, 1130-31. Southern mails, 1131. Mr, Lincoln's journey to Wash 
 ington, 1131. His inauguration and address ; his cabinet, 1131-3. 
 
 CHAPTER XOI. 
 
 WAR COMMENCED BY SOUTH CAROLINA.— LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATION. — SPECIAL SESSION 
 OF CONGRESS. — CAPTURE OF MASON AND SLID ELL. 
 
 The fall of Fort Sumter, 1134. L'ncoln's proclamation calling for troops, and con- 
 vening congress, 1134-5. Virginia secedes, 1135. Additif>nal volunteers called 
 for, 1135. Arrests and suspension of habeas corpus, 1135-6. Special session of 
 congretjs ; war message ; defense of executive acts, 1136-7. Acts passed. 11.38-9. 
 Expulsion of senators, 1139. Intercourse with seceding states interdicted, 1139. 
 Course of parties, 1139-41. Case of Mason and Slidell, 1141. 
 
 CHAPTER XCII. 
 
 MEETING OF CONGRESS, 1861. — ME3SAGK.— EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS AND 
 POLICY. — MEETING OF CONGRESS, 1862. 
 
 Meeting of the 37th congress, 1141. Mr. Lincoln's first annual message, 1142. 
 Slavery prohibited in territories and District of Columbia, 1142. Homestead and 
 Pacific railroad acts passed, 1143. Acts to punish treason, confiscate rebel pro- 
 perty, punish polygamy, &c., 1143-4. Proclamation of freedom, views of Patrick 
 Henry, and J. Q. Adams thereon, 1144-6. Meeting of loyal governors, 1146. 
 Congress meets Dec. 1, 1862; President's plan of Emancipation, and of banking 
 associations, 1146. Proclamation of freedom, 1147. Admission of West Virginia, 
 1147-8. Territories of Arizona and Idaho organized, 1148. Banking law passed, 
 1148. 
 
XXvi CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XCIII. 
 
 DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE WAS. — THE CASE OP VAL- 
 
 LANDIQHAM. 
 
 Policy of the Democrats, 1149-52. Kesolutions of Illinois and Indiana legislatures, 
 1150. Letters of ex-governor Seymour, of Connecticut, and ex-prr&ident Pierce, 
 1150-52. Ari'est and banishment of Vallandigham ; Albany meeting, and its cor 
 respondence with Mr. Lincoln, 1152-5. Elections in 1S63, 1155-6. 
 
 CHAPTER XCIV. 
 
 MSETING OF CONGRESS.— PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE WITH THE PROCLAMATION OF AMNESTY. 
 —REPORTS OF SECRETARIES. — CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 Congress meets December, 1833. Colfax, of Indiana, elected speaker, 1156. Mes- 
 sage, 1156. Proclamation of amnestv, 1157. National finances. 1157-8. State 
 of the army, prisoners, draft, &c., 1158. The navy, 1158-9. Land sales, pen- 
 sions, &c., 1159. Post-ofEce report, 1159. Act to provide a national currency, 
 (banks,) and other acts, 1159-1161. Gold bill and other acts, 1160-61. Fugi- 
 tive slave laws repealed, 1161-64. Confiscation act, 1164-73. 
 
 CHAPTER XCV. 
 
 EECONSTRtJCTION OF TUE REBELLIOUS STATES. 
 
 Applicatien of senators and representatives from Louisiana and Arkansas, 1173. 
 Bill to reorganize the seceded btates, introduced, 1174. Debate thereon, 1174-86. 
 Bill passed, but not returned by the President, 1186. Wade and Davis' report, 
 1186. 
 
 CHAPTER XCYI. 
 
 STATE OF THE COUNTRY. CRUELTY TO PRISONERS. WESTERN CONSPIRACY. 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS, AND ELECTION. 
 
 Progress of the war, money, drafts, &c., 1187. Foreign relations, 1187-88. H. 
 W. Davis' resolution, 1188. Peace rumors, 1188. Mr. Greeley's Niagara Falls 
 correspondence, 1188-89. Mr. Lincoln's terms of peace, 1180. Failure of at- 
 tempted negotiation, 1189. Jacques and Gilmore's visit to Richmond. 1190-91, 
 Rebel treatment of prisoners, 1191-92. Western conspiracy, 1192-94. Presi- 
 dential nominations and platforms, 1194-96. Peace democrats at Chicago con- 
 vention, 1196-97. Soldiers' votes, 1198. Fremont's withdrawal, 1198. Princi- 
 ples of parties, Lincoln's letter to Hodges, 1198-1201. The election 1201, 
 Cabinet changes, 1201. Death of Chief Justice Taney, and Edward Everett 1201. 
 Free constitution of Maryland, 1201. 
 
CONTENTS. XXTll 
 
 CHAPTER XCVII. 
 
 MEETING OF CONGRESS : THE MESSAGE AND REPORTS. — DECLINE OF REBEL 
 POWER. — PEACE EFFORT. — CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AJBOLISHIXG 
 SLAVERY. — END OF THE REBELLION. 
 
 President's message, 1302-3. S'ate of Nevada admitted, 1203. Evidences 
 of the decline of the rebel power. 1203-4. Anti-slavery amendment pro- 
 posed, and deba'.e thereon, 1204-6. Meeting of Lincoln and Seward 
 with rebel peace commissioners, 1206-7. Slavery abolished in Tennes- 
 see, 1208. Reciprocity treaty to be terminated, 1208. Financial measures, 
 1208. President Lincoln's visit to Grant, 1209. Lee's surrender, 1201). 
 Mr. Lincoln's death, 1209. Assault on Mr. Seward, 1210. Capture of 
 Booth, 1210. Execution nf conspirators, 1210. Capture of Davis and 
 others, 1210-11. Mr. Lincoln's body conveyed to Springtiekl, 1211. 
 Andrew Johnson inaugurated President. 1211. Colored suffrage, 1212. 
 Removal of tbe blockade, 1212. Flag restored to Fort Sumter, 1213. 
 
 CHAPTER XCVIII. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION OF SECEDED STATES. 
 VARIOUS BILLS LOOKING TO REORGANIZATION. — DEBATES DISCU.SSING PRIN- 
 CIPLES OF STATE AND FEDERAL RELATIONS. — THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 
 
 Reconstiuction ; Freedmen's Aid Societies, 1214. Proclamation of Am- 
 nesty, 1214. Democratic Theory of Seceded States, 1215. Mr. Ashley's 
 Bill, 1215. Provisions of the Bill, 1215. Mr. Kelley's Amendment, 
 1216. Points of Mr. Dawes' Opposition to the Bill, 1217. Mr. E^^er- 
 toii's Attack, 1218. Speech of Henry Winter Davis, 12 i 9. Proceedings 
 'in the Semite, 1221. Speeches of Senatoi^s Ten Eyck and Trumbull, on 
 the Status of the South, 1231. Debate by Messrs. Harris, Hale, Col- 
 lamer, and others, 1222-23-24. Messr;?. Davis, Wade, anl Cowan on 
 the loyal element in the South, 1225. Mr. Doolittle's analysis of the 
 Situation, 1226. Mr. Sumner's joint resolution on Apportionment, 1227. 
 Recognition of Loui&iana, 1228. Bill to Create Freedmen's Bureau, 
 1229. 
 
 CHAPTER XCIX. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION CONTINUED. 
 THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. — SESSION OF 1866-7. — 
 MILITARY RECONSTRUCTION BILL PASSED OVER THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO, 
 
 — MEETING OF THE FORTIETH CO^GKESS. 
 
 Change of basis of representation in the South, 1229. Exclusion of 
 Representatives from eleven States, 1230. Long debate on reso ution, 
 12'A. Proposed amendm^^nt to the Constitution, 1281, Joint reso- 
 lution for the restor.tion of Tennesse', 1231. Stevens' military recon- 
 struction bill, 12 2. President's veto, 1233. \iews of the friends of 
 the bill. 12-4. Rea ons for an early session of the Fortieth Congress, 
 1285. Philosophy of the proposed reconstruction policy, 123". i rotest 
 of Democratic members against the exclusi n of scventee States. 1236. 
 Election of Speaker, 1237. Mr. Sumner's n construction bill in the Sen- 
 ate. 1337. Passage of bill with amendments, and President's veto, 1288, 
 1239. 
 
XXTlii CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER C. 
 
 THE FOllTIEXn CONGHESS CONTINUED. — SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION 
 
 BILL. VIOLENT DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. — THE PRESIDENT'S COURSE 
 
 FIERCELY ATTACKED AND DEFENDED. 
 
 Fortietli Congress continued, 1240. Bills oflfered by Messrs. Sumner, 
 Drake, and Frelinghuysen, 1240. Supplementary reconstruction bill, 
 reported from the Judiciary Committee, 1240. Explanation of bill, 1241. 
 Mr. Trumbull's remarks, 1241. Mr. Wilson's amendment voted down, 
 1242. Mr. Stevens' bill in the House, 1242. Debate participated in by 
 Messrs. Munger, Brooks, Wood, and others, 1244, 1245. Olos'ng speech 
 by Thaddeus Stevens, 1245, 124(5, 1247. Bill passed in the House, and 
 reported back from the Senate with amendments. Further debate in 
 the House by Messrs. Wood, Eldridge, Kobinson, Kelley, and Logan, 
 1247^8-49. Bill passed with Senate amendments, 1251. 
 
 CHAPTER CI. 
 
 PASSAGE OF BILL OVER JOHNSON's VETO. — SUMNER's BILL FOR THE EQUAL- 
 IZATION OF RACES. — FALL SESSION OF THE FORTIETH CONGRESS. — PRE- 
 LIMINARIES OF impb;achment. 
 
 President Johnson vetoes the bill, 1251. Mr. Boutwell's attack on the 
 President foreshadowing impeachment, 1252. General Butler's speech, 
 1258. Mr. Stevens explains his position, 1254. Joint resolution passed 
 over the Presidential veto, 1254. Passage of Sumner's bill equahzing the 
 races in the District of Columbia in the matter of office-holding, 1254- 
 55. Opposition to adjournment in the Senate, 1255. Fear of leaving 
 the ground open to the usurpation of the Executive, 1255. Committee 
 of Conference, 1255. Re-as-embling of Congress in November, 1256. 
 Admission of members from Tennessee, 1256. Contest on credentials, 
 1257. Mr. Boutwell's report on impeachment, 1259. Concurrent reso- 
 lution for adjournment. 
 
 CHAPTER CII. 
 
 state OF FEELING. IN THE SOUTH. — THE JO HNSON-GRANT-ST ANTON IM- 
 BROGLIO. — FULL ADMISSION OF AKKANSAS, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH 
 CAROLINA, LOUISIANA, GEORGIA, ALABAMA, AND FI ORIDA. 
 
 Dissatisfiction at General Sheridan's removal, 1261. Opposition to re- 
 construction policy in the South, 1261. President's Johnson's encour- 
 agement of this feeling, 1262. The Wilmington Dispatch on the situa- 
 tion, 1262. Quotation from a Memphis paper, 1262. Correspondence be- 
 tween General Gr.int and President Johnsm, 1263. Sharp attack by 
 General Grant on the President's ac'ion, 1264. Mr. Stevens' bill for ad- 
 mission of Arkansas. Passage over the President's veto, 1264-65. Ad- 
 mission of six States to federal representation. 
 
 CHAPTER cm. 
 
 impeachment of president JOHNSON. 
 THE initiatory STEPS — THE TRIAL AFTER A YEAR OP DEIAY. — ARGUMENT 
 OF MANAGER LOGAN. 
 
 Resolution of impeachment by Hon. James M. Ashley, 1265. Clark's 
 
COKTENTS. XXIX 
 
 resolution against adjournment on the score of Johnson's usurpation, 
 
 1266. Sharp debate, 1266. Preferment of articles of impeachment, 
 
 1267. Details of Mr. Bingham's indictment, 1267. Organization of the 
 Court, 1268. Commencement of trial, 1268. Argument of Manager 
 Logan, 1268-69-70-71-72-73-74-75-76. The President's power and 
 right to remove Secretary of War, 1270. Cases of removal by the Presi- 
 dents, 1272. Removal cases under Jeflferson and Adams, 1272-73. 
 Action of Congress in 1789, 1274, Quotations from Hamilton's Federal- 
 *5^,»1274-7o. Other citations of authority, 1276. 
 
 CHAPTER CIV. 
 
 CONTINUATION OP MANAGER LOGAN's ARGUMENT. — FOLLOWED BY MANAGERS 
 BOUTWELIi AND STEVENS, FOR THE SENATE; T. A. R. NELSON AND 
 WM. M. EVARTS, FOR THE RESPONDENT. 
 
 Continuation of Manager Logan's argument, 1277. Constitutionality of 
 tenure of office act, 1277. Citation of authoiities, 1278. Comparison 
 with Mr. Lincoln's action under similar circumstances, 1278. Analysis 
 of Stanton Imbroglio, 1278. Severe characterization of Mr. Johnson's 
 course, 1279. Charge of a conspiracy, 1279-80. [tereliction of duty on 
 the part of Adjutant-General Thomas, 1280. Testimony of General 
 Emory, 1281. The President'^ usurpation of the rights of Congress, 1282. 
 Citation from Presidents' speeches, 1282. Manager Logan's argument 
 summed up, 1283. Speeches by Boutwell, T. R. Nelson, Thaddeus Stevens, 
 W. M. Evarts, and J. A. Bingham, 1283. Mr. Evarts commences argu- 
 ment for respondent, 1283. Mr. Evarts' postulate that the present Court 
 was subject to same legal forms and conditions as in lower courts, 1284. 
 Citation of authorities, 1284. Mr. Burke on the Hastings impeachment, 
 1285. Analysis of the distinction between crime and misdemeanor, 
 1285. 
 
 CHAPTER CV. 
 
 ARGUMENT OP MR. EVARTS CONTINUED. — CLOSING ARGUMENT OP MANAGER 
 BINGHAM. — A SYNOPSIS OP THE POINTS TAKEN BY COUNSEL FOR PROSE- 
 CUTION OP DEFENSE. — ACQUITTAL OP MR. JOHNSON. 
 
 Continuation of Mr. Evarts' argument, 1286. Mr. Johnson only a political 
 offender at the worst, 1286. The President's right to raise questions under 
 the Constitution, 1286. Examination of Executive powers of removal, 
 1287. The question as illustrated by the opinions of the fathers of the 
 Constitution, 1287-88-89. Roger Sherman, James Madison, Mi\ Boudi- 
 not, and Fislier Ames cited, 1287-88-89. The late law of Congress a 
 revolution in the practice of government, 1289. The violation of an un- 
 constitutional law no crime, 1289. Sarcastic characterization of the ac- 
 cusation, 1290. Defense against the conspiracy indictment, 1290. The 
 question of ad interim appointments, 1291. Claims of an unconsti- 
 tutional law to obedience. 1291. Manager Bingham's reply to Mr- 
 Evarts, 1292. The President not empowered to construe the Constitu- 
 tion, 1292. Sole power of the Senate to decide questions of law and fa<'t, 
 1292. Chief-Justice Marshall on the case of Marberry vs. Madison, 
 1293-94. Mr. Johnson sustained by no precedent of Mr. Lincoln, 1294, 
 
ZXXll CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER CXII. 
 
 CrvrL SERTICE REFORM — SKETCH OP THE FINANCES SINCE THE WAR- 
 THEORIES OP CURRENCY AND SPECIE RESUMPTION. 
 
 Minor appropriation bill, 1376. The elaborate bill of Mr. Jenckes, 1377. 
 Message from the President, 1377-78. Pules submitted by commission- 
 ers, 1378. Address of the Democratic members of Congress, 1379. Sena- 
 tor Morton's speech at Indianapolis, 1379. IMr. C. L. Vallandingh urn's 
 resolutions, 1380-81. Action of the Ohio Democracy, 1381. Sketch of 
 finances, 1381-82-83-84. .Government finance measures, 1385-86-87. 
 Proposition to postpone the payment of the public debt, 1387-88. Sys- 
 tem of taxation during the war, 1388. Finances since the war, 1389-90- 
 Discussion of specie resumption, 1390-91-92. 
 
 CHAPTER CXin. 
 
 POSTAL TELEGRAPHY — CIVIL SERVICE ABUSES — DEBATES ON BILLS RE- 
 MOVING THE POLITICAL AND LEG.VL DISABILITIES IMPOSED BY THE 
 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
 
 Second session of the Forty-second Congress, 1392. Third annual mes- 
 sage from the President, 1392-93-94. Mr. Beck's resolution, 1394. 
 Debate on telegraphy, 1395. Mr. Conkling's motion, 1395. Mr. Trum- 
 bull's motion, 1395-96. Debate on retrenchment, 1396. The bill as it 
 passed, 1397-98-99-1400. Civil rights bill, 1400-01-02. Mr. Sumner's 
 speech, 1403-04-05-06-07. Mr. Frelinghuyscn's speech, 1407-08-09-10 
 -11. Debateson the bill, 1411-12. Passage of the bill, 1412. Discussion 
 of civil rights and general amnesty, 1413-14. Speech of Mr. Schurz, 
 1413-14-15-16. The vote, 1416. 
 
 CHAPTER CXIV. 
 
 SENATOR SUMNER's CIVIL RIGHTS BILL REJECTED — PASSAGE OP THE EN- 
 FORCEMENT BILL — REVIVAL OP THE " KU-KLUX " BILL — NEW APPOR- 
 TIONMENT LAW — ABOLITION OF IMPORT DUTIES ON TEA AND COFFEE. 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Sumner to his original bill, 1416. Amnesty bill, 
 
 1417. Debate on enforcement, 1417. Passage of the bill as amended? 
 
 1418. Ku-Klux bill, 1418-19-20-21-22. Mr. Thurman's speech, 1422- 
 23-24-25-26. Apportionment of representation according to the census 
 of 1870, 1426. Act relative to the Fourteenth Amendment, 1426. Im- 
 port duties, 1426. 
 
 CHAPTER CXV. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING THE ALABAMA CLAIMS — THE CLARENDON-JOHN- 
 SON TREATY — THE GENEVA CONFERENCE. 
 
 Conclusion of the Geneva arbitration, 1427-28-29-30. Mr. Fish's defini- 
 tion of the position of the United States, 1430. The President's message, 
 1431. The treaty of Washington, 1431-32-33-34-35-36. Rules relative 
 to commissioners. 1436. Work of the conference, 1437-38-39. Opinions 
 of the British press. 1439-40. Results of the conference, 1440-41-42, 
 Decision of Emperor Wilhelm, 1443. 
 
CONTENTS. XXXIll 
 
 CHAPTER CXVI. 
 
 RE-ELECTION OE GENERAL GRANT — FINANCES OF 1872 — THE LOtTTSIANA 
 
 IMBROGLIO. 
 
 The Presidential campaign, 1443. Parties, their platforms and candidates, 
 1448^4-45-46-47. Mr. Greeley's letter, 1447-48. Results of the election, 
 1448. Important d' ci ion of the Supreme Court in reference to slave 
 contracts, 1449. Finances, 1449. Report of the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury, 1449-50. Trouble in Louisiana, 1451-52-53-54, 
 
 CHAPTER CXVII. 
 
 CIVIL RIGHTS BILL — APPROPRIATION BILL — SUPPLEMENTARY BILL ON 
 THE CURRENCY. 
 
 The President's message, 1455-56. Mr. Sumner's bill relative to the army 
 register and regimental colors, 1456. Mr. Blaine's resolution, 1456. 
 Civil rights bill, 1456-57. Bill on the franking privilege, 1457. Debates 
 on the salaries of public officers, 1457-58-59. Consideration of the ap- 
 propriation bill, 1459. Bill relative to the currency, 1460. Debate on 
 the same, 1460-61-62-63-64. Resolution relative to Louisiana and 
 Arkansas elections, 1464-65. 
 
 CHAPTER CXVIIL 
 
 PRESIDENT grant's SPECIAL MESSAGE — COMMISSION TO DIVIDE THE 
 ALABAMA AWARD. 
 
 Louisiana affairs, 1460-67-08-69. Mr. Morton's resolution, 1469. Debates 
 on the Louisiana imbroglio, 1469-70-71-72-73. The President's mes- 
 sage, 1473. Further debate on the Louisiana troubles, 1473-74-75-76- 
 77. The vote on the bill, 1477. Commission to divide the Alabama 
 award, 1477-78. The vote on the bill, 1478. 
 
 CHAPTER CXIX. 
 
 THE CREDIT MOBTLIER QUESTION — FINANCIAL CRISIS IN 1873 — THE " VIR- 
 GINIUS" DIFFICULTY — THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES. 
 
 Investigation of Oakes Ames and James Brooks, 1479. Report of the 
 committee on the judiciary, 1479-80-81-82-83. The reply of Mr. Ames, 
 1483. ]\Ir. Brooks' defense, 1483. Sentence of the House, 1484. Act 
 abolishing the grades of Admiral and Vice-Admiral in the United States 
 Navy, 1484. Bill fixing the pay of certain officers, 1484. Financial 
 panic, 1484-85-86. " Virginias " excitement, 1487-88-89. Decision of 
 the Supreme Court on the "Slaughter-house Cases," 1489-90-91. 
 
 CHAPTER CXX. 
 
 BILL TO REPEAL INCREASE OF SALARIES — THE QUESTION OP SPECIE RE- 
 SUMPTION — BILL TO INCREASE BANK CIRCULATION. 
 
 The President's mes^agi^ 1491-92. Financial recommendations, 1493 93- 
 94-95. Mr. Sumner's resolution, 1495. Mr. Ferry s resolutions, 1495-96. 
 
XXXiv CONTENTS. 
 
 Bill relative to salaries, 1496-97. Debate ob specie resumption, 1497-98- 
 99-1500. Mr. Sherman's speech, 1501-02-03-04. Veto of bill to in- 
 crease paper money, 1505. Final action of Congress, 1505. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXI. 
 
 butler's civil rights bill— the LOUISIANA QUESTION AGAIN— EXECU- 
 TIVE ACTION TO QUELL SOUTHERN OUTRAGES. 
 
 Ar uments of Democrats in the House and Senate, 1506-07-08-09-10. 
 Consideration of the bill to restore the rights of Louisiana, 1510-11- 
 12-13-14. Passage of bill conferring jurisdiction on the criminal courts 
 of the District *of Columbia, 1514. Transportation question, 1514. 
 Southern disturbances, 1515-16. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXn. 
 
 SECOND SESSION OP FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS — ^BILLS RELATIVE TO FINANCE 
 BY MR. KELLY AND SENATOR SHERMAN — MR. MORTON ON NEW ELEC- 
 TORAL BILL. 
 
 Grant's second message to the Forty-third Congress, 1518. President's 
 views of finance, 1519. Mr. Kelly's bill to improve the currency, and 
 reduce the funded debt, 1519-20. Sherman's resumption bill, 1520-21. 
 Debate by Messrs. Sherman, Thurman, Stephenson, Edmunds, 1521-22- 
 23-24. Morton's amendment in the method of electing President, 1524- 
 25-26-27-28-29. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXni. 
 
 TWENTY SECOND JOINT RULE — THE LOUISIANA QUESTION AGAIN — UNPOPU- 
 LARITY OP grant's ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Bill repealing the twenty-second joint rule, 1530. Speeches by Senators 
 Bayard and Edmunds, 1530-31. The resumption of the Louisiana ques- 
 tion in Congress, 1531. Senator Conkling's defense of the President, 
 1532. Sharp debate between Thurman, Edmunds, and Bayard, 1532-33. 
 Statement of the Louisiana case, 1538-34. Report of the Congressional 
 sub-committee, 1534-35-36-37-38. Wheeler compromise, 1588-39. The 
 third term question, 1539-40. The Western whisky frauds, 1540-41. 
 Belknap's impeachment, 1541-42. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXIV. 
 
 grant's LAST MESSAGE — DEBATE ON TENURE OP OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 
 OF THE SENATE — BILL FOB COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTE. 
 
 First session of the Forty-fourth Congress, 1542. Questions discussed in 
 President Grant's message, 1542-43-44-45. Tenure of office of the 
 President of the Senate j^to tempore, 1545. Del3ate on- the question by 
 Senators Merrimon, Saulsbury, Jones, Edmunds, and Stephenson, 1545- 
 46_47_4S-49. Debate on the twenty-second joint rule participated in 
 
CONTENTS. XXXV 
 
 %^TZ" ?oT^^\f'''''^'''' Frclinghuysen, Sherman, and Morton, 
 Jf .;^;^^:^t"^^- '^''*°"'' ^"^ ^^^ '^'^'^^^^^g t^^ «l'^«toral vote, 1553- 
 54-55-56-57-58-59-60-61-63. Passage of the bill, 1562. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXV. 
 
 DEBATE ON JEFFERSON BAVIS AND ANDEESONVILLE-BISOUSSION OF THE 
 SCHOOL QUESTION— PmANCIAL MEASURES 
 
 '' Confir^r p' ""'"'^ '■'''• ^^P-^-*-«^« Blaine's fierce attack on the 
 Confederate Government as regards the treatment of Federal prisoners 
 1563-64-60. Representative Hill's defense of Jefferson Davis, 1565-66 
 Centennial appropriation, 1566-67-68-69. Debate on the school ques-' 
 tion :n Congress 1569-70-71-72-73-74-75. Speeches by Senators Ket 
 nan and Chr.st,ancy, 1571-72-73-74-75. Investigation into Sena or 
 Spencer's re-election, 1575. Bill for the issue of silver coin 1575 
 Representative Cox's resolution on the subject, 1575-76. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXVI. 
 
 PHESZBENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1876-BISPUTED, ELECTION-ELECTORAL COM- 
 ., MISSION — CONCLUSION, 
 
 Political condition Of the country, 1576-77. Reform Republicanism, 1577 
 -IS National Greenback Convention, 1578. Republican Conv ntion 
 and candidates, 1578-79. Sketch of R. B. Hayes 1580. Democratic 
 nominations and platform, 1581-82. Tilden's recoM, 1582-83 Letter 
 of Acceptance 1583-84-85-86-87. Character of the canvass, ■l587-88 
 Disputed result, 1588. Electoral Commission, 1588-89-90-91-93 The 
 Hayes Policy, 1592-93. Value of political studies, 1593-94. * 
 
 APPE.NFDIX 
 
 Declaration of Independence 
 
 Articles of Confederation ^' ' 
 
 Constitution of the United States . . 
 
 Notes 1* 
 
 Index ^^ 
 
 51 
 
THE 
 
 AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE SETTLEMENT OP THE COLONIES, AND THEIR FORMS OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 The establishment of republican institutions in this country consti- 
 tutes a new era in the history of civil government. To America belongs 
 the honor of having presented to the world the first system of consti- 
 tutional government founded upon political equality and the general 
 consent of the people. Most governments had been the creatures of 
 accident, or of the concurrence of unforeseen events, rather than tho 
 result of design. Liberty was enjoyed only as it had been wrested from 
 the grasp of tyranny, or as it had been reluctantly granted to silence the 
 popular clamor, or to prevent rebellion. Chartered governments, called 
 republics, had indeed existed ; but they conferred only a partial fran- 
 chise and limited civil privileges. The political system of the United 
 States is the result of forethought and mature deliberation, and derives 
 its authority from the true source of power, the whole people : and its 
 crowning excellence— its chief conservative principle— is its recognition 
 of the paramount authority of the Divine will. 
 
 Constitutional liberty based upon these principles, is of a date long 
 anterior to that of our national or any state constitution formed since 
 the establishment of our national independence. It had its origin in the 
 cabin of the Mayflower before the pilgrim immigrants had effected their 
 landing. The constituent elements of the " compact," then and there 
 formed, were early introduced into the governments of the colonies, espe- 
 cially those of New England. 
 
 Of the forms of government which prevailed in the colonies, there 
 were three : the charter, the royal or provincial, and the proprietary, 
 governments. 
 
22 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The charter governments existed only in New England. These 
 charters, or grants of the crown, conferred on the colonists not only a 
 rio-ht to the soil, but the privileges of natural born subjects. They 
 elected their own governors and legislative assemblies, and established 
 courts of justice. The legislative power was ample, its only limitation 
 was, that the laws enacted should not be contrary to those of England. 
 
 During the attempts of the British Government, in the reign of Charles 
 T, to enforce conformity to the established church, a number of people, 
 to avoid prosecution under these laws, and to enjoy freedom of conscience 
 in matters of religion, removed to Holland. In 1619, these persons 
 determined to remove to North America ; and in the following year they 
 embarked on a voyage with a design of settlement on the Hudson, within 
 the limits of the London, or South Virginia company, and for this pur- 
 pose they had obtained a charter from this company. But by accident, 
 as some suppose, or, as is generally believed, by the treachery of the 
 Dutch, who themselves had contemplated settling on the Hudson, and 
 who bribed the pilot to land them north of the Hudson, they were taken 
 to the coast of Cape Cod, where they arrived on the 9th of November, 
 1620. The story of their having been carried thither against their 
 wishes or intention, rests, however, on doubtful authority. They were 
 called Pitritans, a name given to those who dissented from the established 
 church because they wished for a purer form of discipline and worship ; 
 some of the ancient Romish ceremonies being still continued in that 
 church. 
 
 Not having contemplated any plantation within the limits of the Ply- 
 mouth company, they had not obtained from them any charter. Being 
 therefore destitute of any right to the soil, and without any powers of 
 government derived from the proper authority, on the 11th of November, 
 before they landed, they drew up and signed the following compact, or 
 constitvition : . 
 
 " In the name of God, amen. — Wc, whose names are under-written, 
 the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, &c., having 
 undertaken, for the glory of God, the advancement of the Christian faith, 
 and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in 
 the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and 
 mutually, iu the presence of God, and of one another, covenant and 'com- 
 bine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering 
 and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid ; and by virtue 
 hereof do enact, constitute and frame, such just and equal laws, ordi- 
 nances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be 
 thoufifht most meet and convenient for the good of the colony ; unto 
 which we promise all due submission and obedience." 
 
SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES. 23 
 
 This was the earliest American constitution, and in substance a pure 
 democracy. It was signed by 41 persons. The whole company, in- 
 cluding women and children, numbered 101. 
 
 Having settled a social contract, they proceeded to examine the coast, 
 and finally determined to settle at a place which they called Plymouth, after 
 the name of the company owning the soil. They landed on the 23d of 
 December, and commenced the first permanent settlement in Now Eno-- 
 land. For ten years, the colonists held their property in common, when 
 they obtained from the company a grant of the laud. The government 
 of the colony was administered by a governor and seven assistants, all 
 chosen by the people annually. Being a pure democracy, the people, 
 in general meeting, often decided upon both legislative and executive 
 aftairs. In 1G39, their numbers having become such as to render delib- 
 eration in full assembly inconvenient, the representative system was 
 adopted. 
 
 In 1628, the Massachusetts colony was settled by a company, (also 
 ]*uritans,) incorporated by royal charter, the land having been previously 
 purchased of the Plymouth company. In 1630, the powers of govern- 
 ment were transferred from the crown to the colonists, who had power 
 to elect annually a governor, a deputy-governor, and eighteen assistants. 
 In 1634, the people claimed the right of representation, which, though 
 unauthorized by the charter, was generally assented to ; and two or 
 three deputies were chosen from each plantation, to represent the people 
 in the general court. The governor, or, in his absence, the deputy- 
 governor, the assistants, or at least six of them, and the body of freemen, 
 constituted a general court, by which the powers of government were to 
 be exercised. The claiming by the former, (the assistants,) of a riglit to 
 negative the acts of the latter, caused frequent disputes between them, 
 until 1644, when by mutual agreement, the legislature was to consist of 
 two separate bodies, having a negative upon each other. 
 
 In New Hampshire the first permanent settlement was made in 1631, 
 at and near Portsmouth, a^lhough a few huts had been erected a few 
 years earlier, by fishermen, along the coast eastward from Merrimack. 
 No organized government seems to have been esta})lished until several 
 years afterward; and in 1641, Massachusetts, having previously asserted 
 a right over this part of the territory, declared the inhabitants to be 
 within her jurisdiction, leaving them, however, to participate in all their 
 rights, and exempting them from all public charges, except such as 
 should arise on their own account. After a temporary protection from 
 Massachusetts, New Hampshire became an independent colony. 
 
 Connecticut was settled in 1635, by persons from Massachusetts. 
 The colonists were for several years governed by magistrates appointed 
 
24 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 by the legislature of Massachusetts, with the advice of committees from 
 the towns, with whom they were associated on important occasions. But, 
 not being within the limits of the charter of Massachusetts, they formed, 
 in 1639, a government for themselves. The settlements were at this 
 time confined to three towns, Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor, con- 
 taining a population of about 800. By this constitution, the legislative 
 power was vested in the general assembly, consisting of a governor, six 
 magistrates, and the representatives of the towns, all of whom were 
 elected annually by the great body of freemen. The governor was 
 chosen from the magistrates : he presided in the assembly, and had a 
 casting vote. 
 
 These colonists, like those of the Plymouth colony, were many years 
 without a charter, holding the soil by mere occupancy, except such por- 
 tions as they acquired by purchase or conquest of the natives, and being 
 governed by themselves. In 1662, a charter was granted by Charles II.» 
 which adopted the most essential parts of their free constitution. In 
 1698, the general assembly was divided into two branches. The magis- 
 trates or assistants, with the governor as president, constituted the upper 
 house ; and the representatives the lower house ; and each had a nega- 
 tive on the acts of the other. 
 
 The colony of New Haven was settled in 1637, by a small company 
 of persons from England. The people of this colony also, having no 
 charter, formed themselves into a body politic, and established a form 
 of civil and church government. The government was administered by 
 a governor and a few magistrates. These and other officers were elected 
 by those only who were in church fellowship. In 1643, representatives 
 from the towns were associated with the governor and magistrates in the 
 general court, as in Connecticut, with which it became united in the 
 charter of 1662. 
 
 Rhode Island was settled at the same time as Connecticut, lloger 
 Williams, a minister at Salem, in Massachusetts, for teaching what were 
 regarded by his brethren as erroneous relig^tus doctrines, was banished 
 from the colonies, and with a few followers, commenced a settlement at 
 Providence. In the civil compact, thoy agreed " to submit themselves in 
 active and pas'sive obedience, to all such orders and agreements as should 
 be made for the public good of the body, in an orderly way, by major 
 consent of the inhabitants." In 1640, a plan of government better 
 adapted to their circumstances, was adopted. The Providence and 
 Rhode Island plantations were at first two distinct colonies. The set- 
 tlement at Rhode Island was the result of a cause similar to that which 
 led to the settlement of Providence. In 1638, a number of the most 
 prominent advocates and propagators of the Antinomian heresy, which 
 
SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES. 25 
 
 arose about that time iu Massachusetts, were ordered to leave the colony, 
 and having, by the assistance of Mr. Williams, purchased the island of 
 the Indians, commenced a settlement, having entered into the following 
 compact, signed by eighteen persons: 
 
 " We, whose names are underwritten, do hereby solemnly, in the pre- 
 sence of Jehovah, incorporate ourselves into a body politic, and as He 
 shall help, will submit our persons, lives, and estates, unto our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, and to all those per- 
 fect and absolute laws of his, given in his Holy Word of truth, to be 
 judged and guided thereby." 
 
 The ruling power was subsequently vested in a governor, a deputy- 
 governor, and five assistants. And in 1641, the government was de- 
 clared to be a democracy, and the power to be in the body of freemen, 
 orderly assembled, or a major part of them, to make or constitute just 
 laws, and to depute from among them such ministers as should see them 
 faithfully executed. And none were to be accounted delinquent for doc- 
 trine, provided it were not directly repugnant to the established govern- 
 ment and laws. 
 
 In 1644, the two plantations were united in a charter obtained by 
 Roger Williams, who had been sent to England for that purpose. The 
 charter granted to the inhabitants " full power and authority to rule 
 themselves, by such a form of civil government, as by voluntary consent 
 of all, or the greater part of them, they shall find most suitable to their 
 estate and condition ; and to make and ordain such civil laws and consti- 
 tutions, and to inflict such punishments upon transgressors, and for «the 
 execution thereof so to place and displace officers of justice, as they, or 
 the greater part of them, should by free consent agree thereto." All 
 laws, however, must, as nearly as might be, conform to those of England. 
 The government established under this charter was a pure democracy. 
 There was a legislative body called a court of commissioners, consisting 
 of six persons from each town ; but their acts were subject to repeal by 
 the votes of the freemen of each town. All judicial officers, and officers 
 to manage town affiiirs, were elected by popular suffrage. This charter 
 was granted in the time of the contest between the king and parliament, 
 and while the latter had the supremacy, and continued until after the 
 restoration of the kingdom to Charles II, by whom a new charter was 
 granted in 1663, 
 
 In 1643, the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and 
 New Haven, formed a league, or confederation, by the name of " The 
 United Colonies of New England," for their mutual protection against 
 the Indians, and against the Dutch at Manhattan. By the terms of this 
 union, the internal affairs of each colony were left to its own government. 
 
26 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 In war, each waa to furnish its proportion of. men, according to its popu- 
 lation ; and the common affairs of the confederacy were to be conducted 
 by a congress composed of two commissioners from each colony. In its 
 most essential provisions, it resembled, and probably afterwai-ds sug- 
 gested, that more celebrated confederation of the thirteen independent 
 states, which was formed for their mutual defense during the war of the 
 revolution. 
 
 During the civil wars of England, while the government was in the 
 hands of the republican parliament, and afterwards under the protector- 
 ate of Cromwell, the most friendly feelings subsisted between the colon- 
 ists and the ruling power of the parent country. The acts of parlia- 
 ment were highly favorable to the colonists. The navigation act, [else- 
 where described,] was not enforced against them ; and the goods 
 imported from, and those exported to Europe, were exempted from 
 duties. And even the charters granted by Charles II, soon after his 
 restoration to the throne, secured to the colonists the right of self- 
 government. 
 
 The roTjal, or j^^'ovincial governments, were those of Virginia, New 
 York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, the Carolinas, and Georgia. The 
 Carolinas, and the Jerseys, (there being East and West Jersey,) were at 
 first under proprietary governments ; but at a later period, the Carolinas 
 (1728) and New Jersey (1702) came under royal charters, which con- 
 tinued until the Revolution. In the royal governments, the power was 
 vested in a governor and council, appointed by the crown, and a repre* 
 sentative assembly chosen by the people. These governments were called 
 royal, because they derived all their powers directly from the king. 
 The governors held their offices at his pleasure, and acted under his in- 
 structions. The council, besides constituting one branch of the legis- 
 lature, iji which they had a negative on the acts of the other, acted also 
 in an executive capacity, as advisers of the governor. The governors 
 had power to negative the acts of both houses; and all acts, though 
 approved by him, must be submitted to the king and receive his approval, 
 before they could have the effect of laws. The judges also, and most of 
 the other officers, were appointed by the king, and held their offices at 
 his pleasure. 
 
 Virginia was settled in 1607, by a colony of 100 persons sent out by 
 the London company. This was the earliest permanent settlement made 
 within the country. 
 
 The affairs of the colony were at first managed by a governor and 
 council appointed by the company. In 1619, a great change was made 
 in the government of the colony. A general assembly, the first that 
 was held in America, was called by the governor. This assembly con- 
 
AiSRAHAM LINCOLN 
 
 -iElSIDENT OF THEUNITED STATES 
 Assassinated Ar-ril 14* 1865. 
 
SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES. 27 
 
 sisted of " two burgesses chosen from every town, hundred, and planta- 
 tion, by the inhabitants, to decide, conjointly with the governor and 
 council, by the greatest majority of voices, in all matters of concern 
 relating to the colony." Eleven boroughs were represented in the con- 
 vention. The government was now established on the plan of that of 
 England, the governor, council, and assembly, corresponding to the 
 king, lords, and commons. In 1621, by an ordinance of the company, 
 two councils were constituted, one a council of state, appointed by the 
 company, to assist tlie governor ; the other a legislative council, com- 
 posed of the council of state, and the burgesses, and called the gen- 
 eral assembly. A negative upon the acts of the assembly was reserved 
 to the governor ; and no act was to have force until confirmed by the 
 company in Europe ; nor were any orders from the company to bind the 
 colony, until ratified by the general assembly. 
 
 The displeasure of the king (James I) having been excited by the 
 establishment of so popular a form of government, he demanded of 
 the ct)mpany a surrender of their charter. Compliance with this demand 
 being refused by the company, a writ of quo icarranto was issued, (1G24,) 
 and judgment rendered against the company. The charter was declared 
 forfeit, the company was dissolved, and all its powers revested in the crown. 
 
 The government having been taken into royal hands, the king issued 
 a special commission, appointing a governor and twelve councillors to 
 direct the affairs of the colony. James died soon after, and was suc- 
 ceeded by Charles I, who was not more friendly to the late popular sys- 
 tem of government than his father. He devolved upon the governor and 
 council the whole legislative and executive powers of the colony, with 
 instructions to conform strictly to all orders they should receive from 
 him. They were authorized to levy taxes ; to seize the property of the 
 late company, and to apply it to public use ; and to transport colonists 
 to England, to be punished for crimes committed in Virginia. In addi- 
 tion to tliis, a monopoly of the tobacco trade was secured, by requiring 
 the whole of that article to be shipped to England, and delivered to 
 agents of the king. 
 
 Under the pressure of these arbitrary regulations, rendered more 
 secure by the cruelty with which the governor (Sir John Harvey) exer- 
 cised his powers, the colonists, in 1 636, after a peaceable submission for 
 several years to his authority, seized the governor, and sent him a pris- 
 oner to England, accompanied by two of their number to represent their 
 grievances. Displeased with this act of violence, without giving the 
 deputies a hearing, the king sent Harvey back to Virginia, reinvested 
 with his former powers. 
 
 Soon after this occurrence, Charles, probably apprehending that the 
 
28 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 complaints of the colonists would be brought before his parliament, 
 which, after an intermission of seven years, he was about to reassemble ; 
 and that these complaints would be regarded as evidence of his arbitrary 
 dicposition, and serve to increase the discontent which his despotic rule 
 had excited among his subjects at home, suddenly changed his conduct 
 towards the colonists. Sir William Berkeley, a gentleman possessing a 
 character the opposite of that of Harvey, was appointed to succeed the 
 latter as governor, and directed to restore to the people the right of 
 representation, by issuing writs for the election of burgesses from the 
 plantations, who, with the governor and council, were to constitute the 
 general assembly. 
 
 Berkeley, who continued to administer the government until after the 
 downfall and execution of Charles, had, by his mild administration, 
 rendered both himself and royal family highly popular. The house of 
 commons, having become established in power, claimed the right to con- 
 trol the affairs of the colony, and passed an ordinance in 1650, declaring 
 the people of Virginia and other places in a state of rebellion, and pro- 
 hibiting all trade with the English settlements in America. In pursuance 
 of authority granted by the act, the council of state sent to Virginia an 
 armed force to bring the colonists to obedience. Commissioners also 
 were sent, authorized to offer to the inhabitants, as a condition of their 
 submission, the liberty to " choose such burgesses as they should think 
 fit, for the better regulating and governing of affairs ;" provided nothing 
 should be done contrary to the government and laws of the Common- 
 wealth of England. The squadron entered the Bay of Chesapeake in 
 1651, but Berkeley, unable to make successful resistance to superior 
 force, capitulated ; on terms, however, which were favorable to the 
 colonists. 
 
 During the supremacy of the parliament and Cromwell, the Virginians 
 enjoyed the right of self-government and free trade. The governor, 
 councillors, and other ofl&cers, were chosen by the burgesses or grand 
 assembly. Their submission to the commonwealth of England, however, 
 was never cordial, and after a period of nine years, they detei-mined to 
 return to their former allegiance. The house of burgesses declared 
 that the supreme power should reside in the assembly, and that all 
 writs should issue in the name of the " grand assembly of Virginia, 
 until such a command and commission come out of England, as shoidd 
 be by the assembly judged lawful." Berkeley was again appointed gov- 
 ernor, and Charles II, even before his restoration to the throne had been 
 effected, was proclaimed in Virginia before intelligence of Cromwell's 
 death had been received. Berkeley was soon after appointed governor 
 by the king, with instructions to summon an assembly, according to 
 usage, and to declare a general act of indemnity. 
 
SETTLEMENT OF TK-E COLONIES. 29 
 
 Pitkin says : " The political state of this colony, from the time of this 
 capitulation to the restoration of Charles II, has not, until recently, been 
 perfectly understood. The early historians of Virginia have stated that 
 during this period, the people of that colony were in entire subjection fco 
 the oppressive government of Cromwell, and that the acts of parliament, 
 in relation to trade, were there rigidly enforced, while they were relaxed 
 in favor of the New England colonies. Recent researches, however, 
 into the records of that ancient colony, prove these statements to be in- 
 correct." — Vol. 1, p. 74. It was expressly agreed by the articles of 
 capitulation, that the colonists were to have " as free trade as the people 
 do enjoy to all places and with all nations." It is hardly to bo supposed, 
 notwithstanding, that the ordinance of 1650, and the celebrated naviga- 
 tion act of 1651, were entirely inoperative during the time above men- 
 tioned. 
 
 The Virginians soon became dissatisfied with their government. The 
 right to a participation in the government was insecure, being dependent 
 on the will of the king. Representative assembles were called by the 
 governors under royal instructions, which might be withdrawn or altered 
 at the pleasure of the crown. The rights of the people were rendered 
 more precarious by the reserved right of the crown to negative any act 
 of the legislature. This form of government, however, continued, with- 
 out material alteration, until the revolution. 
 
 New York was settled in 1614, by the Dutch, under a grant of the 
 Dutch goverui*nt to the West India company, and was hold by them 
 fifty years. The powers of government, legislative, executive, and judi- 
 cial, were vested in a governor and council, who held their offices under 
 the authority of the company, and were intrusted with the sole manage- 
 ment of the affairs of the colony. Although the Dutch enjoyed the 
 possession of this territory, it was claimed by the English; and in 1664, 
 the territory now comprising New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, and a part of Connecticut, was granted by Charles II, to his 
 brother, the duke of York and Albany. The same year an expedition 
 was sent out under the command of Col. Nichols, who demanded and 
 received the surrender of the colony in the name of the British crown. 
 
 For nearly twenty years after their surrender to the English, the people 
 continued to be denied the right of representation. All power was vested 
 in a governor and council, appointed by the king, and acting under his 
 instructions. At length, in 1683, yielding to the repeated solicitations 
 of the people, the king instructed the governor to call a legislative 
 assembly, in which representatives of the freeholders were to be asso- 
 ciated with the council. 
 
 Col. Nichols was the first English governor. He and his successors, 
 
30 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 with tlieir councils, were appointed by the duke of York, until July, 
 1673, when a Dutch fleet entered the harbor of New York, and obtained 
 a surrender of the place. The Dutch held it till February, 1674, when 
 it was again surrendered to the English by treaty. In the same year, 
 Charles II made a new grant to the duke of York, who appointed as 
 his deputy-governor sir Edmund Andros, whose tyrannical conduct 
 here, and subsequently as governor-general of the New England 
 colonies, rendered him odious to the people. 
 
 The proprietary governments were those of Maryland, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, and at first the Carolinas and the Jerseys. These colonies 
 were in the hands of proprietors, or persons to whom the right of the 
 soil had been conveyed by the crown, with a general power to establish 
 civil governments. Their authority within their own territories was 
 nearly the same as that exercised by the crown in the royal governments. 
 They appointed the governor, and organized and convened the legislature, 
 according to their own will ; and they also appointed other oflficers, or 
 authorized the governors to appoint them. They had power to repeal 
 or negative the acts of the assemblies ; and the exercise of this power 
 caused great discontent among the people. The proprietors, however, 
 were subject to the control of the crown, from whom their own powers 
 were derived. 
 
 Maryland was settled in 1633. The founding of this colony was con- 
 templated by sir George Calvert, a Roman Catholic nobleman, to whom 
 a grant of the territory was made by Charles I. CalvertHdied, however, 
 before the settlement was effected ; and the enterprise was assumed by his 
 brother Cecil, second lord Baltimore, who appointed his brother, Leonard 
 Calvert, governor, under whose command the first company of emigrants 
 sailed from England, in November, 1 632. The proprietor had authority, 
 with the assent of the freemen, or their deputies, to make all laws that 
 were not inconsistent with those of England. The freemen, at first, met 
 in a body to make laws. In 1639, an act was passed, providing for the 
 election of a house of burgesses, who, with other persons called by spe- 
 cial writs of the proprietors, and the governor and secretary, constituted 
 the general assembly. In 1650, the legislature was divided into two 
 branches. Those called by special writs were to form the upper house, 
 and those chosen by the hundreds, the lower house : and all bills as- 
 sented to by both houses and approved by the governor, were to be 
 deemed the laws of the province. 
 
 During the civil wars in England, which gave supremacy to parlia- 
 ment and Cromwell, the governor was for a time deprived of his gov- 
 ernment. In 1651, commissioners were appointed "for reducing and 
 governing the colonies within the bay of Chesapeake." The proprietor. 
 
SETTLEMENT OF THE COLONIES. 31 
 
 having submitted to the authority of parliament, was permitted to re- 
 tain his station ; but he was to govern in the name of the government of 
 Enorland. 
 
 In regard to the interference of parliament with the government of 
 the colony, the colonists were divided. The Catholics adhered to the 
 proprietors, while others favored the views of the ruling party in Eng- 
 land. Contentions soon arose between the parties, which led to a civil 
 war, in which the governor and Catholics were defeated; and in 1654, 
 the government was assumed by the lord Protector. A new assembly 
 was convened, and an act was passed, by which persons who held to 
 popery or prelacy were restrained from the free exercise of their reli- 
 gion. On the restoration of Cliarles II, the government was • i-estored 
 to the proprietor. In 1689, in the reign of King William, he was again 
 deprived of his government, which was permanently restored in 1716. 
 
 The province of Carolina was erected in 1663, and granted to lord 
 Clarendon and others as proprietors. This charter, like that of Mary- 
 land, gave to the proprietors authority to establish such government and 
 enact such laws as they should think proper, but " with the assent of the 
 freemen of the colony." The powers of government were vested in a 
 governor, chosen by the proprietors out of thirteen persons to be nomi- 
 nated by the colony, and an assembly to be composed of the governor, 
 council, and representatives of the people, with power to make laws, not 
 contrary to those of England, which should remain in force until the 
 proprietors should publish their dissent to them. By a change in this 
 constitution, the executive power was placed in a governor, to act 
 by the advice of a council of twelve, six of them to be chosen by 
 himself, and the other six by the assembly, which was composed of the 
 governor, the council, and twelve delegates chosen annually by the free- 
 holders. Freedom in religion was granted, and all were entitled to equal 
 privileges, on taking the oaths of allegiance to the king, and fidelity to 
 the governor. 
 
 Still dissatisfied with their system of government, the proprietors pro- 
 cured the services of John Locke, the eminent philosopher, in drawing 
 up a constitution, which was adopted by the proprietors in 1669. This 
 plan was ill adapted to the government of freemen. A kind of nobility 
 was created, with the titles of barons, landgraves, and casiques, who con- 
 stituted one branch of the legislature. The whole system was extremely 
 complicated and inconvenient, and was the cause of constant dissatisfac- 
 tion among the people, and of frequent disputes between them and the 
 proprietors. In 1693, this constitution was abrogated by the proprietors, 
 and the former reestablished. 
 
 In 1719, incited by the arbitrary exercise of power by the proprietors, 
 
32 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the colonists, in a convention at Charleston, renounced the govern- 
 ment of the proprietors, elected a governor, and declared him " invested 
 with the powers of any of His Majesty's governors in America, till His 
 Majesty's pleasure should be further known." The people having made 
 their situation known to the crown, the charter of the proprietors was 
 declared forfeit ; the government was assumed by the crown ; and a royal 
 governor was appointed. In 1728, the king, in pursuance of an act of 
 parliament, purchased of the proprietors their rights in the province ; 
 and the country was divided into two separate provinces, which continued 
 under royal governments until the American revolution. 
 
 New Jersey, as has been stated, was included in the grant of Charles 
 II, to his brother, the duke of York, in 1664. It was conveyed by the 
 duke to lord Berkeley and sir George Carteret, and in 1766 it was 
 divided between the proprietors or their grantees, into East and West 
 Jersey, and a separate government was maintained in each by its pro- 
 prietors, until 1702, when the proprietors surrendered the right of gov- 
 ernment to the crown, and both colonies were reunited under a royal 
 charter. 
 
 The proprietor of Pennsylvania was William Penn, to whom the ter- 
 ritory was granted by Charles II, in 1681 ; and three vessels with set- 
 tlers arrived soon after from England. The next year Penn himself 
 arrived, with about 2,000 emigrants, and a form of government, and code 
 of laws prepared by himself for his province. The government consisted 
 of a governor, a council of seventy-two persons, elected by the freemen, 
 and an assembly to be composed, the first year, of the whole body of free- 
 men, afterwards of two hundred, and never of more than five hundred. 
 The council, in which the governor, having three votes, presided, exer- 
 cised the executive power, and originated all bills for laws to be laid 
 before the assembly. This system, as a whole, was ill adapted to the 
 condition of the colony, and in 1683, was displaced by a new one agreed 
 on by the governor and freemen. Penn having purchased of the duke 
 of Yoi'k, the lower counties of Delaware, settled by the Dutch, Swedes, 
 and Finns, that territory was included in this government. By this con- 
 stitution the council was reduced to eighteen, and the assembly to 
 thirty-six. 
 
 In 1701, the government was again changed. The general assembly 
 was to consist of a single house, composed of four representatives from 
 each county, the governor having a negative upon the assembly. There 
 was a council of state appointed by the proprietor, to advise and assist 
 the governor, or his deputy, in all public afiairs ; and in his absence, or 
 in case of the death or incapacity of his deputy, to exercise the power 
 of government. This constitution continued until the revolution. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 TAXATION OF THE COLONIES, AND OTHER CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 INDEPENDENCE DECLARED. 
 
 A WIDE difference of opinion existed as to tlie extent of power wliich 
 Great Britain might lawfully exercise over tlie colonies. The crown 
 claimed the right to alter or to revoke their charters. This claim the 
 colonists denied. They regarded the charters as compacts or agreements 
 between themselves and the king ; and, being such, they could not be 
 altered without their consent, nor annulled or revoked without a forfeit- 
 ure on their part, which must be determined by a court of competent 
 authority. The only limitation to the power of the colonial legislatures 
 was, that their laws must not be repugnant to the laws of England. The 
 king declared that the laws here meant were the ordinary laws of the 
 Idngdom. The colonists contended that the laws to which their laws 
 must conform, were only the great, fundamental laws which secured to 
 every British subject his birth-right privileges, as declared in the magna 
 charta and bill of rights. Hence the resistance to the frequent 
 attempts by the crown to infringe their chartered rights. 
 
 The most prominent subject of controversy was that of taxation with- 
 out representation. It was asserted in England, that parliament had 
 the power "to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever," and conse- 
 quently to tax them at pleasure. As the powers of the British govern- 
 ment over the colonies had not been accurately defined, opinions somewhat 
 different were entertained on this subject, even in America. In New 
 England, it was generally maintained that the colonial assemblies pos- 
 sessed all the powers of legislation which had not been surrendered by 
 compact; that the colonists, being subjects of the British crown, were 
 not bound by laws to which their representatives had not assented ; that 
 parliament had power to 'regulate commerce, but not the internal affairs 
 of the colonies ; and therefore, that while it could impose duties for the 
 regulation of trade, its power did not extend to taxation. In some 
 colonies, the right of general legislation seems to have been conceded to 
 parliament, in cases of internal as well as external regulation. The right 
 of internal taxation, however, was not admitted even in these colonies. 
 
 The Plymouth colony, in 1636, Maryland in 1650, and Massachusetts 
 in 1661, severally declared, by their legislatures, that no taxes should be 
 3 
 
84 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 imposed but by the consent of the body of freemen, or their representa- 
 tives. In 1664, tbe assembly of Rhode Island, adopting the language 
 of magna charta, declared, that " No aid, tax, tallage, or custom, loan, 
 benevolence, gift, excise, duty, or imposition whatever, shall be laid, 
 assessed, imposed, levied, or required, of or on any of his Majesty's sub- 
 jects, within this colony, or upon their estates, upon any manner of pre- 
 tense or color, but by the assent of the general assembly of this 
 colony." The legislature of Massachusetts, in 1692, declared, that no 
 other authority had the right to impose upon the colony any tax what- 
 ever. About the same time, the legislature of New York passed an 
 act asserting its own exclusive right to make laws relating not only to 
 taxation, but to the general affairs of the colony. In Virginia, in 
 1676, it was claimed to be "the right of Virginians, as well as of all 
 other Englishmen, not to be taxed but by their own consent, expressed 
 by their representatives." The assembly of New Jersey, in 1680, in a 
 certain case, declared even duties on goods to be illegal and unconstitu- 
 tional, because imposed without their consenf. 
 
 The general sentiment on this question, has been stated by the late 
 John Adams thus : " The authority of parliament was never generally 
 acknowledged in America. More than a century since, Massachusetts 
 and Virginia both protested against the act of navigation, and refused 
 obedience, for this very reason, because they were not represented in 
 parliament, and were therefore not bound ; and afterwards confirmed it 
 by their own provincial authority. And from that time to this, the 
 general sense of the colonies has been, that the authority of parliament 
 was confined to the regulation of trade, and did not extend to taxation 
 or internal legislation." 
 
 The colonists had fi-om the beginning acknowledged the authority of 
 parliament to regulate commerce, and had paid duties laid for that pur- 
 pose ; but when they were made to suffer from the restrictive measures 
 of the British government, some were disposed to question its right even 
 to lay duties. J^n New Jersey the collection of duties was, in one in- 
 stance, resisted, on the ground that they were illegal and unconstitu- 
 tional, because imposed without the consent of the people. Resistance, 
 however, to the laws of parliament was seldom offered, until systematic 
 efforts were made by that body, to exercise the power of internal legisla- 
 tion and taxation. 
 
 The system of monopolizing the trade of the colonies by Great 
 Britain, was commenced at an early period. The Virginia company, in 
 1621, to avoid the heavy duties upon their tobacco imported into 
 England, sent it to Holland. An order of the king and council 
 soon followed, declaring "that no tobacco, or other productions 
 
TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 35 
 
 of the colonies, should thenceforth be carried into any foreign port, until 
 they were first landed in England, and the customs paid." This order 
 not being strictly enforced by the governors, instructions were given, in 
 1631, to the governor of Virginia, to "be very careful that no vessel 
 depart thence loaded with these commodities before bond with suflScient 
 sureties be taken to his Majesty's use, to bring the same into his Majesty's 
 dominions, and to. carry a loading from thence^" 
 
 Notwithstanding these instructions, the productions of the colonies 
 and of other countries, were still carried by Hollanders for English 
 merchants. Then came that memorable enactment, called the naviga- 
 tion act, by the commons in 1651. By this act it was ordained, 
 that no merchandise should be imported into his Majesty's plantations, 
 or exported from them, but in vessels built in England or its plantations; 
 and that no sugar, tobacco, ginger, cotton, indigo, or other articles 
 enumerated, should be exported from the colonies to any other country 
 than such as belonged to the crown of Great Britain. This act, which 
 was passed while the parliament Was in power, was reenacted soon after 
 the restoration of Charles II, and with additional restrictions. Not 
 satisfied with the monopoly of the colonial export trade, parliament, 
 determined to effect a similar limitation of the import trade, enacted in 
 1663, that "no commodity of the growth or manufacture of Europe, 
 shall be irapoited into any of the king's plantations in Asia, Africa, or 
 America, but what shall have been shipped in England, Wales or town of 
 Berwick, and in English built shipping, whereof the master and three- 
 fourths of the mariners are English, and carried directly thence to the said 
 plantations ; " excepting, however, salt from any part of Europe for the 
 American fisheries, wines from Madeira and the Azores, and. provisions 
 from Scotland, for the plantations. The objects of this selfish policy 
 are declared in the preamble to this act to be : " the keeping of his 
 Majesty's subjects in the plantations in a firmer dependence ; " the 
 "increase of English shipping;" and '■Hhe vent of English woolens and 
 other manufactures and commodities.'''' 
 
 These acts, however, left the colonists free to export the enumerated 
 commodities from one plantation to another, without duty. But even 
 this privilege was not long enjoyed. In 1672, duties were imposed upon 
 sugars, tobacco, indigo, cotton, wool, &c., transported from one colony 
 to another. These acts were, in some of the colonies, declared to be 
 violations of their charters ; and in Massachusetts they were wholly dis- 
 regarded. They were pronounced by the general court, to be an invasion 
 of the rights, liberties, and properties of the subjects of his Majesty in 
 the colony, they not being represented in parliament" The displeasure 
 of the king and ministry having been excited by this violation of the 
 
86 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 laws and measures being meditated to enforce them, the general court, 
 by a special act, ordered their observance in future. In the Carolinas, 
 also, these acts were not generally obeyed. The act levying duties on 
 articles carried from one colony to another was pronounced a violation 
 of their charters. 
 
 In 1696, a board of commissioners, called "a board of trade and 
 plantations," was constituted to take the management of the affairs of 
 the colonies. Laws were also passed for the more certain enforcement of 
 the acts of trade. One of these laws required the governors, on oath, and 
 under a severe penalty, to see the navigation acts executed. Parliament 
 also made the authority of the governors in the proprietary governments 
 dependent on the approval of the king, in violation of the charters of 
 these colonies. 
 
 We have seen, that the restrictive policy of the parent country was to 
 secure a " vent of English woolens and other manufactures and commo- 
 dities," as well as the "increase of English shipping." Accordingly, 
 when the colonists began to manufacture for themselves, they were met 
 by an act of parliament, declaring that " no wool, yarn, or woolen man- 
 ufactures of the American plantations should be shipped there to be 
 transported to any place whatever." The manufactures most injurious 
 to the trade and manufactures of the parent country, were those of wool, 
 flax, iron, paper, hats and leather. Hate being made in New England, 
 and exported to Spain, Portugal, and the West India islands, an act was 
 passed in 1732, which prohibited not only their exportation to foreign 
 countries but their being carried from one colony to another. And, as 
 an additional means of crippling the manufacture of this article, no hat- 
 ter was allowed to caiTy on the business, without having served seven 
 years as an apprentice to the trade, or to employ more than two appren- 
 tices at one time ; and no black or negro might work at the business at 
 all. By an act of parliament, in 1*750, iron in pigs and bars might be 
 imported from the colonies into England to be manufactured ; but the 
 erection or continuance of any slitting or rolling mill, plating forge to 
 work with a tilt-hammer, or any furnace for making steel in the colonies, 
 was prohibited ; and any such mill or machinery was declared to be a 
 common nuisance, which the governors, under a penalty of £500, were 
 required to cause to be abated. 
 
 The extraordinary expenses of the war between Great Britain and 
 France, which terminated in the peace of 1763, and in the acquisition of 
 Canada and the other French possessions in North America, having ren- 
 dered it necessary to increase the national revenue, it was determined to 
 have recourse to taxation in the colonies ; and also to proAade for a more 
 rigid execution of the navigation acts, and acts regulating the colonial 
 
TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 37 
 
 trade. Accordingly, orders were issued, in 1760, to the custom house 
 oflScers in America, to take more effectual measures for enforcing the 
 acts of trade; and particularly those which imposed duties upon the 
 productions of the French and Spanish West India islands. To insure 
 the future collection of these duties, all officers in the sea service on the 
 American station, were converted into revenue oflScers, and required to 
 take custom house oaths ; and the collectors of customs were directed to 
 apply, if necessary, to the courts for written authority to break open 
 houses and other buildings to search for smuggled and prohibited goods. 
 The New England colonies had carried on a lucrative trade with the 
 French and Spanish colonies. With the sugar, molasses, <fec., there 
 obtained, they had been enabled to pay for the British manufactures im- 
 ported. Massachusetts being most deeply interested in that trade, these 
 measures were extremely obnoxious to the people of that colony. What 
 rendered the law more objectionable was, that the penalties and for- 
 feitures under it were recoverable in any court of vice-admiralty without 
 trial by jury. 
 
 Another measure contemplated by the British ministry about this time, 
 was the modification of the colonial governments. As these govern- 
 ments, especially the charter governments, were deemed too liberal, it 
 was thought necessary to alter them, with a view of rendering the colo- 
 nies more dependent on the crown, and of preventing revolts in future. 
 The attempt to carry into effect this purpose of " reforming the Ameri- 
 can governments," was prevented, probably, by the general excitement 
 produced by the resolution of parliament, in 1764, declaring the inten- 
 tion of imposing stamp duties in the colonies ; the further consideration 
 of which was postponed to the next session. 
 
 Apprehending the passage of the stamp act, agents from several of 
 the provincial assemblies were sent to England, with petitions to the 
 king, and memorials to both houses of parliament against the measure ; 
 but the petitions and memorials were not received ; it being alleged to 
 be contrary to order to receive petitions against money bills. The bill 
 was passed by very large majorities in both houses, and on the 22 nd of 
 March, 1765, received the royal assent. This act provided that obliga- 
 tions in writing in daily use, were to be null and void, unless they were 
 executed on a paper or parchment stamped with a specific duty. Also 
 newspapers, almanacs, and pamphlets were to be made to contribute to 
 the British treasury. 
 
 Intelligence of the passage of this act was received with indignation 
 and alarm ; meetings of the people were held ; and the whole country 
 was set in a flame. The assembly of Virginia was in session when the 
 news arrived. Resolutions introduced by Patrick Henry, were adopted, 
 
BS THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 in which the taxation of the people by themselves or their chosen repre- 
 sentatives, was claimed as their exclusive right. Similar resolutions 
 were passed by the legislatures of several other colonies. The house of 
 representatives of Massachusetts recommended a congress of deputies 
 from all the colonies, to meet at New York on the first Tuesday of 
 October, 1765, to consult on the circumstances of the colonies and 
 measures of reUef. Commissioners from all the colonies except New 
 Hampshire assembled; and Timothy Ruggles, of Massachusetts, was 
 elected president of the congress. A declaration of rights and griev- 
 ances was adopted, asserting among other things, that the colonists "are 
 entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his Majesty's natural 
 bom subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain ; that it was the un- 
 doubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them but with 
 their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives ; that the 
 right of trial by jury is the inherent right of every British subject in 
 these colonies ; that the stamp act and other acts extending the juris- 
 diction of the courts of admu-alty beyond its ancient limits, have a man- 
 ifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists ; that 
 the restrictions on the trade of the colonies will render them unable to 
 purchase the manufactures of Great Britain ; and that it was the right 
 and duty of the colonists, as British subjects, to petition the king and 
 parliament for the repeal of the stamp act, of the acts extending the ad- 
 miralty jurisdiction, and of the other late acts for the restriction of 
 American commerce." 
 
 They next prepared an address to the king, and a petition to both 
 houses of parliament. These papers, while they breathe a spirit of true 
 loyalty, furnish a specimen of dignified, earnest, yet respectful remon- 
 strance, that commands the highest admiration. The king is reminded 
 of the cause and objects that brought their ancestors to this country, 
 of the encouragements offered them by his predecessors; of their toils 
 and hardships in converting the deserts of America into flourishing 
 countries, by which the wealth and power of Great Britain had been 
 gi-eatly augmented. They proceed to say : " Our connection with this 
 empire we esteem our greatest happiness and security, and humbly con- 
 ceive it may now be so established by your royal wisdom, as to endure to 
 the latest period of time. This, with the most humble submission to 
 your Majesty, we apprehend will be most effectually accomplished, by 
 fixing the pillars thereof on liberty and justice, and securing the inher- 
 ent rights and liberties of your subjects here upon the principles of the 
 English constitution." In their petition to the house of commons, they 
 claim exemption from taxation, on the ground " that parliament, adher- 
 ing to the principles of the constitution, have never hitherto taxed any 
 
TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 39 
 
 but those who were actually therein represented ; " and then show that it 
 would be for the interest of Great Britain, as well as for that of the col- 
 onies, to repeal the acts complained of. 
 
 The congress recommended to the colonies to send with their petitions 
 special agents, who should unite their endeavors to obtain a redress of 
 grievances. One of these was Dr. Franklin, from Pennsylvania. The 
 petitions were to be presented immediately to the king, and to parlia- 
 ment when they should again be convened. 
 
 Meetings of the people were held in every part of the country, to ex- 
 press their opposition to the stamp act; and the determination was de- 
 clared, that the act should never be carried into effect. Newspapers 
 abounded with denunciations of the act ; and essays from some of the 
 ablest pens were distributed in pamphlets throughout the country. The 
 merchants of New York, Philadelphia and Boston, entered into agree- 
 ments to order no goods from Great Britain ; and associations were 
 formed in all parts of the country against the use of British manufac- 
 tures, and for the encouragement of domestic fabrics. To avoid the 
 necessity of using stamps, proceedings in the courts of justice were sus- 
 pended, and the people were advised to settle their disputes by arbitra- 
 tion. An association was also formed, styled " the sons of liberty,^'' who 
 bound themselves to go to any part of the country, to resist by force any 
 attempt to carry the stamp act into operation. So violent was the oppo- 
 sition to this measure, that, on the first day of November, when the act 
 was to have gone into effect, neither stamps nor officers were to be found ! 
 
 In July of this year, (1765,) a change took place in the British cabi- 
 net. The new administration was not disposed to prosecute the plan for 
 taxing the colonies without their consent. In January, 1766, parliament 
 assembled, and the papers of the American congress were laid before 
 that body. A bill for the repeal of the stamp act was introduced in 
 February ; and after an animated and able debate, in which Mr. Pitt 
 and Lord Grenville were the leading speakers ; the former advocating 
 the repeal, the latter opposing it ; the bill passed both houses by large 
 majorities, and on the 18th of March, received the assent of the king. 
 Parliament, however, lest the act of repeal should be construed into a 
 relinquishment of the right of taxation, passed a declaratory resolution, 
 asserting the power and right of the king and parliament " to make laws of 
 sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever.^^ 
 This resolution was followed by four others, one of which declared, that 
 the tumults and insurrections which had been raised and carried on in seve- 
 ral of the colonies, had been encouraged by votes and resolutions passed 
 in the assemblies of the said colonies ; and another, that the king should 
 be requested to instruct the governors of the colonies " to require the 
 
40 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 assemblies to make proper recompense to those who have suffered in their 
 persons or properties, in consequence of such tumults and insurrections." 
 
 The general joy caused by the repeal of the stamp act, was in some 
 measure restrained by the claim of unlimited power over the colonies 
 asserted in the first resolution. It was apprehended by some, that the 
 exercise of the power of taxation would be repeated on some future 
 occasion. Others, however, supposed the declaration to have been made 
 simply from motives of national pride ; parliament having deemed it 
 derogatory to British honor to concede the principle contended for by 
 the colonies ; and that the declaration would never be reduced to praC' 
 tice. The hopes of the latter, however, were soon disappointed. In 
 1767, an act was passed, imposing duties on glass, paper, paints, and 
 tea imported into the colonies from Great Britain ; the object of which, 
 as declared in the preamble, was " to raise a revenue in America." 
 
 The tardy compliance by some of the colonies, with the demand to 
 make compensation to the sufferers in the stamp act riots, and the offen- 
 sive manner in which the requisition was complied with ; and the refusal 
 of others to furnish certain articles not usually furnished, but now 
 required, for the soldiers quartered in the colonies, excited the displeasure 
 of the British government, and were probably among the causes which 
 induced the passage of this act. To insure the collection of the duties, 
 authority was given the king to appoint commissioners who were to reside 
 in the colonies, and to be intrusted with the execution of the laws relating 
 to trade. The duties imposed by this act were deemed taxes as really as 
 were the stamp duties ; and the act imposing them was scarcely less odious 
 than its predecessor, and met with similar opposition. Massachusetts, 
 being, from her extensive commerce, most deeply affected by restrictions 
 upon the trade of the colonies, took the lead in opposition to this measure. 
 Her general assembly met in January, 1768. A petition to the king was 
 prepared ; and letters were addressed to some of the prominent members 
 of parliament, in which they again claim exemption from taxation without 
 representation, as the right of Englishmen, under the British constitu- 
 tion. They also set forth the injustice of this and other acts of parlia- 
 ment. They say : " The colonies are prohibited from importing commo- 
 dities the growth or manufacture of Europe, except from Great Britain, 
 with the exception of a few articles ; " which they consider an advantage 
 to Great Britain of twenty per cent, in the price of her productions, and 
 virtually a tax of equal amount to the colonies. They say farther : 
 " The same reasoning will hold good to the many enumerated articles of 
 their produce which the colonies are restrained, by acts of parliament, 
 from sending to foreign ports. By this restraint, the market is glutted, 
 and consequently the produce sold is cheaper ; which is an advantage to 
 
TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 41 
 
 Great Britain, and an equal loss or tax upon the colonies." They also 
 addressed a circular letter to the assemblies of the respective colonies. 
 The other colonies joined, not only in addressing the king, but in declar- 
 ing the duties unconstitutional. 
 
 Alarmed at this movement set on foot by Massachusetts, the king, by his 
 secretary of state, addressed a circular letter to the several governors, to 
 be by them laid before the assemblies of their respective colonies, pro- 
 nouncing the action of Massachusetts an unjustifiable attempt to revive 
 those distractions which have operated so fatally to the prejudice of the 
 colonies and the mother country," and requesting them not to take part 
 ■with Massachusetts by approving such proceedings. The governor of 
 Massachusetts was directed " to require of the house of representatives in 
 his majesty's name, to rescind the resolution which gave birth to the cir- 
 cular letter of the speaker." The house, by a vote of 92 to 17, refused 
 to rescind or to disapprove the proceedings of the preceding assembly, 
 and addressed a letter to the British secretary, Lord Hillsborough, in 
 justification of their course. A letter was also sent to the governor, 
 stating the reasons for refusing to rescind the resolution. The governor, 
 on receiving this letter, dissolved the assembly. He had been previously 
 instructed by the king to do so, in case of their refusal to rescind, and 
 to transmit their proceedings to the king, that measures might be taken 
 to prevent, for the future, " conduct of so extraordinary and unconstitu- 
 tional a nature." The " measures " intended were the arresting of persons 
 concerned in resisting or preventing the execution of the laws, and the 
 transporting of them to England to be tried for treason. 
 ■ The assembly of Virginia passed resolutions asserting the exclusive 
 right to impose taxes upon the inhabitants of that colony, and the right 
 to petition for a redress of grievances, and to obtain a concurrence of 
 other colonies in such petitions, and expressing their disapproval of the 
 address of parliament to the king requesting him to direct the governor 
 of Massachusetts to aid in causing persons to be prosecuted in England 
 for offenses alleged to have been committed in that colony. The assem- 
 bly also agi-eed on an address to the king, declaring their attachment to 
 the crown, and their conviction that the complaints of the colonists were 
 not without just cause. The governor, on being informed of these pro- 
 ceedings, forthwith dissolved the assembly. Whereupon, the members 
 met at a private house, and formed a non-importing association, in which 
 the people of the province ^nerally afterwards united. 
 
 In the same month, (May, 1769,) the general court of Massachusetts 
 was convened for the first time since its dissolution in July, 1768. The 
 state house being surrounded by an armed guard, the house requested 
 the governor to order the removal of the troops from the town during 
 
42' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the session of the assembly, declaring it to be inconsistent with their 
 dignity, as well as freedom, to deliberate in the midst of an armed force, 
 with cannon pointed at the door of the state house. The governor 
 refused to comply with the request, alleging that he had no authority 
 over the troops. 
 
 The general court had been convened in order to procure a grant of 
 money for purposes of government; but they refused to enter upon the 
 business for which they had been called together, confining themselves 
 chiefly to the consideration of their grievances. In the hope that, if 
 removed from the influences that suiTounded them in the metropolis, 
 they would attend to their prOper legislative duties, the governor 
 adjourned them to Cambridge. But they resumed the consideration of 
 their rights and grievances, and passed a long series of resolutions, one 
 of which related to the quartering of troops among them to enforce the 
 laws, and declared, " that the establishment of a standing army in the 
 colony, in time of peace, without consent of the general assembly, is an 
 invasion of the natural rights of the people, as well as those which they 
 claim as free born Englishmen, confirmed by magna charta, the bill of 
 rights, as settled by the revolution, and by the charter of the province." 
 Another resolution expressed the same sentiment as that of the assembly 
 of Virginia, relative to the transportation of Americans to England for 
 trial. When, toward the close of the session, they were called upon by 
 the governor to provide for paying expenses already incurred for quar- 
 tering the troops, and for similar expenses in future, they peremptorily 
 refused. 
 
 The spirit exhibited in the legislatures of Virginia and Massachusetts, 
 prevailed in most of the colonies. Similar sentiments were expressed by 
 their assemblies ; and in several of them the Virginia resolutions were 
 adopted. Non-importation agreements became general. One object of 
 these associations is supposed to have been to secure the aid of the mer- 
 chants and manufacturers, whose interests would be most affected by non- 
 importation, in endeavonng to procure a repeal of the obnoxious laws. 
 The merchants of Boston, in August, 1768, agreed not to import from 
 Great Britain, between the first day of January, ]r769, the day on which 
 the revenue act was to take effect, and the first of January, 1770, any 
 articles whatever, except a few of the most necessary ; and of those last 
 taxed, to import none until the duties were taken off. In New York; 
 Salem, and some other cities and towns, simMr agreements were fonned ; 
 but they did not become general through the colonies, until all hope was 
 lost that petitions and memorials would effect the desired object. 
 
 In March, 17 70, a bill was introduced in parliament, exempting from 
 duty all the articles embraced in the act of 1768, except tea. The total 
 
TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 43 
 
 repeal of the act might have been construed into an abandonment of the 
 principle in controversy. To prevent such construction, was probably 
 the chief object of retaining the duty on that article. At a meeting of 
 the merchants of Boston, it was resolved, that this partial repeal would 
 not remove the difficulties that attended their trade; that it was intended 
 only to relieve the British manufacturers ; and that they would adhere 
 to their non-importation agreement. Similar resolutions were elsewhere 
 adopted. The general observance, however, of the non-importation 
 agreement, did not long continue. Associations, and individuals of the 
 same associations, accused each other of violations of the agreement ; and 
 each made the acts of others a pretext for his own. 
 
 Troops were still kept in Boston, to enforce the acts of trade and 
 revenue, and to awe the people into submission. This was the cause of 
 frequent quarrels and of some actual collisions. On the 5th of March, 
 1770, an affray took place between a part of the military and some of the 
 inhabitants, in which the latter were fired upon, and four of them were 
 killed. The town was thrown into commotion. The bells were rung, 
 and the inhabitants assembled in arms, and were with difficulty restrained 
 from rushing upon the soldiers. The next morning, a large meeting 
 assembled in Faneuil Hall, and in the afternoon, at a town meeting 
 legally warned, it was resolved, " that nothing could rationallybe expected 
 to restore the peace of the town, and prevent further blood and carnage, 
 but the immediate removal of the troops." A committee was appointed, 
 with Samuel Adams as chairman, who proceeded to the councU chamber, 
 to demand of the lieutenant governor (Hutchinson) their instant removal. 
 After some hesitation, and upon the advice of the council, the troops 
 were removed to the castle, and peace was restored. Captain Preston 
 and eight soldiers were indicted and tried for murder. It appeared 
 upon trial, that the soldiers had been provoked by repeated insults and 
 assaults of the mob ; and all were acquitted except two, who were con- 
 victed of manslaughter only. 
 
 On the 12th of April, the bill to take off the duties on glass, paper, 
 and paints, was passed; but although the non-importation associations 
 had been generally abandoned, opposition to the importations was still 
 maintained. The perseverance of the colonists in their determination 
 not to import tea from England had caused the accumulation of a large 
 quantity in the warehouses of the East India company, who were impelled 
 to apply to parliament for relief. An act was accordingly passed, (1773,) 
 allowing the company a drawback of all the duties they had paid in 
 England on such of their teas as they should export to America, This 
 would enable the company to sell the article cheaper in the colonies than 
 in Great Britain; which, it was hoped, would induce the colonists to 
 
44 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 purchase it ; who would thus contribute to the rehef of the company, 
 and to the revenues of Great Britain. 
 
 Large shipments of tea were made to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, 
 Charleston, and other places. But the colonists were determined not to 
 suffer it to be landed. If it should be landed, it would be sold and the 
 duties would be paid ; and a precedent for taxing the colonies would be 
 established. In Charleston, the tea was, after much opposition, landed ; 
 but the consignees were not permitted to offer it for sale. In Philadel- 
 phia and New York, the consignees declined ^ecei^dng it, and it was re- 
 turned in the same vessels to England. At Boston, the consignees were 
 requested to resign. They refusing to comply with the request, a large 
 meeting assembled in Faneuil Hall, where it was voted, " that the tea 
 shall not be landed ; that no duty shall be paid ; and that it shall be sent 
 back in the same bottoms." And the captains of the vessels were 
 directed to apply for clearances, without an entry of their vessels. 
 While the meeting was in session, one of the captains was sent, for the 
 last time, to the governor for a clearance. The refusal of the governor 
 having been announced, the meeting dissolved ; and the people repaired 
 to the wharf, where a number, previously selected for the purpose, and 
 dressed in the guise of Mohawk Indians, boarded the vessels, broke open 
 three hundred and forty-two chests of tea, and emptied their contents 
 into the ocean. This occurred in December, 1773. 
 
 In March following, these proceedings were laid before parliament, in 
 a message from the king. Indignant at the conduct of the Americans, 
 parliament at once resolved to provide effectually for securing obedience 
 to the laws. The colony of Massachusetts, particularly the tovm of 
 Boston, having rendered themselves most conspicuous in the opposition 
 to the laws, were made the special objects of resentment. A bill, since 
 called the " Boston port bill," was introduced " for discontinuing the 
 lading and shipping of goods, wares and merchandises at Boston, or the 
 harbor thereof, and for the removal of the custom house with its depend- 
 encies to the town of Salem." The bill passed with little opposition. 
 This act, interdicting all intercourse with Boston, was to continue in 
 force until the East India company should be fully compensated for the 
 loss of their tea, and until the king should have declared himself satisfied 
 that peace and good order had been restored in the t6wn. 
 
 An act was next passed, " for the better regulating the government of 
 the province of Massachusetts Bay." By this act, the charter was to 
 be altered with a view to deprive the people of certain important rights. 
 The members of the council were no longer to be chosen by the general 
 assembly, but appointed by the king, and dismissed at his pleasure : and 
 the magistrates and other officers were to be appointed and removed by 
 
TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 45 
 
 the governor, without the consent of the council. Also the right of 
 selecting jurors by the people of the towns, was taken away, and given 
 to the sherifis, who were appointed by the governor. Nor were the people 
 to be allowed to hold meetings in the several towns, except the annual 
 meetings for the election of oflBcers, without leave of the governor in 
 writing. By this restriction, is was doubtless intended to prevent those 
 assemblages in which the people had been accustomed to discuss their re- 
 lations to the parent country, and to consult on measures for the main- 
 tenance of their rights. 
 
 Another act was passed, providing "for the impartial administration 
 of justice in Massachusetts Bay ; " by which, persons indicted for a cap- 
 ital offense committed in enforcing the revenue laws, or in suppressing, 
 or aiding to suppress riots in that colony, might be sent to any other 
 colony or to Great Britain to be tried. This act was to continue in force 
 four years. 
 
 A fourth bill was passed for quartering soldiers on the inhabitants of 
 the colonies. 
 
 And lastly, " an act for making more effectual provisions for the 
 government of the pro\'ince of Quebec." By this act, the limits of that 
 province were to be so extended as to include the territory between the 
 lakes, the Ohio, and the Mississippi; and was intended to restrict the 
 limits of other colonies. The most exceptionable feature of this act 
 was, the establishment of a legislative council, to be appointed by the 
 king, and invested with all the powers of legislation, except that of im- 
 posing taxes. 
 
 The refractory spirit of the people, especially those of Massachusetts, 
 who were to be punished into submission, was not subdued by any of 
 these laws. On receiving intelligence of the Boston port bill, a meeting 
 of the people of that town was called, and resolutions were passed, de- 
 nouncing the act, and inviting the other colonies to join with them in an 
 agi-eement to stop all imports from, and exports to. Great Britain and 
 the West Indies, until the act should be repealed. 
 
 The other colonies made common cause with Massachusetts. The 
 legislature of Virginia being in session when the news of the Boston 
 port bill arrived, appointed the first day of June, the day on which the 
 port of Boston was lo be closed, as a day of fasting, humiliation and 
 prayer. The day was thus observed throughout the colonies, and ser- 
 mons were preached adapted to the occasion. The governor of Virginia, 
 displeased with this measure, dissolved the assembly. The members, 
 however, before they separated, recommended to their committee of cor- 
 respondence to communicate with the several committees of the other 
 colonies, on the expediency of appointing deputies to meet annually in a 
 
46 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 general congress, to deliberate on those general measures which the 
 united interests of America might from time to time render necessary. 
 This proposition was readily acceded to by the other colonies. 
 
 The house of representatives of Massachusetts, now assembled at 
 Salem, passed resolutions in favor of the proposed congress, and recom- 
 mending to the people of that province, to renounce the consumption of 
 tea and all other goods imported from the East Indies, and Great Britain, 
 until the grievances of the colonies should be redressed; and recom- 
 mending also the encouragement of domestic manufactures. The house 
 also appointed five delegates to the general convention. On being in- 
 formed of the proceedings of the house, the governor sent his secretary 
 to dissolve the assembly. 
 
 On the 5th of September, 1774, the convention assembled at Phila- 
 delphia. This congress published a declaration of rights, protesting 
 against the right of Great Britain to tax the colonies, or to interfere 
 with their internal affairs; with a statement of grievances, declaring the 
 late acts of parliament to be violations of the rights of the colonists. 
 They also prepared and signed an agreement, in which they, for them- 
 selves and their constituents, were pledged, not to import or use British 
 goods till the acts complained of should be repealed. And if these acts 
 should not be repealed by the 10th day of September, 1775, no goods 
 were to be exported to Great Britain or her West India colonies, except 
 rice to Europe. Addresses to the king and the people of Great Britain 
 were also prepared, and an address to the people of the colonies. The 
 congress Avas dissolved on the 26th of October ; having recoininended 
 that another congress convene on the 10th of May following, if a redress 
 of grievances should not render it unnecessary. 
 
 The determination of parliament, which met soon after the dissolution 
 of the congress, to persevere in its attempts to enforce its measures in the 
 colonies, removed all hope of redress by petition or remonstrance. Pre- 
 parations now began to be made for resistance. Gunpowder was manu- 
 factured; the militia was trained; and military stores were collected. 
 In April, 1775, a detachment of troops was sent to destroy the military 
 stores collected at Concord. At Lexington, the militia were collected 
 to oppose the British forces. They were fired upon by the British 
 troops, and eight men were killed. Having proceeded to Concord, and 
 destroyed a few of the stores, the troops returned, and were pursued by 
 the Americans to Boston. 
 
 In May, 1775, a second congress met from all the colonies. It was 
 determined to organize an army ; and Washington was appointed com- 
 mander-in-chief of the American forces. Three millions of dollars of 
 paper money, in bills of credit, were authorized to be issued ; for the re- 
 
TAXATION OF THE COLONIES. 47 
 
 demption of which each colony was to pay its proportion, and the united 
 colonies were to pay such part of the quota of any colony, as the colony 
 should fail to discharge. A general post-office was established. Con- 
 gress also published a declaration of the causes of talcing up arms, and 
 another address to the king, entreating a change of measures, and an ad- 
 dress to the people of Great Britain, requesting their aid and admon- 
 ishing them of the threatening evils of a separation. The petition to the 
 king was, as usual, unavailing. This congress, at its second meeting, (a 
 recess from August to September having been had,) proceeded in its 
 measures for resistance. Rules were adopted for the regulation of the 
 navy ; a further emission of bills was authorized ; and a treasury depart- 
 ment was established. 
 
 The colonies being declared by the king to be in a state of rebellion^ 
 war measure's were adopted by the British government. In December, 
 parliament passed an act interdicting all trade with the colonies, and 
 authorizing the capture and condemnation of all American vessels and their 
 cargoes, and other vessels found trading in any port in the colonies, 
 as if they were the vessels of open enemies. The mass of the American 
 people having become convinced of the necessity of an entire separation 
 from the parent country, congress, on the 10th of June, 1*776, appointed 
 a committee to prepare a declaration, " that these colonies are and of 
 right, ought to be, free and independent states." This committee con- 
 sisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger 
 Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston. The resolution of independence 
 was adopted on the 2d day of July ; and on the 4th, congress adopted 
 the Declaration of Independence. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDERATION. TREATY WITH FRANCE. 
 
 NEGOTIATION WITH GREAT BRITAIN. PEACE. CALL FOR A CONVENTION. 
 
 Congress soon perceived the necessity of some compact between the 
 colonies in order to give effect and permanence to the union, and to 
 define more accurately the powers of the congress. A plan was reported 
 to that body a few days after the declaration of independence, but was 
 not adopted. In April, 177V, the subject was resumed ; and in Novem- 
 ber a plan was agreed on by congress. This instrument was called 
 " Articles of confederation and perpetual union between the states of 
 
 ." This confederacy was to be styled, " The United States of 
 
 America." Each state was to retain its sovereignty, freedom and inde- 
 pendence, and every power and right not expressly delegated to congress. 
 The states entered into a " firm league of friendship with each other, for 
 their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual 
 and general welfare." 
 
 Congress was composed of delegates, not less than two nor more than 
 seven, from each state, appointed annually by its legislature, which had 
 power to recall any delegate at any time within the year, and send 
 another in his stead. The delegates were maintained by their respective 
 states. In determining questions in congress, each state had one vote ; 
 and that vote was determined by a majority of the delegates. 
 
 The power to declare war and peace, to make requisitions of men and 
 money, and to regulate the external affairs of the nation generally, was 
 devolved upon congress. Many of the powers of congress, as well as the 
 restrictions upon the states, were the same as under the present consti- 
 tution. Some of the most essential powers, however, had been reserved 
 to the states — powers, the want of which constituted the principal defect 
 of the system, as will hereafter be seen. 
 
 Any act of congress, making war, granting letters of marque and 
 reprisal, coining money, emitting bills, borrowing or appropriating 
 money, and for certain other similar purposes, was to have the assent 
 of nine states. Other questions were to be decided by a majority of the 
 states. Congress had authority to appoint a committee, denominated " a 
 committee of the states," to consist of one delegate from each state ; 
 which committee, or any nine of them, had authority to execute, in the 
 
 1 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDERATION. 49 
 
 recess of congress, such of the powers of that body as, by the consent 
 of nine states, congress should think expedient to invest them with ; but no 
 power was to be delegated to this committee, for which the voice of nine 
 states in congress was requisite. Every state was to abide by the deter- 
 mination of congress on all questions submitted to them by the confeder- 
 ation. The articles of the confederation were to be observed by every 
 state, and the union was to be perpetual : and no alteration could be 
 made in any of them, unless agreed to by congress, and afterwards con- 
 firmed by the legislature of every state. The articles were to be proposed 
 to the legislatures of all tKe states, and if approved by them, they were 
 advised to authorize their delegates in congress to ratify the same. 
 
 It was not to be presumed, that any plan of union could have been 
 formed, which would fully accord with the views and accommodate the 
 varied and even conflicting interests of thirteen states. Some of the 
 states adopted the articles without amendment. Others proposed amend- 
 ments to be made to them. All, however, except New Jersey, Delaware, 
 and Maiyland, instructed their delegates to ratify and sign .the articles, 
 even if the proposed amendments should be rejected by congress. Mary- 
 land was the last state that assented to the ratification, which was done 
 the first of March, 1781, more than three years after the articles had 
 been adopteid by congress. 
 
 The lapse of a few years proved some of the objections to the articles 
 to have been well founded, as will appear in a succeeding chapter. One 
 of these, in particular, was, that the power of regulating commerce with 
 foreign nations had not been vested in congress. This was one of the 
 numerous objections made by the state of New Jersey. 
 
 Several states objected that no provision had been made for the dis- 
 position of the western lands. They desired that congress should have 
 power to fix the limits of such states as claimed to the Mississippi, and 
 to dispose of the lands beyond these limits for the benefit of the union ; 
 and it was not until after New York and Virginia had ceded their 
 claims — the former to all lands beyond such line or lines as congress 
 should judge expedient ; the latter to all north-west of the Ohio — that 
 congress adopted regulations for the disposal of this western territory. 
 
 In May, 1776, congress adopted a resolution, offered by John Adams, 
 recommending to the assemblies of the states to establish such 
 governments as their circumstances might require. Before the close of 
 the next year, most of the states had formed new constitutions. Several 
 of the states had already done so when the recommendation was made. 
 Under these constitutions, the legislatures consisted of two branches, 
 except in Pennsylvania and Georgia. The representatives, as at present, 
 were chosen by towns in New England ; in the other states by counties. 
 
50 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The other branch, called in some states, the council, in others the senate, 
 answered for the council in the colonial governments. In New Hamp- 
 shire, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, there was no governor, the duties of 
 that office being performed by a committee, or councU, the president of 
 which was president of the state. The governors in most of the states 
 were chosen by the legislatures. 
 
 In the winter of 17 78, while the British ministry were preparing a 
 plan of conciliation to be proposed to the people of the United States, a 
 treaty of friendship and commerce with France was concluded by the 
 American commissioners in that country ; also a treaty of defensive 
 alliance, to have effect in case Great Britain should declare war against 
 France. On the 13th of March, the ministry were informed by the 
 French minister in England, that a treaty of friendship and commerce had 
 been agreed on between France and the United States ; and that measures 
 would be taken to protect the commerce of the two countries. Where- 
 upon the British minister at Paris was recalled — an act which is some- 
 times considered tantamount to a formal declaration of war. 
 
 The desire, however, of Great Britain to discontinue the war with the 
 United States, was doubtless quickened by their alliance with so formi- 
 dable a power as that of France. Anxious to try the virtue of her plan 
 of reconciliation, without delay, copies of the bills containijig the con- 
 ciliatory propositions, were sent to the United States before they were 
 passed. 
 
 One of these bills proposed not to impose any duty or tax in the North 
 American colonies, except such as might be necessary for the regulation 
 of commerce ; and the duties were to be applied to the use of the colonies. 
 The second was to restore the ancient charter of Massachusetts. The 
 third authorized the appointment of commissioners to treat concerning 
 the grievances in the government of the colonies. Congress, however, 
 suspecting it to be the intention of Great Britain merely to lull the 
 Americans with hopes of peace, until she could assemble new armies, 
 determined to hold no conference or treaty with any commissioners on 
 the part of Great Britain, unless she should first withdraw her fleets 
 and armies, or acknowledge the independence of the states. The treaties 
 with France arrived in ^lay, and were unanimously ratified by congress. 
 The British commissioners soon after arrived, but congress, adhering to 
 the detemiination not to receive any proposals, except upon the condi- 
 tions mentioned, the attempt at conciliation failed- 
 
 In the summer of 1778, a minister plenipotentiary arrived from France, 
 and soon after Dr. Franklin was sent to represent the United States in 
 that country. Early in the next year, Spain offered to mediate between 
 France and Great Britain. France accepted the offer of mediation, but 
 
NEGOTIATION WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 51 
 
 Great Britain rejected it; and in June, (1779,) Spain joined France in 
 the war. She decHned, however, to accede to the treaties between 
 France and the United States. Congress, had been informed of the 
 proffered mediation by Spain, in February, and appointed a committee 
 to whom the subject was referred, and who reported instructions to the 
 American minister, prescribing the terms upon which he was authorized 
 to negotiate peace. The choice of a minister for this purpose devolved 
 upon John Adams. 
 
 Congress having determined to make proposals to Spain, with the view 
 of inducing her to accede to the treaties between France and the United 
 States, appointed John Jay as minister to Spain. As it was known that 
 Spain was anxious to secure the possession of the extensive territory 
 which she claimed in North America, Mr. Jay was instructed to offer 
 her a guaranty of the Floridas, (in case she should succeed in her attempt 
 to recover them,) provided she should concur with France and the United 
 States in continuing the war with Great Britain, and provided that the 
 Unit.ed States should enjoy the free navigation of the Mississippi, Spain 
 professed to desire the alliance, but required, as a condition, the exclu- 
 sive right to the navigation of the Mississippi, the possession of the Flori- 
 das, and all the lands east of the Mississippi to the Alleghany mountains. 
 Spain denied the claim of the United States to any lands west of these 
 mountains ; and as it was the intention of Spain to conquer the Floridas 
 and the western territory, during the war with Great Britain, she wished 
 to have all cause of future dispute between Spain and the United States 
 relative to these lands removed. Several of the states claimed to the 
 Mississippi, both by virtue of their charters, and by the treaty of 1763. 
 This territory having been ceded by France to Great Britain by this 
 treaty, the United States, by the revolution, became entitled to the same ; 
 and therefore they could not assent to the requisitions of Spain. 
 
 Subsequently, however, (1780,) the State of Virginia, alarmed at the 
 reverses of the American army at the south, and desirous of securing the 
 aid of Spain, requested congress to alter Mr. Jay's instructions. Con- 
 gress accordingly authorized Mr. Jay to relinquish the right of navigating 
 the Mississippi below the 31st degree of north latitude, a free navigation 
 above that degree being acknowledged and guaranteed to the citizens of 
 the United States. This proposition also was rejected. 
 
 In 1780, the empress of Russia offered to the British court, to become 
 mediatrix between the belligerents in Europe. At the request of Great 
 Britain the emperor of Germany was associated in the mediation. In 
 June, 1781, congress appointed Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, Mr. Laurens, and 
 Mr. Jefferson, to join Mr. Adams, as representatives of the United States 
 in the congress which was to meet in Vienna, Great Britain, regarding 
 
62 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tlie United States as her colonies, refused to admit them as parties 
 to the negotiation, as this would be a virtual recognition of their 
 independence. The American ambassadors refusing to appear in any 
 other character than that of ministers of an independent nation, the 
 mediation was ended. 
 
 In the summer of the next year, (1782,) parliament having passed an 
 act authorizing the king to negotiate a peace, the commissioners of the 
 different countries concerned, met for this purpose at Paris. When the 
 negotiation commenced. Dr. Franklin and Mr, Jay only were present. 
 After the negotiation had proceeded to an advanced stage, Mr. Adams 
 anived from Holland, having concluded a treaty with that government. 
 Mr. Laurens arrived from England two days before the treaty was signed. 
 Mr. Jefferson, owing to the illness of his wife, remained at home. The 
 sagacity, the firmness, and the diplomatic skill evinced by the American 
 commissioners who participated in the negotiation, have been seldom 
 surpassed. The result was favorable to the United States. All that 
 could reasonably be demanded, and more than there was ground to hope 
 for, was secured by the treaty. The United States acquired a guaranty 
 to the western lands back to the Mississippi, and north of the 31st degree 
 of north latitude, which was made the northern line of Florida on that 
 river. They were also to retain the right to the use of the fisheries on 
 the banks of Newfoundland, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in all 
 other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries had 
 been accustomed to fish. The British were to withdraw their armies, 
 ganisons, and fleets, from the United States, without unnecessary delay. 
 The navigation of the Mississippi, fi-om its head to the ocean, was to be 
 free to both parties. Creditors on both sides were to be pemiitted to 
 recover their debts in sterling money. 
 
 The treaty was signed by the parties on the 30th of November, and 
 was to take effect when peace should have been concluded between Great 
 Britain and France. Treaties between these countries and Spain were 
 signed on the 20th of January, 1783. On the 11th of April, congress 
 proclaimed a cessation of hostilities, and, on the 15th, ratified the treaty. 
 
 The achievement of the independence of the United States was not 
 immediately followed by the advantages that had been anticipated. It 
 soon became manifest that something more was essential to individual and 
 national prosperity. The system of government which had been adopted 
 during the war, was found to be ill adapted to a state of peace. The princi- 
 pal defect of the confederation consisted in its weakness. It intrusted to 
 congress the right to declare war ; but it did not confer upon that body 
 the power to raise the means of prosecuting a war. It was capable of 
 contracting debts, and of pledging the public faith for their payment ; 
 
 i 
 
FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENTS. 63 
 
 but it had not the means of discharging its obligations. Congress had 
 no power to lay taxes and collect revenue for the public service. It 
 could only ascertain the sums of money necessary to be raised, and appor- 
 tion to each state its quota or proportion. The power to lay and collect 
 the taxes was reserved to the states. 
 
 Hence it appears that the confederation had little more than advisory 
 powers ; and that the operations of the government depended upon the 
 good will of thirteen distinct and independent sovereignties. As a 
 natural consequence, delays in collecting taxes were not unfrequent. 
 Even during the war, under the pressure of a common danger, the requi- 
 sitions of congress upon the states for men and money to carry on the 
 war, were often either tardily obeyed, or entirely disregarded; and, but 
 for the loans which tvere fortunately obtained by congress from France 
 and Holland, it is doubtful whether the war could have been successfully 
 prosecuted. After the return of peace, congress was unable to obtain 
 from the states money sufficient to pay even the interest of the public 
 debt ; and the aflEairs of the country were in a state of extreme embar- 
 rassment. The federal treasury was empty ; the faith of the nation 
 broken ; the public credit sunk, or rapidly sinking, and the public 
 burthens increasing. 
 
 The congress of 1783, deeply solicitous for the honor and interests of 
 the nation, agreed upon a measure, the object of which was " to restore 
 and support public credit," by obtaining from the states " substantive 
 funds for funding the whole debt of the United States." These funds 
 were to be raised in part by duties on goods imported, and in part by 
 internal taxation. To the amount necessary for this purpose, each state 
 was to contribute in proportion to its population. 
 
 This measure was recommended to the several states, and the recom- 
 mendation was accompanied by an address prepared by a committee, con- 
 sisting of Mr. Madison, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Ellsworth, urging its 
 adoption by considerations of justice, good faith, and the national honor. 
 Gen. Washington also, in a letter addressed to the governors of the sev- 
 eral states on the condition of public affairs, took occasion to add the 
 weight of his influence to that of congress, in favor of the plan. Although 
 a favorable impression was made by this appeal from one who shared so 
 largely the public confidence and esteem, the recommendation did not 
 receive the assent of all the states. 
 
 Congress, however, continued to urge the measure upon the states, 
 until 1786, when the plan was materially modified. That part of it 
 which applied for the internal taxes having met with the greatest opposi- 
 tion, congi'ess, deeming a partial compliance with the original recom- 
 mendation highly desirable at such a crisis, requested authority " to carry 
 
;64 THE AMEKICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 into effect that part only which related to import duties." With this 
 request, the states, except New York, promptly complied. This state 
 also had passed an act on the subject, but denied to the federal govern- 
 ment the power to collect the duties. It reserved to itself not only this 
 right, but the right of paying the duties in its own bills of credit which 
 it had emitted, and which were liable to depreciation. The governor, 
 George. Clinton, was requested to call a special meeting of the legislature 
 to reconsider the subject. The governor replied, that he had power to 
 convene the legislature only on extraordinary occasions ; and as this sub- 
 ject had already been before them, the occasion was not one that would 
 authorize the calling of a special session : consequently the plan was 
 defeated. 
 
 Another material defect of the confederation, was the want of power 
 to regulate foreign and domestic commerce. Indispensable to the accom- 
 plishment of this object, is the power to establish a uniform system of 
 duties. Each state having reserved the right to regulate its own trade, 
 imposed upon f oreig-n productions, as well as upon those from its sister 
 states, such duties as its own exclusive interests seemed to dictate. 
 Hence, a rate of duties which was favorable to the citizens of one state, 
 was deemed by those of other states highly prejudicial to them. The 
 jealousies, rivalries, and mutual resentments to which this system gave 
 rise, caused apprehensions of serious collision between some of the states. 
 
 Foreign nations, availing themselves of the advantages to be derived 
 from the discordant legislation of the states, passed such laws as they 
 judged most hkely to destroy our commerce and to extend their own. The 
 rigorous pohcy of Great Britain operated more unfavorably than that of 
 any other nation. The trade with the British West India colonies was 
 prohibited ; and, by enforcing her navigation acts, which secured special 
 privileges to British shipping, our navigation was almost annihilated. 
 Foreign goods and vessels were freely admitted into the states, while 
 ours were heavily burthened with duties in foreign ports. American 
 trade being thus subject to the control of foreign legislation, the 
 prices of imported goods were enhanced, and those of our exports were 
 reduced at the will of foreigners ; and the little money still in the hands 
 of our citizens was rapidly passing into the pockets of British merchants 
 and manufacturers. 
 
 To counteract the eflEects of this system of Great Britain upon our 
 trade, it was deemed necessary to oppose her commerce with similar 
 restrictions. It was believed that restraints upon her trade would induce 
 her to relax the rigor of her policy. But the absence of all power in 
 the federal government to regulate commerce, and the difficulty of pre- 
 vailing upon thirteen independent rival states to coucui' in any effective 
 
INFRACTIOXS OF THE TEEATT OF PEACE. 55 
 
 measure of this kind, rendered the object hopeless. Congress recom- 
 mended to the states, (1784,) to authorize the general government, for 
 the term of fifteen years, to prohibit the importation- or exportation of 
 goods, in vessels belonging to, or navigated by, the subjects of any power 
 with whom the United States had not formed commercial treaties ; and 
 to prohibit the subjects of any foreign nation, unless authorized by 
 treaty, from importing into the United States any goods not the produce 
 or manufacture of the nation whose subjects they were. But the requi- 
 site power could not be obtained. 
 
 Endeavors were also made to obtain relief by forming commercial 
 treaties with foreign powers ; and commissioners were appointed for that 
 purpose. Principles upon which treaties were to be formed, drawn up 
 by Mr. JefEerson, were adopted ; and John Adams, Dr. Franklin, and 
 Mr. Jefferson, (the latter in the place of Mr. Jay, who was about to 
 return to the United States,) were authorized to negotiate treaties con- 
 formable to those principles. With none of the principal powers of 
 Europe, however, was any such treaty effected. In February, 1785, 
 John Adams, then in Europe, was appointed minister plenipotentiary to 
 Great Britain, to settle our commercial relations with that country upon 
 terms more advantageous to the United States, as well as to adjust cer- 
 tain other difficulties that had arisen between the two countries. But 
 the mission in respect to both objects was unsuccessful. Great Britain 
 having already every advantage she could desire, and aware that the 
 United States, under the confederation, could neither form a treaty that 
 would be oinding upon individual states, nor countervail her restrictive 
 policy, declined entering into a treaty by which she would be sure to 
 yield something without an equivalent. 
 
 The difficulties to which allusion has just been made, were the non- 
 fulfillment and alleged infractions of the treaty of peace. The United 
 States complained that the western military posts were still occupied by 
 the British, contrary to an express provision of the treaty ; and that the 
 retiring British army had carried away slaves belonging to the United 
 States. Great Britain, on the other hand, alleged that some of the states 
 had interposed obstacles to the collection of British debts, in violation 
 of a treaty stipulation ; and that certain other articles of the treaty 
 had not been observed. Congress, to remove all just ground of com- 
 plaint on the part of Great Britain, recommended to the states the repeal 
 of all laws repugnant to the treaty of peace, which was accordingly 
 done by all the states in which such laws existed. Mr. Adams continued 
 in England until October, 1787, when, the British court still declining 
 to enter into a commercial treaty, or even to appoint a minister to the 
 United States, he was, at his own request, recalled. 
 
66 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Soon after tte appointment of Mr. Adams, in 1785, Dr. Franklin, 
 minister to France, after an absence of nine years, having obtained leave 
 to return home, Mr. Jefferson was appointed in liis place. In March, 
 1784, Mr, Jay, in anticipation of his return from Europe, was appointed 
 secretaiy of foreign affairs, the oflBce having been vacated by the resigna- 
 tion of Mr. Livingston. 
 
 About this time a dispute arose with Spain concerning boundaries and 
 the navigation of the Mississippi. The Floiidas having been ceded to 
 Spain by Great Britain, the former claimed a more northern boundary 
 to her teiTitory, and the right to exclude Americans from the navigation 
 of the Mississippi. In the summer of 1785, a negotiation was com- 
 menced between Mr. Jay, secretary of foreign affairs, and the Spanish 
 minister, Don Diego Gardoqui, recently arrived. Without having reached 
 a conclusion before the formation of the constitution, the negotiation was 
 suspended, to be renewed under the new government. 
 
 The condition of the country had become almost desperate, and was 
 evidently approaching, if it had not already reached, a crisis. The im- 
 mense debt contracted by congress and the states individually, during 
 the war, was pressing heavily upon the people ; and their embarrassment 
 was -greatly increased by private indebtedness. Helief was attempted in 
 some states by the issue of paper money ; in others, personal property, 
 at an apprised value, was made a tender in payment of debts. 
 
 Driven to desperation by customs, taxes, and excises in the state of 
 Massachusetts, to meet the public engagements, and by pro^cutions at 
 law for private debts, a large number of the people in some parts of that 
 state rose in opposition to the laws. In several counties, proceedings in 
 the courts of justice were obstructed ; and fears were entertained that 
 the government would be overthrown. So formidable was the insurrec- 
 tion, that the federal government was applied to for aid in suppressing 
 it. But by the vigorous measures of the state authorities, the rebellion 
 was quelled without the aid of the general government. The insurgents 
 numbered about two thousand; Their chief leader was Daniel Shays. 
 Hence this occuiTence is usually designated, " Shays* rebellion," or 
 "Shays' insurrection.'* Fourteen of the insurgents were convicted of 
 treason, and sentenced to death ; and a large number were convicted of 
 sedition. But to such extent did they share the sympathies of the peo- 
 ple, as to render their execution unsafe. Moderate penalties only were 
 imposed. 
 
 The pecuniary distress of the country was greatly aggravated by 
 large importations of foreign goods, under circumstances which deprived 
 the people of the means of paying for them, and which it was impossible 
 to avoid. The narket for agricultural products which the armies of the 
 
CALL FOR A CONVENTION. 67 
 
 several belligerent nations had furnished during the war, no longer exist- 
 ed. Great Britain had not only subjected our products to ruinous duties 
 in her ports, but prohibited our trade with her West India colonies, 
 which had furnished the principal means of paying for British goods. 
 The non-importation and non-consumption agreements, and the war, had 
 created and encouraged domestic manufactures, which were now supplanted 
 by foreign fabrics, admitted almost duty free. The imports from Great 
 Britain, in 1784 and 1785, amounted in value to thirty millions of dollars, 
 while the exports from the United States to that country were only nine 
 millions ; and there was no power in the government to restrain this ex- 
 cessive importation, or to countervail the restrictions upon our commerce. 
 
 The impotence of the government began to appear soon after the 
 articles of confederation had been adopted ; and a convention to re\dse 
 and amend them was recommended by several of the state legislatures. 
 But this recommendation was not generally responded to. One of the 
 causes which prevented an earlier revision of the articles, was state 
 jealousy ; or, as expressed by Washington, " the disinclination of the 
 individual states to yield competent powers to congress for the federal 
 government, and their imreasonable jealousy of that body and of one 
 another." And as no alteration could be made without the assent of all 
 the states, there was little encouragement to any efforts for a convention. 
 
 No relief being expected from an amendment of the confederation, 
 the legislatures of Maryland and Virginia, in 1785, appointed commis- 
 sioners to form a compact respecting the navigation of the rivers Potomac 
 and Roanoke, and part of the Chesapeake bay. The commissioners met 
 at Alexandria, in March ; but for the want of adequate power to effect 
 any important object, they agreed to recommend to their respective 
 governments the appointment of new commissioners to make arrange- 
 ments, subject to the assent of congress, for maintaining a naval force in 
 the Chesapeake, and to fix a tariff of duties on imports which should be 
 enforced by the laws of both states. The legislature of Virginia, when 
 acting upon these propositions, passed a resolution requesting all the 
 states to send deputies to the meeting, to cooperate on the subject of 
 duties on imports. And a few days after, viz. : on the 21st of January, 
 1786, another resolution was adopted, proposing a convention of commis- 
 sioners from all the states, to take into consideration the state of trade, 
 and the expediency of a uniform system of commercial regulations for 
 their common interest and permanent harmony. The commissioners 
 met at Annapolis, in September, the place and time proposed. Only 
 Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, were 
 represented. Delegates were appointed by New Hampshire, Mas- 
 sachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, but they did not attend. 
 Finding their powers too limited, and the number of states represented 
 
68 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 too small to effect the objects contemplated, tlie convention framed a re- 
 port to be made to their respective states, and also to be laid before 
 congress, advising the calling of a general convention of deputies from 
 all the states, to meet in Philadelphia, on the 'second Monday in May, 
 1787, for a more extensive revision of the articles of confederation. 
 
 Virginia was the first state that appointed delegates to the proposed con- 
 vention, and was followed by several others before the report of the Annap- 
 olis convention was disposed of by congress. A resolution was passed by 
 that body in February, 1787, concurring in the recommendation for a con- 
 vention. Delegates were appointed by all the states except Rhode Island. 
 
 It has been already stated, that the states of New York and Virginia 
 had made cessions of their western lands to the general government. In 
 1783, congress requested that those states which had not already done 
 so, should cede portions of their territory, as a fund to aid in payment 
 of the public debt. Connecticut, in 1784, ceded her claim to all lands 
 lying one hundred and twenty miles west of the western boundary of 
 Pennsylvania — the portion reserved, being that which is known as the 
 Connecticut or "Western Reserve." Massachusetts ceded in 1785. 
 Having by these cessions come into possession of all the lands north- 
 west of the Ohio, congress, in July, 1787, while the constitutional con- 
 vention was in session, passed an ordinance establishing a form of 
 government for the inhabitants of the territory. 
 
 As early as 1784, Mr. Jefferson, then a member of congress, submit- 
 ted a plan of government for all the western territory, from the southern 
 to the northern boundary of the United States, all of which was ex- 
 pected to be ceded by the states claiming the same. By this plan, 
 seventeen states were to be formed from this territory. One of its pro- 
 visions was, "that, after the year 1800, there shall be neither slavery 
 nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, other than in the 
 punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." 
 The report, embraced in a series of resolutions, was adopted, except the 
 proviso ; which, not having seven states in its favor, was struck out. The 
 four New England states, with New York and Pennsylvania, voted for 
 it; Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina against it. North Carolina 
 was divided ; New Jersey had only one delegate present, and therefore 
 had no vote ; and Delaware and Georgia were absent. This rejected 
 provision was again proposed, the next year, by Mr. Rufus King, (then 
 of Massachusetts,) with the additional provision, "that this regulation 
 shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of 
 the constitutions between the thirteen original states, and each of the 
 states described in the resolve." The proposition again failed. 
 
 The ordinance of 1787, embracing in part the plan submitted by Mr. 
 Jefferson, in 1784, was reported by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts. 
 
MR. Jefferson's anti-slavery proviso. 69 
 
 The legislative, executive, and judicial powers were vested in a governor 
 and three judges, who, with a secretary, were to be appointed by congress ; 
 the governor for three years, the judges during good behavior. The 
 laAvs of the territory were to be such laws of the original states, as the 
 governor and judges should think proper to adopt. These laws were to 
 be in force until disapproved by congress. When the territory should 
 contain five thousand free male inhabitants of full age, there was to be a 
 legislature, to consist of two branches ; a house of representatives, the 
 members to be chosen from the several counties or townships, for the 
 term of two years, and a legislative council of five persons who were to 
 hold their oftices for five years, and to be appointed by congress out of 
 ten persons previously nominated by the house of representatives of the 
 territory. All laws were required to be consistent with the ordinance, 
 and to have the assent of the governor. The ordinance concludes with 
 six articles of compact between the original states and the people of the 
 territory, to be unalterable except by common consent. The first secured 
 entire religious freedom ; the second, trial by jury, the writ of habeas 
 corpus, and the other fundamental rights usually inserted in bills of rights ; 
 "the third provided for the encouragement and support of schools, and en- 
 joined good faith towards the Indians ; the fourth placed the new states to 
 be formed out of the territory upon an equal footing with the old ones, both 
 in respect to their privileges and their burdens, and reserved to the Uni- 
 ted States the right to dispose of the soil ; the fifth authorized the future 
 division of the territory into not less than three nor more than five states, 
 each state to be admitted into the union, when it should contain sixty 
 thousand free inhabitants ; the sixth was the anti-slavery proviso intro- 
 duced by Mr. Jefferson in IVSI, so modified, however, as to take effect 
 immediately. 
 
 This ordinance, which left the territory south of the Ohio, (then not 
 yet ceded,) subject to future regulation, received the unanimous vote of 
 the eight states present : Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Dela- 
 ware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. One 
 member only (Mr. Yates, of New York) voted in the negative ; that 
 state being determined in the affirmative by the votes of his two col- 
 leagues. This unanimous support of this measure by the southern 
 states present, is variously accounted for. Mr. Benton, (View, vol. 1, p. 
 135,) says : " The fact is, that the south only delayed its vote for the anti- 
 slavery clause in the ordinance for want of the provision in favor of re- 
 covering fugitives from service." If so, his information is derived from 
 some other source than the journals of congress. In the absence of 
 positive information, the more probable reason is, that Mr. Jefferson's 
 proposition embraced the territory south of the Ohio, from which, it is 
 presumed, the south did not wish slavery to be excluded. 
 
CHAPTEE lY. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION IN FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 The day appointed for the assembling of the convention to revise the 
 articles of confederation, was the 14th of May, 1787. Delegations 
 from a majority of the states did not attend until the 25th; on which 
 day the business of the convention commenced. The delegates from 
 New Hampshire did not arrive until the 23d of July. Rhode Island 
 did not appoint delegates. 
 
 A political body combining greater talents, wisdom, and patriotism, 
 or whose labors have produced results more beneficial to the cause of 
 civil and religious liberty, has probably never assembled. The two most 
 distinguished members were Washington and Franklin; to whom the 
 eyes of the convention were directed for a presiding officer. Washington, 
 having been nominated by Lewis Morris, of Pennsylvania, was elected 
 president of the convention. William Jackson was appointed secretary. 
 
 The rules of proceeding adopted by the convention, were chiefly tlie 
 same as those of congress. A quorum was to consist of the deputies of 
 at least seven states; and all questions were to be decided by the greater 
 number of those which were fully represented — at least tAvo delegates 
 being necessary to constitute a full representation. Another rule was 
 the injunction of secrecy upon all their proceedings. 
 
 The first important question determined by the convention was, 
 whether the confederation should be amended, or a new government 
 formed. The delegates of some states had been instructed only to amend. 
 And the resolution of congress sanctioning the call for a convention, 
 recommended it " for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles 
 of confederation." A majority, however, considering the plan of con- 
 federation radically defective, resolved to form " a national government, 
 consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive." The ob- 
 jections to the new system on the ground of previous instructions, was 
 deemed of little weight, as any plan that might be agreed on, would 
 necessarily be submitted to the people of the states for ratification. 
 
 In conformity with this decision, Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, on 
 the 29th of May, offered fifteen resolutions, containing the outlines of a 
 plan of government for the consideration of the convention. These 
 
FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 61 
 
 resolutions proposed — That the voice of each state in the national legis- 
 lature, should be in proportion to its taxes, or to its free population, 
 that the legislature should consists of two branches, the members of the 
 first to be elected by the people of the states, those of the second to b^ 
 chosen by the members of the first, out of a proper number of persons 
 nominated by the state legislatures ; and the national legislature to be 
 vested with all the powers of congress under the confederation, with the 
 additional power to legislate in all cases to which the separate states 
 were incompetent ; to negative all state laws which should, in the opinion 
 of the national legislature, be repugnant to the articles of union, or to 
 any treaty subsisting under them ; to call out the force of the union 
 against any state refusing to fulfill its duty : 
 
 That there should be a national exec\itive, to be chosen by the national 
 legislature, and to be ineligible a second time. The executive, with a 
 convenient number of the national judiciary, was to constitute a council 
 of revision, with a qualified negative upon all laws, state and national : 
 
 A national judiciary, the judges to hold their ofiices during good 
 behavior. 
 
 In discussing this plan, called the " Virginia plan," the lines of party 
 were distinctly drawn. We have already had occasion to allude to the 
 jealousy, on the part of states, of the power of the general government. 
 A majority of the peculiar friends of state rights in the convention, were 
 from the small states. These states, apprehending danger from the 
 overwhelming power of a strong national government, as well as from the 
 combined power of the large states represented in proportion to their 
 wealth and population, were unwilling to be deprived of their equal 
 vote in Congress. Not less strenuously did the friends of the national 
 plan insist on a proportional representation. This opposition of senti- 
 ment, which divided the convention into parties, did not terminate with 
 the proceedings of that body, but has at times marked the politics of the 
 nation, down to the present day. It is worthy of remark, however, that 
 the most jealous regard for state rights now prevails in states in which 
 the plan of a national government then found its ablest and most zealous 
 advocates. 
 
 The plan suggested by Mr. Randolph's resolutions, was the subject 
 of deliberation for about two weeks, when, having been in several respects 
 modified in committee, and reduced to form, it was reported to the house. 
 It contained the following provisions : 
 
 A national legislature to consist of two branches, the first to be elected 
 by the people for three years ; the second to be chosen by the state 
 legislatures for seven years, the members of both branches to be appor- 
 tioned on the basis finally adopted ; the legislature to possess powers 
 
62 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 neany tlie same as those originally proposed by Mr. Randoljili, The 
 executive was to consist of a single person to be chosen by the national 
 legislature for seven years, and limited to a single term, and to have a 
 qualified veto ; all bills not approved by him, to be passed by a vote of. 
 three-fourths of both houses in order to become laws. A national judi- 
 ciary to consist of a supreme court, the judges to be appointed by the 
 second branch of the legislature for the term of good behavior, and of 
 such inferior courts as congress might think proper to establish. 
 
 This plan being highly objectionable to the state rights party, a scheme 
 agreeable to their views was submitted by Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey. 
 This scheme, called the " New Jersey plan," proposed no alteration in 
 the constitution of the legislature, but simply to give it the additional 
 power, to raise a revenue by duties on foreign goods imported, and by 
 stamp and postage taxes; to regulate trade with foreign nations and 
 among the states ; and, when requisitions made upon the states were not 
 complied Avith, to collect them by its own authority. The plan proposed 
 a federal executive, to consist of a number of person selected by congress ; 
 and a federal judiciary, the judges to be appointed by the executive, and 
 to hold their offices during good behavior. 
 
 The Virginia and New Jersey plans were now (June 19th) referred 
 to a new committee of the whole. Another debate arose, in which the 
 powers of the convention was the principal subject of discussion. It was 
 again urged that their power had been, by express instruction, limited to 
 an amendment of the existing confederation, and that the new system 
 would not be adopted by the states. The vote was taken on the 1 9th, 
 and the propositions of Mr. Patterson were rejected ; only New York, 
 New Jersey, and Delaware, voting in the affirmative ; seven states in the 
 negative ; and the members from Maryland equally divided. 
 
 Mr. Randolph's propositions, as modified and reported by the com- 
 mittee of the whole, were now taken up and considered separately. The 
 division of the legislature into two branches, a house of representatives 
 and a senate, was agreed to almost unanimously, one state only, Penn- 
 sylvania, dissenting; but the proposition to apportion the members to 
 the states according to population, was violently opposed. The small 
 states insisted strenuously on retaining an equal vote in. the legislature ; 
 but at length consented to a proportional representation in the house, on 
 condition that they should have an equal vote in the senate. 
 
 Accordingly, on the 29th of June, Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, ' 
 offered a motion, " that in the second branch, each state shall have an 
 equal vote." This motion gave rise to a protracted and vehement de- 
 bate. It was supported by Messrs. Ellsworth, Baldwin, of Georgia, 
 Bradford, of Delaware, and others. It was urged on the ground of the 
 
FORMING THE CONSTITUTION, 63 
 
 necessity of a compromise between tlie friends of the confederation and 
 those of a national government, and as a measure which would secure 
 tranquillity, and meet the objections of the larger states. Equal repre- 
 sentation in one branch would make the government partly federal, and 
 a proportional representation in the other, would make it partly national. 
 Equality in the second branch would enable the small states to protect 
 themselves against the combined power of the large states. Fears were 
 expressed, that without this advantage to the small states, it would be in 
 the power of a few large states to control the rest. The small states, it 
 was said, must possess this power of self-defense, or be ruined. 
 
 The motion was opposed by Messrs. Madison, Wilson, of Pennsylvania, 
 King, of Massachusetts, and Dr. Franklin. Mr. Madison thought there 
 was no danger from the quarter from which it was apprehended. The 
 great source of danger to the general government was the opposing inter- 
 ests of the north and the south, as would appear from the votes' of congress, 
 which had been divided by geographical lines, not according to the size 
 of the states. Mr. Wilson objected to state equality, that it would 
 enable one-fourth of the union to control three-fourths. Respecting the 
 danger of the three larger states combining together to give rise to a mon- 
 archy or an aristocracy, he thought it more probable that a rivalship would 
 exist between them, than that they would unite in a confederacy. Mr. 
 King said the rights of Scotland were secure from all danger, though in the 
 parliament she had a small representation. Dr. Franklin, (now in his 
 eighty-second year) said as it was not easy to see what the greater states 
 could gain by swallowing up the smaller ; he did not apprehend they 
 would attempt it. In voting by states — the mode then existing — it was 
 equally in the power of the smaller states to swallow up the greater. He 
 thought the number of representatives ought to bear some proportion to 
 the number of the represented. 
 
 On the 2d of July, the question was taken on Mr. Ellsworth's motion 
 and lost — Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Mary- 
 land, voting in the affirmative ; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
 North Carolina, and South Carolina, in the negative ; Georgia divided. 
 It Avill be remembered, that the delegates from New Hampshire were 
 not yet present, and that Rhode Island had appointed none. This has 
 been regarded by some as a fortunate circumstance ; as the votes of 
 these two small states would probably have given an equal vote to the 
 states in both houses, if not have defeated the plan of a national govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The excitement now became intense, and the convention seemed to be 
 on the point of dissolution. Luther Martin, of Maryland, who had 
 taken a leading part in advocating the views of the state rights party,. 
 
64 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 said each state must have an equal vote, or the business of the conven- 
 tion was at an end. It having become apparent that this unhappy result 
 could be avoided only by a compromise, Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, 
 moved the appointment of a committee of conference, to consist of one 
 member from each state, and the motion prevailed. The convention 
 then adjourned for three days, thus giving time for consultation, and an 
 opportunity to celebrate the anniversary of independence. 
 
 The report of this committee, which was made on the 5th of July, 
 proposed, (1.) That in the first branch of the legislature, each state 
 should have one representative for every forty thousand inhabitants, 
 (three-fifths of the slaves being counted ;) that each state not containing 
 that number should be allowed one representative ; and that money bills 
 should originate in this branch. (2.) That in the second branch each 
 state should have one vote. These propositions were reported, it is said, 
 at the suggestion of Dr. Franklin, one of the committee of conference. 
 
 The report, of course, met with greater favor from the state rights 
 party, than from their opponents. The equal vote in the senate continued 
 to receive the most determined opposition from the national party. In 
 relation to the rule of representation in the first branch of the legis- 
 lature, also, a great diversity of opinion prevailed. The conflicting 
 interests to be reconciled in the settlement of this question, however, 
 were those of the northern and southern, commercial and planting, rather 
 than the imaginary interests of small and large states. 
 
 In settling a rule of apportionment, several questions were to be con- 
 sidered. What should be the number of representatives in the first 
 branch of the legislature ? Ought the number from each state to be 
 fixed, or to increase with the increase of population ? Ought population 
 alone to be the basis of apportionment 2 or should property be taken 
 into account? Whatever rule might be adopted, no apportionment 
 founded upon population could be made until an enumeration of the 
 inhabitants should have been taken. The number of representatives 
 was therefore, for the time being, fixed at sixty-five, and apportioned as 
 directed by the constitution. [Art. I, § 2.] 
 
 In establishing a rule of future apportionment, great diversity of 
 opinion was expressed. Although slavery then existed in all the states 
 except Massachusetts, the great mass of the slave population was in the 
 southern states. These states claimed a representation according to 
 numbers, bond and free, while the northern states were in favor of a 
 representation according to the number of free persons only. This rule 
 was forcibly urged by several of the northern delegates. Mr. Patterson 
 regarded slaves only as property. They were not represented in the 
 states ; why should they be in the general government ? They were not 
 
FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. j65 
 
 allowed to vote ; why sliould they be represented ? It was an encour- 
 agement of the slave trade. Said Mr. Wilson : " Are they admitted as 
 citizens ? then why not on an equality with citizens ? Are they admitted 
 as property ? then why is not other property admitted into the computa- 
 tion ? " A large portion of the members of the convention, from both 
 sections of the union, aware that neither extreme could be carried, 
 favored the proposition to count the -whole number of free citizens and 
 three-fifths of all others. 
 
 Prior to this discussion, a select committee, to whom this subject had 
 been referred, had reported in favor of a distribution of the members on 
 the basis of wealth and numbers, to be regTilated by the legislature. 
 Before the question was taken on this report, a proviso was moved and 
 agreed to, that direct taxes should be in proportion to representation. 
 Subsequently a proposition was moved for reckoning three-fifths of the 
 slaves in estimating taxes, and making taxation the basis of representa- 
 tion, which was adopted ; New Jersey and Delaware against it, Massa- 
 chusetts and South Carolina divided ; New York not represented, her 
 three delegates being all absent. Yates and Lansing, both of the state 
 rights party, considering their powers explicitly confined to a re\dsion of 
 the confederation, and being chagrined at the defeat of their attempts to 
 secure an equal vote in the first branch of the legislature, had left the 
 convention, not to return. From that time, (July 11th,) New York had 
 no vote in the convention. Mr. Hamilton had left before the others, to 
 be absent six weeks ; and though he returned, and took part in the 
 deliberations, the state, not having two delegates present, was not enti- 
 tled to a vote. On the 23d, Oilman and Langdon, the delegates from 
 New Hampshire, arrived, when eleven states were again represented. 
 
 The term of service of members of the first branch was reduced to 
 two years, and of those of* the second branch, to six years; one- 
 third of the members of the latter to go out of office every two years ; 
 the representation in this body to consist of two members from each 
 state, voting individually, as in the othei branch, and not by states, as 
 under the confederation. Sundry other modifications were made in the 
 provisions relating to this department. 
 
 The reported plan of the executive department was next considered. 
 After much discussion, and several attempts to strike out the ineligibility 
 of the executive a second time, and to change the term of office, and the 
 mode of election, these provisions were retained. 
 
 The report of the committee of the whole, as amended, was accepted 
 by the convention, and, together with the New Jersey plan, and a third 
 drawn by Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, was referred to a com- 
 mittee of detail, consisting of Messrs. Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, 
 
66 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Ellsworth, and Wilson, who, on the 6th of August, after an adjournment 
 of ten days, reported the constitution in proper form, having inserted some 
 new provisions, and altered certain others. Our prescribed limits forbid 
 a particular account of the subsequent alterations which the constitution 
 received before it was finally adopted by the convention. There is one 
 provision, however, which, as it forms one of the great " compromises of 
 the constitution," deserves notice. ' 
 
 To render the constitution acceptable to the southern states which 
 were the principal exporting states, the committee of detail had inserted 
 a clause, providing, that no duties should be laid on exports, or on slaves 
 imported ; and another, that no navigation act might be passed, except 
 by a two-thirds vote. By depriving congress of the power of giving 
 any preference to American over foreign shipping, it was designed to 
 secure cheap transportation to southern exports. • As the shipping was 
 principally owned in the eastern states, their delegates were equally 
 anxious to prevent any restriction of the power of congress to pass navi- 
 gation laws. All the states, except North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
 Georgia, had prohibited the importation of slaves ; and North Carolina 
 had proceeded so far as to discourage the importation by heavy duties. 
 The prohibition of duties on the importation of slaves was demanded by 
 the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, who declared that, with- 
 out a provision of this kind, the constitution would not receive the assent 
 of these states: The support which the proposed restriction received 
 from other states, was given to it from a disposition to compromise, 
 rather than from an approval of the measure itself. The proposition 
 not only gave rise to a discussion of its own merits, but revived the 
 opposition to the apportionment of representatives according to the three- 
 fifths ratio, and called forth some severe denunciations of slavery. 
 
 Mr. King, in reference to the admission of slaves as a part of the 
 representative population, remarked : " He had not made a strenuous op- 
 position to it heretofore, because he had hoped that this concession would 
 have produced a readiness, which had not been manifested, to strengthen 
 the general government. The report of the committee put an end to all 
 those hopes. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited, ex- 
 ports could not be taxed. If slaves are to be imported, shall not the ex- 
 ports produced by their labor supply a revenue to help the government 
 defend their masters ? There was so much inequality and unreasonable- 
 ness in all this, that the people of the northern states could never be 
 reconciled to it. He had hoped that some accommodation would have 
 taken place on the subject ; that at least a time would have been lijnited 
 for the importation of slaves. He could never agree to let them be im- 
 ported without limitation, and then be represented in the national legis- 
 
FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 67 
 
 lature. Either slaves should not be represented, or exports should be 
 taxable." 
 
 Gouvemeur Morris pronounced slavery "a nefarious institution. It 
 was the curse of Heaven on the states where it prevailed. Compare the 
 free regions of the middle states, where a rich and noble cultivation 
 marks the prosperity and happiness of the people, with the misery and 
 poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and 
 the other states having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and 
 you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and dis- 
 appearance of slavery. * * * The admission of slaves into the repre- 
 sentation, when fairly explained, comes to this, that the inhabitant of 
 Georgia and South Carolina, who goes to the coast of Africa in defiance 
 of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow-creatures 
 from their dearest connections, and damns them to the most cruel bond- 
 age, shall have more votes in a government instituted for the protection 
 of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania and New 
 Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice. * * * 
 And what is the proposed compensation to the northern states for a 
 sacrifice of every principle of right, every impulse of humanity ? They 
 are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defense of the 
 southern states, against those very slaves of whom they complain. The 
 legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises and duties 
 on imports, both of which will fall heavier on them than on the southern 
 inhabitants ; for the Bohea tea used by a northern freeman, will pay 
 more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which con- 
 sists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag which 
 covers his nakedness. On the other side, the southern states are not to 
 be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at 
 once to increase the danger of attack and the difficulty of defense; 
 nay, they are to be encouraged to it by an assurance of having their 
 votes in the national government increased in proportion, and at the 
 same time, are to have their slaves and their exports exempt from all 
 contributions to the public service." Mr. Morris moved to make the 
 free population alone the basis of representation. 
 
 Mr. Sherman, who had on other occasions manifested a disposition to 
 compromise, again favored the southern side. He " did not regard the 
 admission of the negroes as liable to such insuperable objections. It was 
 the freemen of the southern states who were to be represented according 
 to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are only included in the esti- 
 mate of the taxes." 
 
 After some farther discussion, the question was taken upon Mr. 
 Moms' motion, and lost. New Jersey only voting for it. 
 
68 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 With respect to prohibiting any restriction upon the importation of 
 slaves, Mr. Martin, of Maryland, who moved to allow a tax upon slaves 
 imported, remarked : " As five slaves in the apportionment of representa- 
 tives were reckoned as equal to three freemen, such a permission amounted 
 to an encouragement of the slave trade. Slaves weakened the union 
 which the other parts were bound to protect ; the privilege of importing 
 them was therefore unreasonable. Such a feature in the constitution was 
 inconsistent with the principles of the revolution, and dishonorable to the 
 American character." 
 
 Mr. Rutledge " did not see how this section would encourage the im- 
 portation of slaves. He was not apprehensive of insurrections, and 
 would readily exempt the other states from every obligation to protect 
 the south. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. 
 Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question 
 at present is, whether the southern states shall or shall not be parties to 
 the union. If the northern states consult their interest, they will not 
 oppose the increase of slaves, which will increase the commodities of 
 which they will become the carriers." 
 
 Mr. Ellsworth said: "Let every state import what it pleases. The 
 morality or wisdom of slavery is a consideration belonging to the states. 
 What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the states are the best 
 judges of their particular interests." 
 
 Mr. C. Pinckney said : " South Carolina can never receive the plan if 
 it prohibits the slave trade. If the states be left at liberty on this sub- 
 ject. South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees, do of herself what is 
 wished, as Maryland and Virginia already have done." 
 
 Mr. Sherman concuiTed with his colleague, (Mr; Ellsworth.) " He 
 disapproved the slave trade ; but as the states now possessed the right, 
 and the public good did not require it to be taken away ; and as it was 
 expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme 
 of government, he would leave the matter as he found it. The abolition 
 of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States, and the good sense 
 of the several states would probably, by degrees, soon complete it." 
 
 Mr. Mason said : " Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The 
 poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immi- 
 gration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They 
 produce a pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born 
 a petty tyrant. They bring the judg-ment of Heaven on a country. He 
 lamented that some of our eastern brethren, from a lust of gain, had em- 
 barked in this nefarious traffic. As to the states being in possession of 
 the right to import, that was the case of many other rights now to be 
 given up. He held it essential, in every point of \-iew, that the general 
 government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery." 
 
FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 69 
 
 Mr. EUswortli, not well pleased witli this thrust at his slave-trading 
 friends at the north, by a slave holder, tartly replied : " As I have never 
 owned a slave, I can not judge of the effects of slavery on character; 
 but if slavery is to be considered in a moral light, the convention ought 
 to go further, and free those already in the country." The opposition 
 of Virginia and Maryland to the importation of slaves he attributed to 
 the fact, that, on account of their rapid increase in those states, " it was 
 cheaper to raise them there than to import them, while in the sickly rice 
 swamps foreign supplies were necessary. If we stop short with prohibit- 
 ing their importation, we shall be unjust to South Carolina and Georgia, 
 Let us not interaieddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be 
 so plenty a.s to render slaves useless. Slavery, in time, will not be a 
 speck in our country." 
 
 Delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, repeated the declaration, 
 that, if the slave trade were prohibited, these states would not adopt the 
 constitution. Virginia, it was said, would gain by stopping the impor- 
 tation, she having slaves to sell ; but it would be unjust to South Caro- 
 lina and Georgia, to be deprived of the right of importing. Besides, 
 the importation of slaves would be a benefit to the whole union. The 
 moi'e slaves, the more produce, the greater carrying trade, the more con- 
 sumption, the more revenue." 
 
 The injustice of exempting slaves from duty, while every other import 
 was subject to it, having been urged by several members in the course of 
 the debate, C. Pinckney expressed his consent to a tax not exceeding the 
 same on other imports, and moved to refer the subject to a committee. 
 The motion was seconded by Mr. Rutledge, and at the suggestion of G. 
 Morris, was so modified as to include the clauses relating to navigation 
 laws and taxes on exports. The commitment was opposed by Messrs. 
 Sherman and Ellsworth ; the former on the ground that taxes on slaves 
 imported implied that they were property ; the latter from the fear of 
 losing two states. Mr. Randolph was in favor of the motion, hoping to 
 find some middle ground upon which they could unite. The motion pre- 
 vailed, and the subject was referred to a committee of one from each 
 state. The committee retained the prohibition of duties on exports; 
 struck out the restriction on the enactment of navigation laws ; and left 
 the importation of shives unrestricted, until the year 1800; permitting 
 congress, however, to impose a duty upon the importation. 
 
 The debate upon this report of the grand committee, is condensed, by 
 Hildreth, into the two following paragraphs : 
 
 "Williamson declared himself, both in opinion and practice, against 
 slavery ; but he thought it more in favor of humanity from a view of 
 all circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on these terms. 
 
■'10 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 than to exclude them from the union. Sherman again objected to the 
 tax, as acknowledging men to be property. Gorham replied, that the 
 duty ought to be considered, not as implying that men are property, but 
 as a discouragement to their importation. Sherman said the duty was 
 too small to bear that character. Madison thought it " wrong to admit, 
 in the constitution, the idea that there could be property in man ; " and 
 the phraseology of one clause was subsequently altered to avoid any such 
 implication. G. Morris objected that the clause gave congress power to 
 tax freemen imported; to which Mason replied, that such a power was 
 necessary to prevent the importation of convicts. A motion to extend 
 the time 'from 1800 to 1808, made by C. C. Pinckney, and seconded by 
 Gorham, was carried against New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and 
 Virginia; Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire voting this 
 time with Georgia and South Carolina. The part of the report which 
 struck out the restriction on the enactment of navigation acts, was opposed 
 by Charles Pinckney in a set speech, in which he enumerated five distinct 
 commercial interests ; the fisheries and West India trade, belonging to 
 New England ; the interest of New York in a free trade ; wheat and 
 flour, the staples of New Jersey and Pennsylvania ; tobacco, the staple of 
 Maryland and Virginia, and partly of North Carolina ; rice and indigo, 
 the staples of South Carolina and Georgia. The same ground was taken 
 by Williamson and Mason, and very warmly by Randolph, who declared 
 that an unlimited power in congress to enact navigation laws, ' would 
 complete the deformity of a system having already so many odious fea- 
 tures, that he hardly knew if he could agree to it.' Any restriction of 
 the power of congress over commerce was warmly opposed by Gouverneur 
 Morris, Wilson and Gorham. Madison also took the same side. C. C. 
 Pinckney did not deny that it was the true interest of the south to have 
 no regulation of commerce ; but considering the commercial losses of the 
 eastern states during the revolution, their liberal conduct toward the 
 views of South Carolina, (in the vote just taken, giving eight years' fur- 
 ther extension to the slave trade,) and the interest of the weak southern 
 states in being united with the strong eastern ones, he should go against 
 any restriction on the power of commercial regulation. ' He had him- 
 self prejudices against the eastern states before he came here, but would 
 acknowledge that he found them as liberal and candid as any men what- 
 ever.' Butler and Rutledge took the same ground, and the same report 
 was adopted, against the votes of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 
 and Georgia. 
 
 " Thus, by an understanding, or, as Gouverneur Morris called it, ' a 
 bargain,' between the commercial representatives of the northern states, 
 and the delegates of South Carolina and Georgia, and in spite of the 
 
FORMING THE CONSTITUTION. 71 
 
 opposition of Maryland and Virginia, the unrestricted power of congress 
 to pass navigation laws was conceded to the northern merchants, and to 
 the Carolina rice planters, as an equivalent, twenty years' continuance 
 of the African slave-trade. This was the third great compromise of the 
 constitution. The other two were the concessions to the smaller states 
 of an equal representation in the senate, and, to the slaveholders, the 
 counting of three-fifths of the slaves in determining the ratio of repre- 
 sentation. If this third compromise differed from the other two by in- 
 volving not only a political, but a moral sacrifice, there was this partial 
 compensation about it, that it was not permanent, like the others, but 
 expired at the end of twenty years by its own limitation." 
 
 Of the important subjects remaining to be disposed of, that of the exe- 
 cutive department was, perhaps, the most diificult. The modified plan 
 of Mr. Randolph left the executive to be elected by the legislature for 
 a single term of seven years. The election was subsequently given to a 
 college of electors, to be chosen in the states in such manner as the legis- 
 latures of the states should direct. The term of service was reduced 
 from seven to four years ; and the restriction of the office to a single 
 term was removed. Numerous other amendments and additions were 
 made in going through with the draft. This amended draft was referred, 
 for final revision, to a committee consisting of Messrs. Hamilton, John- . 
 son, G. Morris, Madison, and King. Several amendments were made, 
 even after this revision ; one of which was the substitution of a two- 
 thirds for the three-fourths majority required to pass bills against the 
 veto of the president. Another was a proposition of Mr. Gorham, to 
 reduce the minimum ratio of representation from 40,000, as it stood, to 
 30,000, intending to conciliate certain members who thought the house too 
 small. This was offered the day on which the constitution was signed. 
 Gen. Washington having briefly addressed the convention in favor of the 
 proposed amendment, it was carried almost unanimously. 
 
 The whole number of delegates who attended the convention, was 
 fifty-five, of whom thirty-nine signed the constitution. Of the remaining 
 sixteen, some had left the convention before its close ; others refused to 
 give it their sanction. Several of the absentees were known to be in 
 favor of the constitution. 
 
 Some, as has been observed, were opposed to the plan of a national 
 government, contending for the preservation of the confederation, with a 
 mere enlargement of its powers ; others, though in favor of the plan 
 adopted, believed too much power had been given to the general govern- 
 ment. Some thought that not only the powers of congress, but those 
 of the executive, were too extensive ; others, that the executive was 
 " weak and contemptible," and without sufficient power to defend him- 
 
72 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 self against encroacTiiiients, by tlie legislature; others still, that the 
 executive power of the nation ought not to be intrusted to a single person. 
 Although some deprecated the extensive powers of the federal govern- 
 ment as dangerous to the rights of the states, " ultra democracy " seems 
 to have had no representatives in the convention ; while, on the other 
 hand, there were not a few who thought it unsafe to trust the people 
 with a direct exercise of power in the general government. Sherman 
 and Gerry were opposed to the election of the first branch of the legis- 
 lature by the people ; as were some of the southern delegates. Others, 
 among whom were Madison, Mason, and Wilson, thought no republican 
 government could be permanent in which the people were denied a direct 
 voice in the election of their representatives. Hamilton, though in favor 
 of making the first branch elective, proposed that the senate should be 
 chosen by electors chosen by the people, and the executive by electors 
 chosen by electors, who were to be chosen by the people in districts; sen- 
 ators and the president both to hold their offices during good behavior. He 
 was also, as were a few others, in favor of an absolute executive veto 6n 
 acts of the legislature. He, however, signed the constitution, and urged 
 others to do the same, as the only means of preventing anarchy and 
 confusion. While the proposed constitution was in every particular 
 satisfactory to none, very few were disposed to jeopard the union by the 
 continuance of a system which all admitted to be inadequate to the 
 objects of the union. To the hope, therefore, of finding the new plan an 
 improvement on the old, and of amending its defects if any should appear, 
 is to be attributed the general sanction which it received. 
 
 It is indeed remarkable, that a plan of government, containing so many 
 provisions to which the most strenuous opposition was maintained to the 
 end, should have received the signatures of so large a majority of the 
 convention. Perhaps there never was another political body, in wliich 
 views and interests more varied and opposite have been represented, or 
 a greater diversity of opinion has prevailed. 
 
 Nor is it less remarkable, that a system deemed so imperfect, not only 
 by the mass of its fi'amers, but by a large portion of the eminent men 
 who composed the state conventions that ratified it, should have been 
 found to answer so fully the purpose of its formation, as to require, dur- 
 ing an experiment of more than sixty yeare, no essential alteration ; and 
 that it should be esteemed as a model fonn of republican government by 
 the enlightened friends of freedom in all countries. Not a single provis- 
 ion of the constitution, as it came from the hands of the framers, except 
 that which prescribed the mode of electing a president and vice-president, 
 has received the slightest amendment. Of the twelve articles styled 
 amendments, the first eleven are merely additions ; some of which were 
 
RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 'IB 
 
 intended to satisfy the scruples of those who objected to the constitution 
 as incomplete without a bill of rights, supposing their common law rights 
 would be rendered more secure by an express guaranty ; others are ex- 
 planatory of certain provisions of the constitution which were considered 
 liable to misconstruction. The twelfth article is the amendment changing 
 the mode of electing the president and vice-president. 
 
 In the differences of opinion between the friends and opponents of the 
 constitution, originated the two great political parties into which the 
 people were divided during a period of about thirty years. It is gener- 
 ally supposed that the term " Federalist" was first applied to those who 
 advocated the plan of the present constitution. This opinion, however, 
 is not correct. Those members of the convention who were in favor of 
 the old plan of union, which was a simple confederation or federal 
 alliance of equal independent states, were called federalists, and their 
 opponents anti-federalists. After the new constitution had been submit- 
 ted to the people for ratification, its friends, regarding its adoption 
 indispensable to union, took the name of federalists, and bestowed 
 upon the other party that of anti-federalists, intimating that to oppose 
 the adoption of the constitution was to oppose any union of the states. 
 
 The new constitution bears date the l7th of September, 1787. It 
 Avas immediately transmitted to congress, with a recommendation to that 
 body to submit it to state conventions for ratification, which was accord- 
 ingly done. It was adopted by Delaware, December 7 ; by Pennsylvania, 
 December 12; by New Jersey, December 18; by Georgia, January 2, 
 1788; by Connecticut, January 9; by Massachusetts, February 7; by 
 Maryland, April 28 ; by South Carolina, May 23 ; by New Hampshire, 
 June 21 ; which, being the ninth ratifying state, gave effect to the con- 
 stitution. Virginia ratified June 27 ; New York, July 26 ; and North 
 Carolina, conditionally, August 7. Rhode Island did not call a con- 
 vention. 
 
 In Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, the new constitution 
 encountered a most formidable opposition, which rendered its adoption 
 by these states for a time extremely doubtful. In their conventions 
 were men on both sides who had been members of the national conven- 
 tion, associated with others of distinguished abilities. In Massachusetts 
 there were several adverse influences which would probably have defeated 
 the ratification in that state, had it not been accompanied by certain pro- 
 posed amendments to be submitted by congress to the several states for 
 ratification. The adoption of these by the convention gained for the 
 constitution the support of Hancock and Samuel Adams ; and the 
 question on ratification was carried by one hundred and eighty-seven 
 against one hundred and sixty-eight. 
 
74 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 In the Virginia convention, the constitution was opposed by Patrick 
 Henry, James Monroe, and George Mason, the last of whom had been 
 one of the convention of framers. On the other side were John Mar- 
 shall, Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Madison, George Wythe, and Edmund Ran- 
 dolph, the three last also having been members of the national conven- 
 tion. Mr. Randolph had refused to sign the constitution, but had 
 become one of its warmest advocates. In the convention of this state 
 also, the ratification was aided by the adoption of a bill of rights and 
 certain proposed amendments ; and was carried, eighty-eight yeas against 
 eighty nays. 
 
 In the convention of New York, the opposition embraced a majority 
 of its members, among whom were Yates and Lansing, members of the 
 general convention, and George Clinton. The principal advocates of the 
 constitution were John Jay, Robert R. Livingston, and Mr. Hamilton. 
 Strong efforts were made for a conditional ratification, which were suc- 
 cessfully opposed, though not without the previous adoption of a bill of 
 rights, and numerous amendments. With these, the absolute ratification 
 was carried, thirty-one to twenty-nine. 
 
 The ratification of North Carolina was not received by Congress, until 
 January, 1V90; and that of Rhode Island, not until June of the same 
 year. 
 
 After the ratification of New Hampshire had been received by con- 
 gress, the ratifications of the nine states were referred to a committee, 
 who, on the 14th of July, 1788, reported a resolution for carrying the 
 new government into operation. The passage of the resolution, owing to 
 the diflSculty of agreeing upon the place for the meeting of the first con- 
 gress, was delayed until the 1 3th of September. The first Wednesday 
 of January, 1789, was appointed for choosing electors of president, and 
 the first Wednesday of February for the electors to meet in their respec- 
 tive states to vote for president and vice-president ; and the first Wednes- 
 day, the 14th of March, as the time, and New York as the place, to 
 commence proceedings under the new constitution. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 MEETING OF THE FIRST CONGRESS. A SYSTEM OF FINANCE ADOPTED. 
 
 THE FUNDING "OF THE PUBLIC DEBT. THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Pursuant to appointment, congress assembled at New York on tlie 
 4th of March, 1789; but a quorum of the house of representatives was 
 not present until the 1st of April, nor of the senate until the 6th. On 
 counting the electoral votes, it appeared that George Washington was 
 unanimously elected president, and that John Adams was, by the next 
 highest number of votes, elected vice-president. On the 30th of April, 
 the oath of office was administered to the president ; and soon after, he 
 delivered his inaugural address to the senate and house of representatives. 
 
 Many important subjects demanded the immediate attention of con- 
 gress. The depressed state of commerce, caused by the restrictive 
 policy of foreign nations, which there was no power in the old system to 
 counteract, and the want of revenue adequate to the public necessities, 
 were the chief causes that led to the recent change in the government. 
 These, therefore, were the first objects to receive the attention of con- 
 gi'ess. 
 
 Immediately after the organization of the house, Mr. Madison moved 
 a resolution, declaring the opinion, that certain duties ought to be levied 
 on goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States, and 
 on the tonnage of vessels. A law was accordingly passed, with a pream- 
 ble declaring it to be " necessary for the support of government, for the 
 discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement of 
 manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandises 
 imported." This law imposed specific duties on a long list of enumerated 
 articles, and an ad valorem duty upon others. The duties on goods im- 
 ported in American vessels were ten per cent, less than if brought in 
 foreign vessels. An act was also passed, laying disciiminating duties on 
 tonnage ; American vessels being charged with a duty of six cents a ton ; 
 foreign vessels, fifty cents a ton. 
 
 The discrimination in favor of American shipping was opposed on the 
 ground that it was insufficient to transport the produce of the country, 
 and the extra tonnage duty upon foreign vessels would enhance the cost 
 of transportation, and thus operate as a tax upon agriciilture, and a pre- 
 mium to navigation. 
 
76 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 In reply to this argument, Mr. Madison said, if it was expedient for 
 America to have vessels employed in commerce at all, it would be 
 proper that she should have enough to answer all the purposes intended ; 
 to form a school for seamen ; to lay the foundation of a navy ; and to be 
 able to support herself against the interferqnce of foreigners. Granting 
 a preference to our own navigation would insensibly bring it forward to 
 that perfection so essential to American safety ; and though it might 
 produce some little inequality at first, it woiild soon ascertain its level, 
 and become uniform throughout the union. 
 
 A proposition also was adopted by the house of representatives, making 
 a diiierence in favor of nations which had formed commercial treaties 
 with the United States ; but the senate did not assent to the discrimina- 
 tion. North Carolina and Rhode Island, not having acceded to the 
 union, were in the situation of foreign states. By special enactments, 
 however, goods of the growth or manufacture of these states were exempt- 
 ed from foreign duties ; and their vessels were to be entitled to the same 
 privileges as those of the United States, until the 15th of January, 1790. 
 
 Three auxiliary executive departments were established at this session : 
 the department of foreign affairs — since called department of state — the 
 department of the treasury, and the department of war. These, or 
 similar departments, had for some time existed; but they were now 
 reorganized, and adapted to the new government. 
 
 In organizing these departments, the question arose, whether the 
 officers of these departments could be removed by the president alone, 
 or whether the concurrence of the senate was necessary, as in their 
 appointment. In the Federalist, (No. Ixxvii,) Mr. Hamilton says: "It 
 has been mentioned as one of the ad\'antages to be expected from the 
 cooperation of the senate, in the business of appointments, that it would 
 contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of that 
 body would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint. A change 
 of the chief magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so vehement or 
 general a revolution in the officers of the government, as might be 
 expected if he were the sole disposer of offices. When a man, in any 
 situation, had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new 
 president would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a 
 person more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that the discoun- 
 tenance of the senate might frustrate tlie attempt, and bring discredit 
 upon himself." 
 
 This construction was supported by Mr. Sherman and Mr. Gerry, both 
 of whom had been members of the general convention, and others. It 
 was argued, that, as the president and senate were associated in making 
 appointments the fair inference was, that they must agree in removals. 
 
 1 
 
MEETINa OF THE FIRST CONGRESS. '77 
 
 This power, in tlie hands of the president alone, was dangerous to liberty. 
 It was in its nature monarchical, and would convert executive officers 
 into mere instruments of his will. 
 
 Among those who maintained the opposite side, were Mr. Madison 
 and Mr. Baldwin, also members of the convention. The executive power 
 was, by the constitution, vested in the ptesident ; and the power of 
 removal was in its nature completely executive. The president was 
 required to see the laws faithfully executed; and how could he be an- 
 swerable for a faithful execution of the laws, without the power of 
 removing an officer whose cooperation was necessary to their execution. 
 Besides, an immediate removal might become necessary ; and the public 
 interest might suJBfer by the delay in convening the senate. After 
 several days' discussion, the question was decided, 34 to 20, in favor of 
 conferring on the president alone the power of removal. 
 
 In filling the offices of these departments, Mr. Jefferson was appointed 
 secretary of foreign affairs ; Mr. Hamilton, secretary of the treasury ; 
 Gen. Knox, of Massachusetts, was continued as secretary of war ; and 
 Edmund Randolph was appointed attorney-general. 
 
 The judiciary department, also, was established at this session. John 
 Jay, of New York, was appointed chief justice ; John Rutledge, of 
 South Carolina, James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, William' Gushing, of 
 Massachusetts, Robert Harrison, of Maryland, and John Blair, of Vir- 
 ginia, associate justices. 
 
 At this session, the states of Virginia and New York petitioned con- 
 gress to call a convention to amend the constitution. Gongress having ' 
 no authority to call a convention, a proposition was made by Mr. Madi- 
 son for recommending to the states the adoption of certain additional 
 articles to the constitution. Twelve articles were agreed to by the con- 
 stitutional majority of two-thirds of both houses, and proposed to the 
 states. Ten of these aiticles, being the first ten subjoined to the con- 
 stitution, were adopted by the states. 
 
 Congress adjourned on the 29th of September, to meet on the first 
 Monday of January, 1790. Before the adjournment, by a resolution of 
 both houses, the president was requested to recommend a day of public 
 thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, " by acknowledging with grate- 
 ful hearts, the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by 
 affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of 
 government, for their safety and happiness." 
 
 Among the objects recommended by the president to the attention of 
 congress at its next session, were those of " providing for the common 
 defense ; " of " promoting such manufactures as tend to render the people 
 independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies," 
 
78 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of " tlie promotion of science and literature ; " and of making " adequate 
 provision for the support of the public credit." 
 
 The great measure of the session was the act carrying into effect the 
 last mentioned of these objects. The house had at the preceding session, 
 directed the " secretary of the treasury to prepare a plan for that pur- 
 pose, and to report the same to the house at its next meeting. The 
 plaji of the secretary was accordingly reported on the 14th of January. 
 The foreign debt, due principally to France and individual lenders in 
 Holland, was $11, 710,378, of which about a million and a half was in- 
 terest. The domestic debt, of which nearly a third was for arrears of 
 interest, was estimated at $42,414,085. This sum included two millions 
 which was allowed for claims yet unliquidated, principally outstanding 
 continental money. The secretary proposed to assume the debts of the 
 sever.ll states, estimated at $25,000,000, and then to fund the whole debt. 
 
 To such a state of depression had the public credit been sunk, that the 
 government paper had been parted with by original creditors for one- 
 sixth to one-eighth of its nominal value ; and it was still doubtful 
 whether the governmeni; would be able fully to discharge its obligations. 
 Hence, to devise a plan that should maintain the honor and retrieve the 
 credit of the nation, and do perfect justice to all the public creditors, 
 was not an 'easy task. That any plan within the compass of human 
 ingenuity should receive the unanimous approval of congress, was not to 
 be expected. With respect to the recommendation of the secretary, that 
 the foreign debt should be provided for according to the precise terms of 
 ' the contract, there was no difference of opinion. But the secretary 
 " regretted, that with respect to the domestic debt, the same unanimity 
 did not prevail." 
 
 The secretary supported the several propositions of his report at 
 length, and with great ability. He maintained that no discrimination 
 ought to be made between original holders of the public securities, and 
 present possessors by purchase. He deemed this equally unjust and im- 
 politic ; highly injurious even to the original holders, and ruinous to 
 public credit. Nor did he think a difference ought to be permitted to 
 remain between the creditors of the union and those of individual states. 
 Both descriptions of debt, he said, were contracted for the same objects, 
 and were in the main the same. A great part of the debt of the states 
 had been contracted by them on account of the union ; and it was most 
 equitable that they should be assumed by the union. 
 
 Several plans were submitted by the secretary to the option of congress ; 
 neither of which was adopted entire, but together formed the basis of 
 the act subsequently passed. It was proposed to open new loans for the 
 full amount of the domestic debt, including that of the states, and, for 
 
A SYSTEM OF FINANCE ADOPTED. 79 
 
 tte sums subscribed, to receive in payment certificates of debt held by 
 public creditors. It -fljas proposed, that for every hundred dollars sub- 
 scribed payable in debt, interest as well as principal, the subscriber 
 should have two-thirds funded on a yearly interest of six per cent., the 
 Current rate, (the capital to be redeemable at the pleasure of the govern- 
 ment by the payment of the principal,) and should receive the other 
 third in lands of the western territory at their actual value ; or instead 
 of the lands, to have, at the end of ten years, $26.88 funded at the same 
 rate of interest. 
 
 Another proposal was, to have the whole sum funded at a yearly inter- 
 est of four per cent., irredeemable by any payment exceeding five dollars 
 annually on the hundred, for both principal and interest ; and as a com- 
 pensation for the reduction of interest, $15.80 on every hundred, payable 
 in land. 
 
 There were still other propositions, one of which was, the payment of 
 subscriptions in annuities, on different plans. 
 
 An argument of the secretary in favor of funding the debt was, that 
 the provision of a permanent fund for its payment would, by establishing 
 the public credit, enable the government in any emergency, to procure 
 the means of supplying the public necessity. It was said also, that the 
 fluctuation and insecurity incident to an unfunded debt, rendered it a 
 mere commodity, and a precarious one ; and being only an object of 
 Speculation, the money thus employed was so much diverted from more 
 useful purposes ; and thus contributed to the scarcity of money. Whereas, 
 it was well known, that in countries in which the national debt was pro- 
 perly funded, and an object of confidence, it served most of the purposes 
 of money. Such, he believed, would be the result in America, and the 
 capital thus created, " would invigorate all the operations of agriculture, 
 manufactures, and commerce." 
 
 The proposition to restrict the government to the payment of so small 
 sums annually toward redeeming the capital of the debt, was intended 
 as an inducement to creditors to consent to the arrangement. The rate 
 of interest was then six per cent.; but it was presumed that, when the pub- 
 lic credit should have become firmly established, the government would be 
 able to borrow money at greatly reduced rates ; and creditors would be 
 compelled to receive either these low rates of interest, or the payment 
 of the capital. By the proposed arrangement, creditors would be assured, 
 for a long and certain period, a fixed rate of interest, at six per cent., as 
 an equivalent for the reduction of the principal, or the postponement of 
 the interest on a part of it. As creditors were left free to accept or 
 reject the terms offered, those who should not subscribe, were to receive 
 a dividend of the surplus that should remain in the treasury after paying 
 
so THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the interest of tlie loans. But as the funds to be provided were not 
 expected to produce at present more than four j)er cent, on the whole 
 debt, only that rate of interest was to be paid. By thus reducing either 
 the principal or the rate of interest, a revenue might be provided suffi- 
 cient to meet the increased demand upon the treasury caused by the 
 adoption of the proposed measure. For this purpose, the secretary 
 recommended an increase of duties on wines, spirits, tea, and cofiee, and 
 an excise tax on home distilled spirits. 
 
 " This celebrated report," says Judge Marshall, " which has been the 
 fruitful theme of extravagant praise and bitter censure, merits the more 
 attention, because in the measures which were founded on it, originated 
 the first regular and systematic opposition to the principles on which 
 the affairs of the union were administered." 
 
 A great diversity of opinion on this subject prevailed in the house. 
 Hostility to funding systems generally was declared. It was also con- 
 tended that the United States were not bound to pay the domestic cred- 
 itors the full amount expressed in their certificates of debt, because the 
 original holders, by parting with them at two shillings and six-pence in 
 the pound, had fixed the value of their claims, and a motion was made, 
 proposing a re-settlement of the debt. 
 
 To this proposition it was objected, that creditors load a right to place 
 confidence in the government for the discharge of debts acknowledged to 
 be due according to settlements already made. For a legislature to 
 reduce an ascertained debt, was pronounced unjust, and subversive of 
 every principle on which public contracts are founded. The motion 
 was lost. 
 
 Mr. Madison proposed to pay the present holders of certificates the 
 highest price which the debt had borne in the market, and the original 
 holders the residue. It was urged in favor of this proposition, that the 
 original debt was to have been paid in gold and silver ; but the creditor 
 had been compelled to take paper at a great loss, in consequence of tha 
 default of the debtor, who ought not to take advantage of his default. 
 By paying him the average price at which the debt had been sold, and 
 the original holder the remainder, equal justice would be done to both. 
 
 It was said, in reply, that to require the present holders to relinquish 
 a part of their claim, for which they had paid a valuable consideration, 
 would be a violation of contracts, and therefore unconstitutional. It 
 was not the business of the legislature to inquire into private trans- 
 actions between individuals. If the original creditor had an equitable 
 claim on the present holder, its adjustment belonged to the judicial 
 courts. The misfortune of those who had been obliged, from necessity, 
 to part with their securities, was admitted ; but congress could not afford 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
A SYSTEM OF FINANCE ADOPTED. 81 
 
 redress. Purchasers had placed greater confidence in the government 
 than the original holder, and run a risk in purchasing the paper; 
 they were therefore justly entitled to the full amount of their claims. 
 The interests of the community were promoted by making a public debt 
 transferable ; but interference by the government in cases of transfer, 
 would destroy confidence in public engagements. Besides, certificates 
 had passed through several hands, and intermediate purchasers had 
 often suffered as much as the original holder ; but for them no relief 
 was proposed. After considerable farther debate, the question was 
 taken, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madison was rejected, thirty- 
 six to thirteen. 
 
 The proposition to assume the debts of the states, was the subject of 
 greater controversy, and a more excited debate, than any other contained 
 in the report. 
 
 In opposition to this part of the plan, it was said, that the creditors 
 of the states had not applied to congress for the measure ; and it was 
 presumed that they were satisfied with what the states had done for 
 them, and did not wish to exchange their state securities for those of the 
 general government. The task of providing for the real debts of the 
 union was suflEiciently arduous, and the assumption of more debts might 
 disenable the government froin doing justice to its real creditors. It was 
 said, too, that the debts of the states had not yet been ascertained, and 
 it would be imprudent to assume them until it should be known what 
 were the balances due them from the union, as the augmentation of the 
 debt might impose a. burden, which would require taxation to a dangerous 
 extents The states could more effectually, and with less dissatisfaction 
 to the people, provide for the payment of their debts, than the general 
 government. The assumption would be unjust also, as the consumers of 
 foreign articles would bear the whole expense of the war, except the very 
 trifling revenues to be derived from postage and excise on distilled spirits. 
 It would be unjust to those states which had already taxed themselves 
 heavily to discharge their debts, as they would be obliged to bear an 
 equal share of the burden with others which had made little exertion to 
 diminish theirs. It was objected, too, that if the general government 
 was made to pay all the debts, it must have all the revenue, which was, 
 in effect, to have all the power. This would give too much importance 
 to the federal government, and lessen the importance of the state gov- 
 ernments, and lead to too close a consolidation of the union. Besides, 
 the measure did not appear to be constitutional,, no power having been 
 granted to the general government to assume the debts of the states. 
 
 It was farther objected, that by the proposed augmentation of the debt 
 of the union, it would be perpetuated. A public debt was not a public 
 6 
 
82 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 blessing, as some seemed to think, but an evil ; and to increase it by 
 adding to it the debts of the states, would increase the evil, and impair 
 the public credit ; it was the character of paper to diminish in value, in 
 proportion to the quantity in circulation. These debts, too, if assumed 
 by the union, would, as the continental debt had already done, accumulate 
 in the larger cities, and in the hands of foreigners ; and the greater portion of 
 the money for which the people were taxed, would go out of the country. 
 
 It was urged also, that a portion of the state debts had been contracted 
 for purposes strictly local ; and it was impossible to distinguish these 
 debts, in all cases, from those contracted for general objects. The cred- 
 itors in some states might come into the measure, while in others they 
 refused : this would render it difficult, if not impossible, to carry the 
 system into effect. Nor was it probable that any general system of in- 
 ternal taxation would be acceptable to all the states. Each state, there- 
 fore, ought to be left free to adopt such a system of revenue as it should 
 deem best adapted to its circumstances. 
 
 In favor of assumption it was said, that one body could more efficiently 
 draw forth the resources of the union than many. These debts must be 
 paid, either by the general government or by the respective states ; and 
 it could be done with greater ease and facility, and with less expense, 
 under one general uniform system. Some states derived their revenue 
 from excise ; and if, as was contemplated by the proposed plan, excises 
 should be laid by the general government also, there would be a clashing 
 of the two systems. To the objection, that the amount of state debts had 
 not been ascertained, it was answered that it had been ascertained 
 not to exceed tAventy-five millions ; and congress might be restricted 
 to that amount. It had been said, that the merits of particular 
 claims were not known. They had been proved to the satisfaction 
 of the states, and that was a sufficient guarantee of their justice. If it 
 was for the true interest of the United States and of the claimants 
 to adopt the measure, it was unnecessary to wait for applications. If 
 the creditors chose to change their state securities for those of the United 
 States, the states surely could have no objection : they had nothing to 
 do with the transaction. When the domestic debt should be funded, the 
 most productive revenues would be taken away from the states and their 
 ability to pay would be lessened ; and the state creditors would prefer 
 the paper of the United States, which would be better provided for. But 
 if any state creditors should refuse to subscribe, let the states receive the 
 money from the general government, and pay it over to their creditors. 
 
 To the alleged injustice of throwing the burden upon the consumers 
 of foreign articles, it was replied, that all classes of inhabitants were con- 
 sumers of foreign goods ; and the rich families consumed much more than 
 
 S 
 
 A\ 
 
FUNDING OF THE PUBLIC DEBT. 83 
 
 the poor. It had been said to be unjust to tax states that had made great 
 exertions to pay their debts, equally with those that had not. To this 
 it was answered, that every state must be considered to have exerted 
 itself to the extent of its resources; and whether it was unable or 
 unwilling to do justice to its creditors, the union was equally bound to 
 assume its debts. 
 
 To the argument that this measure would lessen the influence of the 
 state governments, it was replied, that congress, as well as the state legis- 
 latures, derived their authority from the people, who could apply the 
 remedy to the abuse of power by their representatives. 
 
 It was said farther, in favor of assumption, that the war had been one 
 in which the states had made common cause. Its object had been the 
 liberty and independence, not of any particular state, but of all the 
 states ; and the debts of the states had not been contracted for their 
 individual benefit, but for the benefit of the union, and to promote a 
 cause in which all the states had an equal interest. For the means of 
 payment, the states had relied upon imposts, which constituted their 
 principal fund. By the constitution their power over imposts had been 
 assumed by the federal government, which ought now to assume their 
 debts. The measure was also constitutional. The confederation author- 
 ized congress to raise money ; but congress not being able to do it directly 
 or immediately, did it mediately through the state governments : hence, 
 these debts, having been contracted in compliance with the requisitions 
 of congress, were to be considered the debts of the union. 
 
 Creditors of the states and those of the United States ought to be 
 placed upon the same footing. Some states, possessing greater resources, 
 might make ample provision for the payment of their debts; while 
 others, having less means and a larger debt, might be unable to do their 
 creditors justice. The states, deprived of the power to lay imposts, must 
 have recourse to direct taxes and excises. These, on account of the in- 
 equality of their debts, would be very unequal in the different states. 
 Direct taxation would fall most heavily upon the landed interest, and 
 encourage emigration to states less burdened with taxes. The aggregate 
 amount to be collected from the people was the same, whether the debts 
 were assumed or not ; and, not only could the collection be made more 
 economically under one uniform system, but the national government, 
 havdng the sole management of the revenues, could more effectually pro- 
 mote the various branches of domestic industry. 
 
 The friends of assumption denied that they considered " a public 
 debt a public blessing ; " they admitted it to be an evil. The debt had 
 been already contracted; and they desired now to mitigate the evil. 
 They believed it better policy to give it a form in which it would sub- 
 
84 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 serve the purpose of a circulating medium, than to leave it a subject of 
 mere speculation. If adequate funds should be provided for the payment 
 of the debts, its effect upon the public credit would not be unfavorable. 
 Nor was any evil to be apprehended from its flowing into the large cities. 
 It would be a moneyed capital held by those who wish to place money at 
 interest. Funding the debt would give the stock a permanent character, 
 and enable its owners to sell it at its nominal value, instead of its present 
 low rate. No injury could result from its being purchased by foreigners. 
 Their purchasing our funds would bring specie into the United States ; 
 and the sooner the debt was brought to its proper standard, the sooner 
 these benefits would be realized. 
 
 The question on the resolution to assume the state debts, was carried, 
 31 to 26. A few days after this decision, the representative from 
 North Carolina arrived; the resolution was recommitted, and after 
 another warm and protracted debate, it was negatived, by a majority 
 of two votes ! Before the passage of the funding bill, however, the 
 proposition for assumption was brought forward as an amendment to 
 the bill, but in a modified form. Instead of assuming an uncertain sum, 
 the amendment proposed the assumption of specified sums from each 
 state. But the committee rose before a direct vote could be had upon 
 the motion ; and the bill reported to the house with an amendment pro- 
 posing to fund the outstanding continental money at the rate of seventy- 
 five for one, was passed, and sent to the senate for concurrence. 
 
 While the funding bill was pending in the senate, the law establishing 
 a temporary and permanent seat of government was passed. It was by 
 the aid of this law, that the friends of assumption finally succeeded in 
 carrying the latter measure. Certain northern members voted to fix the 
 seat of government permanently on the Potomac, in consideration of 
 recei\ang in return a sufficient number of southern votes in favor of 
 assumption, to carry the measure. 
 
 The act, as finally passed, authorized the president to bon'ow not 
 exceeding $12,000,000, for the payment of the foreign debt; the money 
 borrowed to be reimbursable within fifteen years. It also authorized a 
 new loan for the whole of the domestic debt ; two-thirds of the principal 
 to draw interest at six per cent., to commence the 1st of January, 1791 ; 
 the other third, to draw the same interest, but not to commence till after 
 the year 1 800. Subscriptions to the loan were payable in certificates of 
 the domestic debt at their par value, and in continental bills of credit, at 
 the rate of one hundred for one : the debt to be redeemable by payments 
 not exceeding eight per cent, annually, on account of both principal and 
 interest. Arrears of interest were also to be funded to the full amount 
 but to draw interest at only three per cent., commencing the 1st of Jan- 
 
rtJNDING OF THE PUBLIC DEBT. 85 
 
 nary, 1V91, and to be redeemable at tbe pleasure of the government. 
 Non-subscribing creditors were entitled to the same interest as sub- 
 scribers ; but they were left to greater uncertainty, as they could be paid 
 only out of any surplus in the treasury. 
 
 Of tlie debts of the states $21,500,000 were assumed, in specific sums 
 from each state, regard being had to the amount of indebtedness of each. 
 They were as follows : From Massachusetts and South Carolina, each 
 $4,000,000; Virginia, $3,500,000 ; North Carolina, $2,400,000 ; Penn- 
 sylvania, $2,200,000 ; Connecticut, $1,600,000 ; New York, $1,200,000 ; 
 New Jersey and Maryland, each $800,000 ; New Hampshire and Georgia, 
 each $300,000 ; Ehode Island and Delaware, each $200,000 ; (the 
 former having joined the union, and her delegation having arrived before 
 the passage of this act.) For these state debts an additional loan was 
 to be opened, but on terms different from that for the continental debt. 
 Four-ninths was to bear an interest of six per cent., commencing on the 
 1st of January, 1792 ; two-ninths, the same interest after the year 1800 ; 
 and the other third three per cent, from January, 1792. No certificates 
 of state debts were to be received on subscriptions, except such as had 
 been issued for services or supplies in the war. A board, consisting of 
 three commissioners, was constituted to settle the accounts between the 
 states and the United States. 
 
 The duties imposed by the act of the last session were increased ; and 
 the duties on imports and tonnage, (after deducting $600,000 annually 
 for current expenses,) together with the proceeds of the sales of western 
 lands, were pledged as a permanent fund, for the payment of the public 
 debt. 
 
 At this session of congress, the cession, by North Carolina, of her 
 western lands, was received and approved ; and the territory south of 
 the Ohio was formed into a government, similar to that previously estab- 
 lished north of that river. Its constitution did not, however, embrace 
 the anti-slavery proviso contained in the constitution of the north-western 
 territory. 
 
 The establishment of a permanent seat of government for the United 
 States, after the treaty of peace with Great Britain, received the 
 early attention of Congress. In the month of June, 1783, congress then 
 sitting at Philadelphia, was surrounded and insulted by a small body of 
 mutineers of the continental army ; and having, on application to the 
 executive authority of Pennsylvania, failed to receive protection, removed 
 to Princeton, in New Jersey, and afterwards, for the sake of greater con- 
 venience, adjourned to Annapolis. This circumstance probably sug- 
 gested to congress the necessity of some place for a permanent residence 
 under its own authority, which was subsequently provided for in the 
 
86 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 constitution. [Art. I, sec. 8, clause 1*7.] In October, 1783, it was 
 resolved, that buildings for the use of congress should be erected on the 
 banks of the Delaware ; and a few days later, that buildings for a simi- 
 lar purpose should likewise be erected on the Potomac, with the 
 view of reconciling the conflicting wishes of the northern and south- 
 ern states, by establishing two seats of government. In December, 1784, 
 it was farther resolved that a district should be purchased on the banks 
 of the Delaware for a federal town, and that contracts should be made 
 for the necessary buildings. But the appropriation of the money for 
 these purposes, requiring the assent of nine states, was prevented by the 
 southern interest. 
 
 The subject came up before the new congress, near the close of the 
 first session. The eastern states wished, at least for the present, to 
 retain the seat of government at New York. Pennsylvania endeavored 
 to bring it back to Philadelphia or its vicinity. The southern states 
 desired its establishment on the Potomac. A majority of both houses 
 not having agi-eed upon any place, the subject was postponed till the next 
 session ; when, by a combination between the friends of Philadelphia, 
 (aided also, as has been observed, by certain northern members,) and the 
 friends of the Potomac, the seat of government was to be at Philadel- 
 phia for ten years, the time estimated to be necessary to erect the public 
 buildings, and after the expiration of that term, to be permanently fixed 
 on the Potomac. 
 
 CHAPTER VL 
 
 EXCISE ON DISTILLED SPIRITS. INCORPORATION OF A NATIONAL BANK. 
 
 APPORTIONMENT BILL. WAR WITH THE WESTERN INDIANS. 
 
 The third session of the first congress, (this congress having held 
 three sessions.) commenced at Philadelphia, on the 6th of December, 
 1790. Provision was to be made at this session for the payment of the 
 assumed debts of the states. The secretary of the treasury had, in his 
 original report, suggested for this purpose an increase of duties on im- 
 ported wines, spirits, tea and cofEee, and a duty on home distilled spirits. 
 The assumption had not been adopted until near the close of the session, 
 and the strong objections to the proposed revenue measure which had 
 
 \ 
 
EXCISE ON DISTILLED SPIRITS. .8.7 
 
 been expressed, gave indications of a long discussion, upon which mem- 
 bers were not then disposed to enter : and as the interest to be provided 
 for was not to commence until the year 1792, the subject was deferred 
 to the next session, and the secretary was ordered to report such far- 
 ther provision as he should think necessary for the support of the public 
 credit. 
 
 Party lines began to be more distinctly marked. The anti-federalists, 
 having in a great measure relaxed their hostility to the constitution, now 
 arrayed themselves against the financial measures of the government. 
 No general opposition had been made by that party to the funding of the 
 continental debt; but the assumption of the state debts encountered a 
 bitter hostility from the beginning ; and, in connection with certain other 
 measures, was made the ground of general and open opposition of the 
 anti-federalists to the administration. Resolutions denouncing the 
 scheme were passed by the legislatures of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Mary- 
 land, and North Carolina. The peculiar friends of the state govern- 
 ments regarded with jealousy any measure of internal taxation by the 
 general government ; and their aversion to excises needed little stimulus 
 like that administered by their state legislatures, to raise it to indigna- 
 tion. To this cause, in part, has been ascribed the forcible resistance, in 
 western Pennsylvania, to the execution of the law, of which we shall 
 soon have occasion to speak. The more western portion of the popula- 
 tion being to a less extent the consumers of foreign goods, and conse- 
 quently less afEected by imposts, the greatest opposition to the duty on 
 domestic distilled spirits came from that quarter. 
 
 A bill conforming to the report of the secretary was introduced, and 
 after a strong and vehement opposition, chiefly from southern and west- 
 ern members, was passed. The principal objections urged against the 
 bin, were, that sufficient evidence bad not been given of the insufficiency 
 of the taxes already imposed, to meet the public demand ; that the tax 
 was unequal, as it would throw the greatest burden upon those parts of 
 the country which afforded no substitute for ardent spirits ; and that a 
 less exceptionable source of revenue might be found. A general increase 
 of duty on imports ; a duty on molasses, a direct tax, a tax on salaries, 
 pensions and lawyers; a duty on newspapers, and stamp duties, were 
 severally mentioned by different members, as preferable to an excise on 
 spirits. 
 
 In favor of the bill it was said, that estimates founded on official state- 
 ments of the receipts into the treasury since the revenue bill went into 
 operation, and other reliable data, showed the insufficiency of the exist- 
 ing sources of revenue. Imposts on foreign goods could not be safely 
 carried farther. Mercantile capital was too limited, and the increased 
 
88 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 duties miglit induce smuggling, and diminish the revenue instead of 
 increasing it. Experience had proved, that a tax on consumption was 
 less burdensome than a tax on property ; that, by indirect and insensible 
 means, more could be drawn from the people than by open and direct 
 taxation. The proposed tax was not unequal, and liable to the objec- 
 tions against excises generally, the burden of which fell upon the poor 
 who buy in small quantities, whilst the rich by storing their cellars, 
 escaped the duty. This bill required the duty to be paid by the im- 
 porter of foi-eign spirits, and by the manufacturer of domestic spirits, 
 and no article was a fitter subject of taxation. The bill passed the 
 house by a vote of 35 to 21, and went to the senate, where it received 
 some slight amendment, which was concurred in by the house. 
 
 The establishment of a national bank was the most prominent measure 
 of the session. In reporting farther provisions for establishing the pub- 
 lic credit, the secretary expressed the " conviction, that a national bank 
 is an institution of primary importance to the prosperous administration 
 of the finances, and would be of the gi'eatest utility in the operations 
 connected with the support of the public credit." 
 
 In the wlK)le coui-se of legislation under the constitution, no other 
 question — that of a protective tariif, perhaps, alone excepted — has been 
 more thoroughly discussed than the one under consideration. Bills for 
 the incorporation of a national bank have been no less than nine or ten 
 times before the national legislature, and several times has the measure 
 been an-ested by the executive veto. At every discussion, the Avhole 
 field of argument has been explored for reasons in favor of and against 
 an institution of this kind; and quite as often has it been to the party 
 politician the theme of fierce declamation, as to the statesman a subject 
 of candid investigation. Not only have the most eminent statesmen dif- 
 fered on the question, but the same individuals have at ditforeut times 
 opposed and supported the measure. Not only so ; political parties as 
 such, have changetl sides on the question, as will be seen in the course 
 of our histc>r}'. 
 
 The slightest notice, in this work, of all the arguments that have been 
 adduced for and against a nationiU bank, is impossible. With a view to 
 pivparing the public judgment for a future decision of this que'stion, 
 such notice would be unnecessary, as the subject, probably, will not be 
 again agitated. For, conceding a national bank, as a fiscal agent of the 
 government, to have been convenient and useful, or even necessary, at 
 the time of its establishment, and during the greater portion of the 
 period of its existence; its necessity at the present time, and under 
 existing ciivumstances, will not be atKrmed ; and no party will be likely 
 to hazaxxl its fortunes by the revival of a question which has more than 
 
NATIONAL DANK. 89 
 
 once largely contributed to the d«fcat of one of the great poUtical parties. 
 Yet, a« it Iihh Kcveral times constituted one of the main issues which 
 have divided the great parties of this country, it deserves consideration. 
 
 Tiie report of the secretary was elaborate, embracing a great variety 
 of argument. In favor of banks generally, it stated that they had cx- 
 isUid among the principal and most enlightened commercial nations, and 
 their utility had been tested by an experience of centuries. They had 
 given aid to trade and industry, and in certain emergencies, to the gov- 
 ernment itself. Among the advantages of a bank were mentioned the 
 following: Fiitit, the augmentation of the active or productive capital 
 of a country. Secondly, the greater facility which it affords to the gov- 
 ernment in obtaining pecuniary aids, especially in sudden emergencies. 
 Thirdly, the facilitating of the payment of duties; as was proved by the 
 accommodatitMis afforded by banks to those who resided near them, in 
 the payment of duties. The report alluded to the bank of North Amer- 
 ica, in the city of Philadelphia, incorporated by the old congress, in 
 1781, and to the aid it alforded the United States during the remaining 
 period of the war, and since the peace. Its capital, however, was now 
 too small for the wants of the government, and it liad become a state 
 institution, under a charter from the state of Pennsylvania. The report 
 also gave the plan of a bank, with such restrictions and safeguards as 
 were deemed requisite. 
 
 The bill came to the house from the senate, and received no opposi- 
 tion until after its third reading. An effort was made for its recommit- 
 ment, and lost. The question being on its final passage, Mr. Madison, 
 one of the leading opponents of the bill, opened the debate in a very able 
 speech. He admitted some of the advantages of banks. They were 
 (1.) The aid they afforded merchants in extending their mercantile ope- 
 rations with the same capital. (2.) The aids to merchants in paying 
 punctually the customs. (3.) Aids to the government in complying 
 punctually with its engagements when deficiencies or delays happen in 
 the revenue. (4.) Diminishing usury. (.5.) Saving the wear of gold and 
 silver kept in the vaults, and represented by notes. (O.) Facilitating 
 occasional remittances from different places where notes happen to cir- 
 culate. 
 
 The principal disadvantages of banks consisted in, (1.) Banishing the 
 precious metals by substituting another medium to perform their office. 
 (2.) Exposing the public and individuals to the evils of a run on the 
 bank, which might liappen from various causes, as false rumors, bad man- 
 agement of the institution, an unfavorable balance of trade, &c. He 
 thought the most important advantages of banks could be better obtained 
 from several banks, properly distributed; as aids to commerce could 
 only be afforded near the seat of banks. 
 
90 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The main objection to the bill, however, was founded on its unconsti- 
 tutionality. Mr. Madison said ; a power to grant charters of incorpora- 
 tion had been proposed in the general convention, and rejected. He 
 denied that the power claimed was implied in the " jjower to pass aU 
 laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the foregoing powers." 
 The meaning of this clause must be limited to means necessary to the 
 end, and incident to the nature of the specified powers. The clause 
 merely declares what would have resulted by unavoidable implication as 
 the appropriate, and, as it were, technical means of executing those pow- 
 ers. A bank might be useful and convenient for collecting taxes, bor- 
 rowing money, paying debts, and providing for the general welfare ; but 
 it was not absolutely necessary. 
 
 Others, however, did not admit the advantages of a bank to the same 
 extent as Mr. Madison. The facility of borrowing from it would involve 
 the union in irretrievable debts. State banks, it was contended, could 
 render the desired aids to better effect than a single bank like that con- 
 templated ; and the latter would swallow up the former. They opposed 
 the loose construction of the words " necessary and proper." A " neces- 
 sary means to produce a given end, was the means without which the 
 end could not he producedy 
 
 The advocates of the measure relied upon experience and the testimony 
 of the commercial world, to settle the question as to the utility of such 
 an institution. The new capital would invigorate trade and manufac- 
 tures with new energy. It would furnish a medium for the collection 
 of the revenues ; and if government should be pressed by a sudden ne- 
 cessity, it would afford seasonable and effectual aid. It was admitted 
 that congress could exercise those powers only which were granted by 
 the constitution ; but incidental as well as express powers belonged to 
 every government. When power is given to effect particular objects, all 
 the known and usual means of effecting them pass as incidental to such 
 power. A bank was a known and usual means of carrying into effect 
 several of the powers granted to the government. Most of the laws 
 enacted under the new constitution, had been enacted by the authority 
 of implied powers. Laws had been made to tax ships, erect light-houses, 
 govern seamen, &c., under the power to regulate commerce. A majority 
 of the laws enacted under the new constitution, had been made by 
 authority of powers incidental to, or implied in, powers expressly dele- 
 gated. 
 
 The discussion continued, with little intermission, from the 1st to the 
 9th of February, when the bill passed, 39 to 20. All who voted in the 
 negative, except one, were from the states of Maryland, Virginia, North 
 Carolina, South Carohna, and Georgia, All who were present from the 
 
INCOEPORATION OF A NATIONAL BANK. 91 
 
 other states, except one from Massachusetts, voted in the affirmative ; to- 
 gether with two from Maryland, two from North Carolina, and one from 
 South Carolina. 
 
 The president, before signing the bill, required the written opinions 
 of the members of his cabinet as to its constitutionality. The secretaries 
 of the treasury and of war, (Hamilton and Knox,) affirmed the bill to be 
 constitutional ; the secretary of state and the attorney-general, (Jefferson 
 and Randolph,) expressed the contrary opinion. After mature deliber- 
 ation, the president signed the bill. 
 
 The capital stock of the bank was limited to $10,000,000 ; $2,000,000 
 to be subscribed for the benefit of the United States, the residue by indi- 
 viduals; the whole to be divided into 25,000 shares, of $400 each; and 
 no person, copartnership, or corporation, to subscribe for more than 1000 
 shares. One-fourth of the sum subscribed, was to be payable in gold 
 and silver, and three-fourths in public debt ; one-fourth to be paid on 
 subscribing, and the remainder in three instalments, semi-annually. The 
 corporation was not to own property, including its capital, to a greater 
 amount than $15,000,000; nor were its debts, exclusive of deposits, to 
 exceed $10,000,000. It might sell any part of the public debt compos- 
 ing its stock, but not purchase any public debt, nor trade in anything 
 except bills of exchange, and gold and silver bullion, nor take a higher 
 rate of interest than six per cent. It was to be a bank of deposit and 
 discount ; and its bills were to be payable in specie, and receivable in all 
 payments to the United States. No loan was to be made to the United 
 States exceeding $100,000; nor to any particular state exceeding 
 $50,000 ; nor to a foreign prince or state to any amount, unless pre- 
 viously authorized by an act of congress. The bank was to be located 
 at Philadelphia, with power in the directors to establish offices of dis- 
 count and deposit only, wherever they should think fit, within the United 
 States. The charter was to continue twenty years ; and no other bank 
 was to be established by congress within that period. 
 
 The inconveniences arsing from the disordered state of the currency, 
 demanded some measure of relief. The balance of trade having always 
 been against the colonies, coin had flowed towards England. This had 
 induced the issue, in some colonies, of government bills, or treasury 
 notes, which were sometimes made a legal tender in payment of debts. In 
 others, they were loaned on interest, thus furnishing a source of revenue 
 to the government, and serving as a medium of trade. These paper 
 issues were carried to such an extreme, that parliament had found it 
 necessary to restrict them. During the war, all restraint being removed 
 and necessity impelling to the measure, paper money was issued more 
 profusely than ever before ; so that both continental and state bills be- 
 
92 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 came almost worthless, ceased to circulate. Such was the deprecia- 
 tion of the former in the hands of the holders, that a debt of two hun- 
 dred millions of dollars had been reduced by an act of congress to five 
 millions, being at the rate of forty for one. And nearly eighty millions 
 yet outstanding, were, as has been stated, funded at the rate of one hun- 
 dred for one. [Appendix, Note A.] 
 
 Sensible relief had been afforded, near the close of the war, by the 
 bank of North America, as has been observed. This institution was ori- 
 ginated by Robert Morris, at that time superintendent of the continental 
 finances, and was designed to aid him in the duties of his oiBce. It was 
 the first institution in this country which issued bills of credit payable 
 in cash. The advantages of this redeemable currency, not only to the 
 government, but to trade in general, led to the establishment of a similar 
 bank at New York, and another at Boston, and subsequently the 
 national bank just described. No others were at that time in existence 
 m the United States. The constitutional power of the old congress to 
 charter a bank having been questioned, a new charter was obtained from 
 the state of Pennsylvania ; after which its connection with the national 
 government ceased. Hence, to furnish the government with an institu- 
 tion then deemed necessary as a fiscal agent, and at the same time to 
 increase the amount of banking capital to meet the increased demands 
 of trade, the new bank was established. 
 
 A law was passed at this session, admitting the new state of Kentucky, 
 formed from Virginia, into the union ; the admission to take place the 
 1st of June following, (1792.) Vermont also was admitted, to come 
 into the union on the termination of the present session of congress. 
 
 The second congress met on the 24th of October, 1791. The condi- 
 tion of the country at this time, p'resented a marked contrast with that 
 in which it had been found by the first congress. The president, in his 
 speech at the opening of the session, thus congratulated congress on the 
 improved situation of the country : 
 
 " Your own observation in your respective districts, will have satisfied 
 you of the progressive state of agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and 
 navigation. In tracing its causes, you will have remarked with particu- 
 lar pleasure, tlie happy effects of that revival of confidence, public as 
 well as private, to which the constitution and laws of the United States 
 so obviously contributed. And j^ou will have observed, with no less 
 interest, new and decisive proofs of the increasing reputation and credit 
 of the nation." The readiness with which the stock of the bank had 
 been taken, he mentioned as " among the striking and pleasing evidences, 
 not only of confidence in the government, but of resources in the com- 
 munity." 
 
APPORTIONMENT BILL. 93 
 
 Among the subjects to which the president called the attention of con- 
 gress, was the hostility of the north-western Indians, whose depredations 
 on the frontiers had made it necessary to send an expedition against 
 them, and with whom farther hostilities were anticipated. With some 
 of the tribes provisional treaties had been negotiated ; to others, over- 
 tures of peace were still continued. He also suggested a modification of 
 the act laying duties on distilled spirits, which had caused, in some 
 places, considerable discontent. 
 
 Of the members of the former house, about one-third had been reelected. 
 Although the administration majority had been somewhat reduced, it was 
 yet considerable ; and, as before, the opposition members were principally 
 from the five southernmost states. In the senate, a still larger propor- 
 tional majority were supporters of the administration. 
 
 The apportionment of representatives, according to the census of 1790, 
 was made at this session of congress. In order to obtain the largest possi- 
 ble number of representatives, it was determined to adopt the lowest ratio 
 allowed by the constitution. A bill was passed by the house, and sent 
 to the senate, where it was amended by making the apportionment con- 
 formable to a ratio of 33,000. The house disagreeing to the amend- 
 ment, the bill was lost. A'second bill, based on a ratio of 30,000, was, 
 after much disagreement, passed by both houses. By this bill, the whole 
 representative population of the United States was divided by the ratio, 
 and the number thus obtained was to be the whole number of represent- 
 atives, to be apportioned among the several states. But as there would 
 remain in each state a fraction of the population unrepresented ; and as 
 these fractional numbers of the several states amounted in the aggregate 
 to a population entitled to several representatives, these representatives 
 were apportioned to those states having the largest fractions. 
 
 This bill was negatived by the president as unconstitutional, for the 
 reason that those states to which a representative was given for their 
 fractional numbers, had more than one representative for every 30,000 
 inhabitants. According to the president's construction of the constitu- 
 tion [Art. I, sec. 2, clause 3,] each state was restricted to a representative 
 for every 30,000 inhabitants ; consequently the fractional number could 
 have no representative ; and the aggregate number of representatives 
 composing the house must be less than the number obtained by dividing 
 the whole population of all the states by the ratio. The president con- 
 sulted his cabinet on the question, who were equally divided, as on the 
 question of the bank. In the present case, however, he concurred in the 
 opinions of Jefferson and Randolph. 
 
 A third bill was then introduced, fixing the ratio at 33,000, and appor- 
 tioning the representatives in conformity with the views of the president, 
 
94' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and was passed without much opposition. It gave a house of 105 
 members. 
 
 Intelligence of the defeat of the American army under Gen. St. Clair, 
 by the Western Indians, near the Ohio river, which had occurred in 
 November, was received by the president in December, and communi- 
 cated to congress. In accordance with a report of the secretary of war 
 a bill, providing for the prosecution of the war, and proposing to raise an 
 additional military force, was introduced into the house of representa- 
 tives, and passed, though not without a vigorous opposition. It was 
 argued that the war was unjust ; the hostility of the Indians having 
 been instigated by the British, who were still permitted to occupy the 
 western posts, and by the citizens of the United States having tran- 
 scended their proper boundaries. Let these causes be removed, and 
 hostilities would cease. Not the least objection to the war was the addi- 
 tional draft upon the treasury, and the consequent increase of taxes which 
 it would occasion. A prosecution of the war was said to be unnecessary. 
 But, conceding its necessity, the force which had been already authorized, 
 would, when raised, be sufficient without the additional regiments pro- 
 posed by the bill. 
 
 On the other side it was alleged, that the war had been undertaken 
 simply to defend our citizens on the frontiers. Since 1783, more than 
 two thousand persons had been massacred or carried into captivity. 
 Treaties of peace had been proposed, but the Indians had refused to treat. 
 Nor could they be pacified by repurchasing their lands. War would 
 again break out, and force must at last be employed to obtain a per- 
 manent peace. Averse as the people were to taxes, they would regard 
 money as of little value in comparison with the lives of their fellow- 
 citizens. And it would be more economical, by a competent force, at 
 once to terminate the contest, than to protract hostilities by a weaker 
 army. 
 
 Gen, St. Clair having resigned the command of the army, Gen. Wayne 
 was appointed to succeed him. The final defeat of the Indians did not 
 take place until nearly two years after. 
 
 The secretary of the treasury having been called on by the house to 
 report the ways and means of meeting the additional demands upon the 
 treasury which would be occasioned by the war, recommended an in- 
 crease of duties ; and a new tarijff act, conforming in most of its details 
 to the secretary's report, was passed. By this act, a discrimination was 
 made in favor of certain articles with a view to the encouragement of 
 American industry. The excise act being unpopular in some sections of 
 the imion, the duty on domestic spirits was somewhat diminished, and 
 increased on those imported. 
 
OPPOSITION TO "Washington's administration. 95- 
 
 Laws were also passed at this session for the encouragement of fishing, 
 by granting bounties to the owners of fishing vessels and to the fisher- 
 men ; for providing more effectually for the public defense, by establish- 
 ing a uniform militia system ; for authorizing the president, in case of 
 invasion or insurrection, to call forth the militia ; for establishing a 
 mint and regulating the coinage ; for reorganizing the post-ofiice ; for 
 regulating the election of president and vice-president, and for declaring 
 what officer shall act as president in case of vacancy in the offices of pres- 
 ident and vice-president. 
 
 On the 8th of May, congress adjourned to the first Monday of 
 November. 
 
 CHAPTER YII. 
 
 OPPOSITION TO Washington's administration. — differences between 
 
 secretaries JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. WHISKY INSURRECTION. 
 
 FUGITIVE LAW. CONSTITUTION AMENDED. 
 
 The ground of controversy between the two parties had now become 
 essentially changed. The constitution was rapidly increasing in the 
 popular favor. The minority had withdrawn chiefly their opposition 
 from its original objects, and were now directing it against the adminis- 
 tration. Unwilling longer to bear a name which implied hostility to the 
 constitution, they renounced the name of " anti-federalists," and assumed 
 that of "republicans." Of this party, Mr. Jefferson had become the 
 leader. Mr. Hamilton, the author of the leading measures of the admin- 
 istration, was considered the head of the other. 
 
 The asperity of the parties had been greatly sharjDened by the personal 
 enmity known to subsist between their respective leaders. This enmity 
 has been attributed to several causes. These gentlemen differed widely 
 in their views of government. Mr. Jefferson's regard for popular rights 
 is well known. His jealousy of the encroachments of power was perhaps 
 indulged to an extreme. The correctness of the following portraiture 
 of these two political champions, drawn by Hildreth, will probably be 
 generally admitted. 
 
 "Jefferson had returned from France, strengthened and confirmed by 
 his residence and associations there, in those theoretical ideas of liberty 
 and equality to which he had given utterance in the declaration of inde- 
 
96 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 pendence. During his residence in Europe, as well as pending the 
 revolutionary struggle, his attention seems to have been almost exclu- 
 sively directed toward abuses of power. Hence his political philosophy 
 was almost entix-ely negative — its sum total seeming to be the reduction 
 of the exercise of authority within the narrowest possible limits, even at 
 the risk of depriving government of its ability for good as well as for 
 evil ; a theory extremely well suited to place him at the head of those 
 who, for various reasons, wished to restrict, as far as might be, the 
 authority of the new federal government. 
 
 " Though himself separated from the mass of the people, by elegance 
 of manners, refined taste, and especially by philosophical opinions on the 
 subject of religion, in political affairs Jefferson was disposed to allow a 
 controlling, indeed absolute authority to the popular judgment. The 
 many he thought to be always more honest and disinterested, and in 
 questions where the public interests were concerned, more wise than the 
 few, who might always be suspected of having private purposes to serve. 
 Hence he was ever ready to allow even his most cherished principles to 
 drop into silence the moment he found them in conflict with the popular 
 current. To sympathize with popular passions, seemed to be his test of 
 patriotism; to sail before the wind as a popular favorite, the great 
 object of his ambition ; and it was under the character of a condescend- 
 ing friend of the people that he rose first at the head of a party, and then 
 the chief magistrate of the nation." 
 
 " Much less of a scholar or a speculatist than either Jefferson or Adams, 
 but a sagacious observer of mankind, and possessed of practical talents 
 of the highest order, Hamilton's theory of government seems to have 
 been almost entirely founded on what had passed under his own observa- 
 tion during th^ war of the revolution, and subsequently, preyious to the 
 adoption of the new constitution. As Washington's confidential aid-de- 
 camp, and as a member of the continental congress, after the peace, he 
 had become very strongly impressed with the impossibility of providing for 
 the public good, especially in times of war and danger, except l)y a gov- 
 ernment vested with ample powers, and possessing means for putting 
 those powers into vigorous exercise. To give due strength to a govern- 
 ment, it was necessary, in his opinion, not only to invest it on paper with 
 sufficient legal authority, but to attach the most wealthy and influential 
 part of the community to it by the ties of personal and pecuniary advan- 
 tage ; for, though himself remarkably disinterested,acting under the exalted 
 sense of personal honor and patriotic duty, Hamilton was inclined, like 
 many other men in the world, to ascribe to motives of pecuniary and 
 personal interest a somewhat greater influence than they actually possess. 
 Having but little confidence either in the virtue or the judgment of the 
 
 i 
 
DIFFEKENCES BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. 97 
 
 mass of mankind, lie thought the administration of affairs most safe in 
 the hands of a select few. Nor in private conversation did he disguise 
 his opinion that, to save her liberties from attack or intestine commo- 
 tions, America might yet be driven into serious alterations of her consti- 
 tution, giving to it more of a monarchical and aristocratical cast. He had 
 the sagacity to perceive, what subsequent experience has abundantly con- 
 firmed, that the union had rather to dread resistance of the states to 
 federal power, than executive usurpation ; t>ut he was certainly mistaken 
 in supposing that a president and senate for life, or good behavior, such 
 as he had suggested in the federal convention, could have given any addi- 
 tional strength to the government. That strength, under all elective 
 systems, must depend on public confidence ; and public confidence is best 
 tested and secured by frequent appeals to the popular vote." 
 
 Admitting these gentlemen to have possessed an ordinary share of 
 human fallibility, a material cause of their mutual hatred might be 
 found in their political . rivalry. Identified with those measures which 
 had contributed so largely to the popularity of the administration, Ham- 
 ilton was regarded with jealousy by other aspirants. Hence the dispo- 
 sition to disparage these measures, and to asperse their supporters. The 
 funding system, the assumption of the state debts, the excise, and the 
 national bank, were denounced as corrupt attempts to gain friends to 
 their author, and as intended to pave the way toward an aristocracy and a 
 monarchy. And, as is too often the case in warm political controversies, 
 the most patriotic supporters of the administration were accused of 
 having been drawn into the interests of the secretary, by the hope of a 
 participation in the profits of the trade in the public stocks created by 
 his policy. Newspapers enlisted in the contest, and increased the viru- 
 lence of parties. At the seat of government (Philadelphia) was Fenno's 
 United States Gazette, the special organ of the secretary of the treasury 
 and his friends. The National Gazette was the medium selected by the 
 opposition, or rather had been established for this purpose, and, as was 
 alleged, under the auspices of the secretary of state ; its editor, Philip 
 Freneau, a Frenchman, having about the same time been appointed 
 translating clerk to the state department. 
 
 The disagreement between the heads of the state and treasury depart- 
 ments had acquired such magnitude, and had so great an influence in 
 widening the division of parties, as to deserve notice in this place. 
 
 Gen. Washington, having intimated an intention not to be a candidate 
 for reelection, was urged by numerous friends to consent to serve a 
 second term. Having, after the close of the session of congress, retired 
 to Mt. Vernon, for temporary relief from the cares of public business, 
 Mr. Jefferson addressed him a letter, soliciting him to relinquish his 
 
98 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 intention to retire ; assigning as a reason the divided state of the pubUc 
 mind in relation to the policy of his administration. The letter mentions 
 several causes of dissatisfaction among the people. The public debt was 
 alleged to be gi-eater than was necessary, a part of it having been " arti- 
 ficially created," in consequence of which " we have been already obliged," 
 he said, " to strain the impost till it produces clamor, and will produce 
 evasion, and war on our citizens to collect it, and even to resort to an 
 excise law, of odious character with the people, partial in its operation, 
 and unproductive, unless enforced by arbitrary and vexatious means." 
 
 The people complained also that so much of the public debt had 
 "been made irredeemable, but in small portions, and in long terms." 
 But for this, it might be paid in two-thirds of the time. " This irre- 
 deemable quality was given to it for the avowed purpose of inviting its 
 transfer to foreign countries," whither three millions of dollars of coin 
 must be annually transported to pay interest. " They think that the 
 ten or twelve per cent, annual profits paid to the lenders of this paper 
 medium, are taken out of the gockets of the people, who would have had 
 without interest the coin it is banishing ; that all the capital employed 
 in paper speculation is barren and useless, and is withdrawn from com- 
 merce and agriculture, where it would have produced an addition to the 
 common mass; that it nourishes in our citizens habits of vice and idle- 
 ness, instead of industry and morality ; that it has furnished effectual 
 means of corrapting such a portion of the legislature as turns the balance 
 between the honest voters, whichever way it is directed ; that this corrupt 
 squadron deciding the voice of the legislature, have manifested their dis- 
 position to get rid of the limitations imposed by the constitution on the 
 general legislature, limitations on the faith of which the states acceded 
 to that instrument; that the ultimate object of all this is to prepare the 
 way for a change from the present republican form of government to 
 that of a monarchy, of which the English constitution is to be the 
 model. 
 
 " Of all the mischiefs objected to the system of measures before men- 
 tioned, none is so afflicting and fatal to every honest hope, as the corrup- 
 tion of the legislature. As it was the earliest of these measures, it 
 became the instrument for producing the rest, and will be the instrument 
 for producing in future a king, lords, and commons, or whatever else 
 those who direct it may choose. 
 
 " The only hope of safety hangs now on the numerous representation 
 which is to come forward the ensuing year. Some of the new members 
 will probably be either in principle or interest with the present majority. 
 But it is expected that the great mass will form an accession to the 
 republican party. * * * But should the majority of the new mem- 
 
 II 
 
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. 99 
 
 bers be still in the same principles with the present, and show that we 
 have nothing to expect but a continuance of the same practices, it is not 
 easy to conjecture what would be the result, nor what means would be 
 resorted to for a correction of the evil. True wisdom would direct that 
 they should be temperate and peaceable. But the division of sentiment 
 and interest happens unfortunately to be so geographical, that no mortal 
 can say that what is most wise and temperate would prevail against what 
 is more easy and obvious. 
 
 " I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the break- 
 ing of the union into two or more parts. Yet when we review the mass 
 that opposed the original coalescence ; when we consider that it lay 
 chiefly in the southern quarter ; that the legislature have availed them- 
 selves of no occasion of allaying it, but, on the contrary, whenever northern 
 or southern prejudices have come in conflict, the latter have been sacri- 
 ficed and the former soothed ; that the owners of the debt are in the 
 southern, and the holders of it in the noi'thern division ; that the anti- 
 federal champions are now strengthened in argument by the fulfillment 
 of their predictions ; that this has been brought about by the monarchi- 
 cal federalists themselves, who, having been for the new government 
 merely as a stepping-stone to monarchy, have themselves adopted the 
 very constructions of the constitution, of which, when advocating it 
 before the people, they declared it insusceptible ; that the republican 
 federalists, who espoused the same government from its intrinsic merits, 
 are disarmed of their weapons — that which they denied as prophecy hav- 
 ing become true as history — who can be sure that these things may not 
 proselyte the small number which was wanting to place the majority on 
 the other side ? And this is the event at which I tremble, and to pre- 
 vent which I consider your continuance at the head of affairs as of the 
 last importance." 
 
 The opponents of Mr. Jefferson regarded this letter as designed to 
 influence the mind of Washington against the original friends of the 
 constitution, who were now generally the supporters of the administra- 
 tion. AVhatever were the motives which dictated it, it failed to effect 
 the object imputed to the writer, as is evident from a subsequent conver- 
 sation with Washington, as related by Mr. Jefferson himself. He repre- 
 sents Washington as having said, " that, Avith respect to the existing causes 
 of uneasiness, he thought there were suspicions against a particular party 
 which had been carried a great deal too far. There might be desires, 
 but he did not believe there were designs, to change the form of govern- 
 ment into a monarchy. There might be a few who wished it in the 
 higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities, but the main body 
 of the people in the eastern states were as steady for republicanism as in 
 
100 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the soutliern. Pieces lately published, and particularly in Freneau's 
 paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to the government, 
 and this had already taken place in Pennsylvania as to the excise law. 
 These pieces tended to produce a separation of the union, the most 
 dreadful of all calamities : and whatever tended to produce anarchy, 
 tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government. He 
 considered these papers as attacking him directly, for he must be fool 
 indeed to swallow the little sugar-plums here and there thrown out to 
 him. In condemning the administration of the government, they con- 
 demned him ; for if they thought that measures were pursued contrary to 
 his judgment, they must consider him too careless to attend to, or too 
 stupid to understand them. He had, indeed, signed many acts which he 
 did not approve in all their parts, but he had never put his name to one 
 which he did not think eligible on the whole. 
 
 " As to the bank which had been the subject of so much complaint, 
 until there was some infallible criterion of reason, differences of opinion 
 must be tolerated. He did not believe that the discontent extended far 
 from the seat of government. He had seen and spoken with many in 
 Maryland and Virginia during his last journey, and had found the 
 people contented and happy. He defended the assumption of the state 
 debts on the ground that it had not increased the total amount to be 
 paid. All of it was honest debt, and whether paid by the state indi- 
 vidually, or by the union, it was still alike a burden on the people. The 
 excise he defended as one of the best laws that could be passed, nobody 
 being obliged to pay who did not elect to do so." 
 
 Mr. Hamilton, who also urged Washington not to decline, wrote to 
 him while on a subsequent visit to Mt. Vernon, as follows : " It is 
 clear, says every one with whom I have conversed, that the affairs of 
 the national government are not yet firmly established ; that its enemies, 
 generally speaking, are as inveterate as ever ; that their enmity has been 
 sharpened by its success, and by all the resentments which flow from 
 disappointed predictions and mortified vanity ; that a general and stren- 
 uous effort is making in every state to place the administration of it into 
 the hands of its enemies, as if they were its safest guardians; that the 
 period of the next house of representatives is to prove the crisis of its per- 
 manent character ; that if you continue in oflace, nothing materially mis- 
 chievous is to be apprehended ; if you quit, much is to be dreaded ; that 
 the same motives which induced you to accept originally, ought to induce 
 you to continue till matters have assumed a more determinate aspect ; 
 that, indeed, it would have been better for your own character that you 
 had never consented to come forward, than now to leave the business un- 
 finished and in danger of being undone, that, in the event of stonns 
 
DIFFEREKCES BETWEEN JEFFEKSON AND HAMILTON. 101 
 
 arising, there would be an imputation either of a want of foresight, or 
 a want of firmness ; and in fine, that on pubUc and personal accounts, on 
 patriotic and prudential considerations, the clear path to be pursued by 
 you will be again to obey the voice of your country, which, it is not 
 doubted, will be as earnest and unanimous as ever." 
 
 Mr. Randolph, the attorney-general, who also wrote to the president 
 on the same subject, seems not to have taken a side with either party. 
 He says : " It can not have escaped you, that divisions are formed in our 
 politics as systematic as those which prevail in Great Britain. Such as 
 opposed the constitution from a hatred to the union, can never be con- 
 ciliated by any overture or atonement. By others it is meditated to 
 push the construction of the federal powers to every tenable extreme. 
 A third class, republican in principle, and thus far, in my judgment, 
 happy in their discernment of our welfare, have, notwithstanding, 
 mingled with their doctrines a fatal error, that the state assemblies are 
 to be resorted to as the engines of correction to the federal administra- 
 tion. The honors belonging to the chief magistracy, are objects of no 
 common solicitude to a few who compose a fourth denomination." After 
 speaking of the tendency of these divisions, he says : " In this threaten- 
 ing posture of affairs, we must gain time, for the purpose of attracting 
 confidence to the government, by an experience of its benefits, and that 
 name alone, whose patronage secured the adoption of the constitution, 
 can check the assaults which it will sustain at the two next sessions of 
 congress." 
 
 About this time, a personal newspaper controversy occurred, in which 
 the resentments of the parties were freely uttered. The frequent attacks 
 in Freneau's paper upon the financial measures of the administration, 
 at length drew from Mr. Hamilton a severe newspaper article, signed 
 " An American," in which he represented that paper as having been 
 established under the auspices and for the special use of the secretary 
 of state, and charged him with the impropriety of holding office in the 
 administration, while conducting a warfare against measures which had 
 received the approval of both branches of the legislature and of the exe- 
 cutive. Freneau, in reply, denied Mr. Jefferson's having been concerned 
 in the establishment or conduct of the paper, or his having even written 
 for it. Several articles followed on both sides before this newspaper war 
 terminated. 
 
 Washington, pained at this quarrel between his secretaries, endeavored, 
 though in vain, to effect a reconciliation. In a letter of the 23d of 
 August, addressed to the secretary of state, he wrote thus : " How un- 
 fortunate and how much is it to be regretted, then, that while we are 
 encompassed on all sides with avowed enemies and insidious friends," 
 
102 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 (alluding to alleged British and Spanish intrigues with the Indians,) 
 " internal dissensions should be harrowing and tearing out our vitals. 
 The last, to me, is the most serious, the most alarming, and the most 
 afflicting of the two ; and without more charity for the opinions of one 
 another in governmental matters, or some more infallible criterion than 
 has yet fallen to the lot of humanity, by which the truth of speculative 
 opinions, beforg they have undergone the test of experience, is to be fore- 
 judged, I believe it will be difficult, if not impracticable, to keep the 
 parts of it together ; for if, instead of laying our shoulders to the 
 machine after measures are decided on, one pulls this way and another 
 that, before the utility of the thing is fairly tried, it must inevitably be 
 torn asunder ; and, in my opinion, the fairest prospect of happiness and 
 prosperity that ever was presented to man, will be lost perhaps forever. 
 
 *' My earnest wish, and my fondest hope, therefore, is, that instead of 
 wounding suspicions and irritating charges, there may be liberal allow- 
 ances, nmtual forbearances, and temporizing yielding on all sides. 
 Under the exercise of these, matters will go on smoothly, and, if possible, 
 more prosperously. Without them, every thing must rub ; the wheels 
 of government must clog; our enemies will triumph, and, by throwing 
 their weight into the disaffected scale, may accomplish the ruin of the 
 goodly fabric we have been erecting. 
 
 " I do not mean to apply this advice or these observations to any par- 
 ticular person or character. I have given them in the same general 
 terms to other officers of the government, because the disagreements 
 which have arisen from difference of opinions, and the attacks which 
 have been made upon almost all the measures of government, and 
 most of its executive officers, have for a long time past ffiled me with 
 painful sensations, and can not fail, I think, of producing unhappy con- 
 sequences at home and abroad." 
 
 A similar letter to Hamilton, and another to Jefferson were sub- 
 sequently written. In the last he says : " I will solemnly and frankly 
 declare, that I believe the views of both to be pure and well meant, and 
 that experience only will decide with respect to the salubrity of the 
 measures which are the subjects of this dispute. * * * I have a great, 
 a sincere esteem and regard for you both ; and ardently wish that some 
 line could be marked out by which both of you could walk." 
 
 To these letters of the president, answers in justification of their 
 conduct were returned by both of the secretaries. The character of 
 these answers will be seen from the following extracts. 
 
 " It is my most anxious wish," said Hamilton, " as far as may depend 
 upon me, to smooth the path of your administration, and to render it 
 prosperous and happy. And if any prospect shall open of healing or 
 
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. 103 
 
 terminating the differences wliicli exist, I shall most cheerfully embrace 
 it, though I consider myself as the deeply injured party. The recom- 
 mendation of such a spirit is worthy of the moderation and wisdom 
 which dictated it ; and if your endeavors should prove unsuccessful, I 
 do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, the period is not remote when 
 the public good will require substitutes for tlie differing members of your 
 administration. The continuance of a division there must destroy the 
 energy of government, which will be little enough with the strictest 
 union. On my part, there will be a most cheerful acquiescence in such 
 a result. * * * I can not conceal from you, that I have had some instru- 
 mentality of late in the retaliations which have fallen upon certain public 
 characters, and that I find myself placed in a situation not to be able to 
 recede for the present. 
 
 " I considered myself compelled to this conduct by reasons public as 
 well as personal, of the most cogent nature. I know that I have been 
 an object of uniform opposition from Mr. Jefferson from the moment of 
 his coming to New York to enter on his present office. I know from the 
 most authentic sources, that I have been the frequent subject of the most 
 unkind whispers and insinuations from the same quarter. I have long 
 seen a formed party in the legislature, under his auspices, bent upon my 
 subversion. I can not doubt, from the evidence I possess, that the 
 National Gazette was instituted by him for political purposes, and that 
 one leading object of it has been to render me and all the leading meas- 
 ures connected with my department, as odious as possible. 
 
 " As long as I saw no danger to the government from the machina- 
 tions that were going on, I resolved to be a silent sufferer of the injuries 
 that were done me. * * * But when I no longer doubted that there was 
 a formed party deliberately bent upon a subversion of the measures 
 which, in its consequence, would subvert the government ; when I saw 
 that the undoing of the funding system in particular was an avowed 
 object of the party, which, whatever may be the original merits of that 
 system, would prostrate the credit and honor of the nation, and bring 
 the government into contempt with that description of men who are in 
 every society the only firm supporters of government, and that all possi- 
 ble pains were taking to produce that effect, by rendering the funding 
 system odious to the body of the people ; I considered it as a duty to 
 endeavor to resist the torrent, and as an effectual means to that end, to 
 draw aside the veil from the principal actors. To this strong impulse, to 
 this decided conviction, I have yielded; and I think events will prove 
 that I have judged rightly. Nevertheless, I pledge my honor to you, 
 sir, that if you shall hereafter form a plan to reunite the members of 
 your administration upon some steady principle of cooperation, I will 
 
104 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAIT. 
 
 faithfully concur in executing it during my continuance in office ; and I 
 will not, directly or indirectly, say or do a thing that will endanger a 
 feud." 
 
 Jeif erson, in his letter, says : " When I embarked in the government, 
 it was with a determination to intermeddle not at all with the legislature, 
 and as little as possible with the co-departments. * * * If it has been 
 supposed that I have ever intrigued among the members of the legisla- 
 ture to defeat the plans of the secretary of the treasury, it is contrary 
 to all truth. That I have utterly, in my private conversations, disap- 
 proved of his system, I acknowledge and avow : and this was not merely 
 a speculative difference. His system flowed from principles adverse to 
 liberty, and was calculated to undermine and demolish the repubhc, by 
 creating an influence in his department over the members of the legisla- 
 ture. I saw this influence actually produced, and its firet fruits to be 
 the establishment of the great outlines of his project by the votes of the 
 very persons who, having swallowed his bait, were laying themselves out 
 to profit by his plans ; and that, had these persons withdrawn, as those 
 interested in a question ever should, the vote of the disinterested majority 
 was clearly the reverse of what they made it. These were no longer, 
 then, the votes of the representatives of the people, but of deserters 
 from the rights and interests of the people ; and it was impossible to 
 consider their decision, which had nothing in view but to enrich them- 
 selves, as the measures of the fair majority, which ought always to be re- 
 spected. 
 
 " If what was actually done begat uneasiness in those who wished for 
 virtuous government, Avhat was farther proposed was not less threatening 
 to the friends of the constitution. For, in a report on the subject of 
 manufactures, (still to be acted on,) it was expressly assumed, that the 
 general government has a right to exercise all powers which may be for 
 the general welfare ; that is to say, all the legitimate powers of govern- 
 ment, since no government has a right to do what is not for the welfare 
 of the governed. There was, indeed, a sham limitation of the universal- 
 ity of this power to cases where money is to be employed. But about 
 what is it that money can not be employed ? Thus the object of these 
 plans, taken together, is to di-aw all the powers of government into the 
 hands of the general legislature, to establish means of coiTupting a 
 sufficient corps in that legislature to divide the honest votes, and prepon- 
 derate by their own the scale which suited, and to have that corps undei* 
 the command of the secretary of the treasury, for the purj^ose of sub- 
 verting, step by step, the principles of the constitution, which he has so 
 often declared a thing of nothing, which must be changed." 
 
 The reason assigned by the secretary of state for his patronizing the 
 
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON. 105 
 
 National Gazette, was a desire to present to tlie public European intelli- 
 gence taken from tlie Leyden Gazette, instead of tlie Euglisli papers, 
 the latter being considered as not giving a correct view of foreign affairs, 
 especially of those of France, where the revolution was then in progress. 
 He disclaimed having written or dictated any thing unofficial to be in- 
 serted an Freneau's paper. He had simply furnished the editor with 
 the Leyden Gazette, and requested him to translate and publish articles 
 from the same. Any recommendations which he might have given the 
 paper, had no respect to its opposition to the measures of the govern- 
 ment, but to the ground it took against the aristocratical and monarchical 
 doctrines of writers in other papers. 
 
 We have devoted considerable space to this cabinet controversy, which 
 occurred in an important period of the history of our government, and 
 which, from its influence upon the future politics of the nation, has not 
 yet become devoid of interest. Although the parties of that day have 
 long ago ceased to exist, public sentiment in regard to the early policy 
 of the government is still to some extent divided ; and the two original 
 leaders of those parties have yet their admirers. Of their relative mer- 
 its or demerits it is hardly safe at this remote period to express an 
 opinion. To both must be conceded a large measure of patriotism, and 
 the honor of having rendered important public services. As is usual in 
 times of political excitement, the characters, private and official, of both, 
 were often unjustly assailed, and their public acts, as well as the motives 
 that prompted them, misjudged. Not only the newspapers, but pamph- 
 lets almost without number, many of which are yet extant, were employed 
 in this party war. Abounding with the most fulsome praise on one side, 
 and malicious disparagement on the other, they are unreliable sources of 
 information, and serve little purpose other than to show the character of 
 the warfare which they were instrumental in promoting. 
 
 We can not be persuaded to believe the existence of the alleged con- 
 spiracy against republican liberty, or of the corruption or subserviency 
 of a majority of both houses of the legislature ; yet it is not incredible 
 that a man so extremely jealous of encroachments upon popular rights 
 as Mr. Jefferson, should indulge in unjust suspicions toward a political 
 rival and his supporters. We are equally slow to believe, that the bene- 
 fits of Mr. Hamilton's financial policy were not in some measure over- 
 rated. The general industry and the restoration of commerce, doubtless 
 contributed much to raise the country from the depressed condition to 
 which it had been reduced by the war. 
 
 The act imposing a duty on distilled spirits, unacceptable in several 
 parts of the union, was extremely obnoxious to the inhabitants of the 
 western counties of Pennsylvania. Meetings in which some of the most 
 
106 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 influential citizens took a leading part were held at Pittsburg and other 
 places ; and resolutions wei-e adopted tending to increase the discontent, 
 and encouraging resistance to the execution of the law. It was this 
 organized opposition to the excise law that had induced congress, before 
 its adjournment, to pass the act authorizing the president to call out the 
 militia to aid in enforcing the laws. Various measures — as declaring 
 infamous all excise collectors — threatening to destroy property and life, 
 personal violence and the like — were resorted to in order to deter persons 
 from assisting to execute the law. 
 
 Eeluctant to employ military force, the president issued a proclama- 
 tion, exhorting all persons to desist from any proceedings tending to 
 obstruct the execution of the laws, and requiring the aid of the magis- 
 trates to bring the offenders to justice. But the proclamation was inef- 
 fectual. Many of the magistrates, instead of aiding to maintain the 
 laws, encouraged resistance to them. This spirit of rebellion found 
 additional encouragement in the sympathies of a powerful political party 
 which had arrayed itself against the administration, and which had 
 labored to make this a special object of public odium. This opposition 
 to the laws continued until the summer of 1794. Other means of 
 securing obedience to the law having failed, and the insurrection having 
 assumed an alarming aspect, a strong military force was raised, consisting 
 of 15,000 men, and the insurrection quelled, almost without bloodshed. 
 
 The presidential election which occurred this year, (1792,) resulted 
 in the unanimous reelection of Gen. Washington. Mr. Adams also was 
 reelected vice-president, having received 77 votes, and George Clinton 
 50, the latter being the candidate of the opposition party. Mr. Adams 
 received all the votes of the five New England states. New Jersey, Dela- 
 ware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, except one vote of 
 Pennsylvania, given for Clinton, and one of South Carolina for Burr. 
 Mr. Jefferson received the votes of the Kentucky electors. 
 
 Congress assembled on the 5th of November. Among the subjects 
 to which attention was called by the president, were the continued hos- 
 tility of the Indians, and the increased opposition to the collection of 
 the duty on distilled spirits. In relation to the public debt, he said : 
 " I entertain a strong hope that the state of the national finances is now 
 sufficiently matured to enable you to enter upon a systematic and effect- 
 ual arrangement for the regular redemption and discharge of the public 
 debt, according to the right which has been reserved to the government. 
 No measure can be more desirable, whether viewed with an eye to its 
 intrinsic importance, or to the general sentiments and wish of the nation." 
 
 In answer to the president's speech, the two houses expressed their 
 approval of the measures he had adopted, and of his determination to 
 
CHARGES MADE AGAINST SECRETARY HAMILTON. 107 
 
 compel obdience to the laws ; and the house, whose attention particu- 
 larly he had called to the subject of the public debt, responded favorably 
 to the recommendation. But Avhen a motion was made to enter upon 
 that measure, and to call upon the secretaiy of the treasury to report a 
 plan for that purpose, it met with a sti'ong opposition. It was objected, 
 that the house had not yet sufficient knowledge of the state of the 
 finances. The proposed reference of the subject to the secretary of the 
 treasury was most vigorously opposed ; but after several days' debate it 
 was carried, 32 to 25. A plan was accordingly reported by the secre- 
 tary, in which, anticipating an increase of expenditures on account of 
 the Indian war, a slight addition to the revenue was proposed, by im- 
 posing a tax on pleasure-horses or pleasure-carriages, at the option of 
 congress. 
 
 Several causes conspiring to produce delay, no definitive action was 
 taken upon the subject at this session. One of these causes was an 
 inquiry instituted by the house into the official conduct of the secretary 
 of the treasury, who was suspected of corrupt transactions in the manage- 
 ment of the finances. On motion of Mr. Giles, of Virginia, the ^'esi- 
 dent was called on for information in regard to the borrowing of certain 
 moneys authorized by law, and the manner of their application. This 
 call was promptly answered by the secretary. A second call was then 
 moved for information respecting several other particulars not embraced 
 in the first. In support of the call, Mr. Giles specified several unwar- 
 rantable acts of the secretary, besides his failing to account for a million 
 and a half of dollars. The motion was agreed to without debate. The 
 report of the secretary in answer to the call was full, extending to every 
 subject of inquiry ; and concluded as follows : " Thus have I not only 
 furnished a just and affirmative view of the real situation of the public 
 accounts, but have likewise shown, I trust, in a conspicuous manner, 
 fallacies enough in the statements from which the inference of an tmac- 
 counted for balance is drawn, to evince that it is one tissue of error." 
 
 The charge of an unaccounted for balance was abandoned, but Mr. 
 Giles and his coadjutors, imagining the secretary's statements to aSord 
 sufficient grounds for a vote of censure, drew up a series of resolutions, 
 comprising no less than six distinct charges against the secretary. After 
 a debate of several days, the criminating resolutions were all negatived. 
 The highest number of votes for any one of them was fifteen, little 
 more than half the strength of the party, and for the others, from seven 
 to twelve votes. 
 
 An act was passed at this session to caiTy into effect the provisions of 
 the constitution for the surrender of fugitives from justice and from 
 labor. The act required the executive of a state in which a person 
 
108 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 charged with crime was found, on demand of the executive of the state 
 from which he had fled, to dehver him up to be carried back for trial ; 
 such demand to be accompanied by an indictment or affidavit charging 
 the crime. Persons claimed as slaves, might be seized by the claimant, 
 or his agent, and taken before a United States judge, or a state magis- 
 trate, who, on satisfactory proof that the person seized was a slave, was 
 required to give a warrant for his return. The supreme court of the 
 United States having subsequently decided that congress could not im- 
 pose duties upon state officers, magistrates were by law forbidden in 
 many of the free states, to aid in carrying the act of congress into effect. 
 
 At the session of the supreme court of the United States, in February, 
 it was decided that a state was suable by a citizen of another state. A 
 citizen of South Carolina had brought a suit against the state of Georgia. 
 The process had been duly served upon the governor and the attorney- 
 general of the state ; but the state made no defense, protesting that the 
 court had no jurisdiction in the case. The question was argued by the 
 attorney-general of the United States, who appeared for the plaintiff. 
 The jurisdiction of the court was considered as clearly sustained by the 
 constitution, which declares that the judicial power shall extend " to 
 controversies between a state, and the citizen of another state." The 
 states having been made liable, by this decision, to innumerable suits, 
 alarm was taken, and at the next session of congress an amendment to 
 the constitution, [being the 11th article of Amendments,] was proposed, 
 which declares that, " the judicial power of the United States shall not be 
 construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prose- 
 cuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or 
 by citizens or subjects of any foreign state ; " and the same was after- 
 wards ratified by the states. 
 
 With the 3d of March, 1793, closed the constitutional term of the 
 second congress, and the first term of Washington's administration. 
 
 CHAPTER YIII. 
 
 OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION. RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. PRO- 
 CLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY. GENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER. POLICY 
 
 OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 The second term of Washitigton's administration was scarcely less 
 eventful than the first. The internal policy of the government had been 
 as we have seen, established against a powerful opposition. Scarcely had 
 
OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION. 109 
 
 the ceremonies of the second inauguration closed, before it became neces- 
 sary to lay the foundation of a foreign policy which was destined to en- 
 counter an opposition no less vigorous and determined. 
 
 The French revolution had commenced almost simultaneously with 
 the organization of the government of the United States under the new 
 constitution. Its progress was watched with interest by the American 
 people, whose sympathies were very naturally, as well as very generally, 
 enlisted in the cause of their old ally, by whose aid their own independ- 
 ence had been achieved. Such, however, was the character of that revo- 
 lution as to inspire strong doubts of the establishment of a permanent 
 government, A new constitution had been adopted, to which the king 
 had given his assent. The legislature consisted of a single body, called 
 the " national assembly." The crown was to continue hereditary. 
 
 Soon after, the king was suspected, though unjustly, as is supposed, of 
 being confederate with the enemies of France. On the 10th of August, 
 1792, the palace of the Tuileries was stormed, and the royal government 
 subverted. In the prisons of Paris were confined large numbers of 
 nobles, ecclesiastics, and wealthy citizens, suspected of having favored 
 the aristocratic party. The Jacobin demagogues, bent on their destruc- 
 tion, caused the prisons to be burst open, and all the prisoners to be 
 massacred. The number thus slain in two days, the 2d and 3d of Sep- 
 tember, was estimated at five thousand. General La Fayette, whose de- 
 struction was determined on, fled the country. He was arrested by the 
 Austrians and conveyed to the prison of Olmutz, where he suffered a 
 long and cruel confinement, until released through the interposition of 
 the American government. 
 
 The national assembly was dissolved, and a new assembly, called 
 a " convention," was established, which met on the 24th of September, and 
 by which the abolition of monarchy was decreed, and France declared a 
 REPUBLIC. The king was afterwards brought before the bar of the con- 
 vention for trial, without any previous intimation of the charges against 
 him, and declared guilty of a conspiracy against the liberties of the 
 nation. He was executed on the 21st of January, 1793. In October 
 following, the queen also, after an imprisonment of three months in a 
 dungeon, was tried for alleged crimes which were not substantiated, and 
 publicly executed. 
 
 Louis XVI was universally known as an amiable prince. His friend- 
 ship during our own revolution had been appreciated by the American 
 people ; and the president had but recently communicated to congress a 
 letter from the king, announcing his assent to the representative govern- 
 ment, and the house had, with but two dissenting voices, congratulated 
 the French people on this auspicious event. In view of these facts in 
 
110 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 connection with the subsequent wanton sacrifice of the king — the char- 
 acter of tlie revolutionists — their imperfect ideas of repubUcan goveni- 
 ment — it would not have been strange if the people had indulged appre- 
 hensions unfavorable to the establishment of a well regulated republican 
 government, nor less strange still, if the horrid butcheries under the 
 bloodthirsty Robespierre and his coadjutors, the abjuration of the Chris- 
 tian religion, and the abolition of the sabbath, had strengthened these 
 appi'ehensions. 
 
 The question as to the course to be pursued by the United States 
 toward the new government of France, was to be settled. Of the right 
 or propriety of recognizing it, there could hardly be a doubt. But a 
 combination of several European powers had been formed against 
 France; and in April, 1793, a formal declaration of war was made by 
 France against Great Britain and Holland. A large portion of the 
 American people, regarding the situation of France as similar to that of 
 the United States in their contest with Great Britain, were disposed to 
 reciprocate the favor of our former ally. Although sympathizing 
 strongly with France, the president desired to maintain the neutrality of 
 the United States. But before deciding upon the course to be taken, it 
 was necessary to determine whether it was consistent with our treaties 
 with France. By a stipulation in the treaty of alliance with that coun- 
 try, the United States were expressly bound to guaranty the French pos- 
 sessions in America. The treaty of commerce provided, that free ships 
 should make free goods ; that is, instead of the enemy's goods being 
 subject to seizure and confiscation on board neutral vessels, according to 
 the law of nations, such goods were to be free from seizure. 
 
 The president was at Mount Vernon when intelligence of the Avar be- 
 tween France and Great Britain reached him. Having learned that 
 vessels were already preparing to engage in privateering on the commerce 
 of the belligerent powers, he addressed letters to the secretaries of state 
 and of the treasury, requesting them, " to give the subject mature con- 
 sideration," that, on his return, measures might be adopted without 
 delay, " to prevent our citizens from embroiling us with either of those 
 powers." 
 
 On the 18th of April, 1793, the day after his retura, he proposed to 
 the members of his cabinet a series of questions, to which written 
 answers were requested. Among these questions were the following: 
 Shall a proclamation issue for the purpose of preventing interferences of 
 the citizens of the United States in the war between France and Great 
 Britain ? Shall it contain a declaration or not ? Shall a minister from 
 the repiiblic of France be received ? If so, shall it be absolutely, or 
 with qualifications 1 Axe the United States obliged by good faith to 
 
 1 
 
RELATIONS -WITH FRANCE. HJ 
 
 consider the treaties with France as applying to the present situation of 
 the parties ? or may they either renounce them, or suspend them until 
 the government of France shall be established ? If the treaties are now 
 in operation, is the guaranty in the treaty of alliance applicable to a de- 
 fensive war only ? Ought congress to be assembled with a view to the 
 present posture of European affairs ? 
 
 The members were unanimous in favor of a proclamation of neutrality, 
 and of receiving a minister. The secretaries of the treasury and of war, 
 however, advised the reception with a qualification, on the ground of 
 doubt, whether the new government of France could be considered as 
 established by the general consent of the nation. The secretary of state 
 and the attorney-general, thought there ought to be no departure from 
 the usual mode. Nor did they think the change in the form of the 
 French government absolved the United States from the obligations 
 assumed by preexisting treaties. 
 
 The secretaries of the treasury and of war, admitted the right of 
 nations to change their form of government at pleasure ; but they held 
 that, when a change in the internal condition of a state is such, that the 
 other party to the alliance can not render the promised aid without en- 
 dangering its own safety, its obligation ceases. Considering the means by 
 whicli the present ruling party in France had acquired their power, there 
 was no satisfactory evidence that they held it by the general consent of 
 the people, or that the present government would be permanent. The 
 honid and unprovoked massacres perpetrated by the Jacobin clubs at 
 Pai'is, and the gross injustice of the leading acts of the revolutionists, 
 had drawn against the republic such an immense armed force, as to 
 render a continuance of the alliance, in consequence of this new state 
 of things, dangerous to the safety of the United States. In their opinion, 
 however, the government, instead of annulling or totally suspending the 
 treaties, should reserve for future consideration the question, whether 
 their operation ought not to be temporarily and provisionally suspended ; 
 and if this should be the determination of the government, the expected 
 minister ought to be in conciliatory terms apprised of the same. 
 
 These two secretaries held, also, that the clause of guaranty applied 
 only to a defensive war, and was not binding in the present war, which 
 was commenced by France. The other two members deemed it un- 
 necessary at that time to decide this question. The question is here 
 suggested, whether the proclamation of neutrality, to which both these 
 gentlemen had assented, was not itself tantamount to a limitation or sus- 
 pension of the guaranty. None appear to have been in favor of con- 
 venino; conofress. 
 
 The president, in accordance with the opinions of Jefferson and Ran- 
 
112 THE AMERICAN STATESMAIT. 
 
 dolph, concluded to receive the French minister without qualifications or 
 explanations. 
 
 The proclamation was issued on the 22d of April. It declared the 
 disposition of the government to maintain the existing friendly relations 
 with the belligerent powers of Europe, and enjoined the citizens of the 
 United States to forbear all acts inconsistent with neutrality. 
 
 Hitherto no open assaults had been made upon the president himself ; 
 but his popularity was no longer sufficient to shield him from the cen- 
 sures of the opponents of his administration. The proclamation was 
 regarded as evincing hostility to France, and partiality for Great Britain. 
 The cabinet had unanimously advised the proclamation ; but the different 
 views of the members on the French question in general, were well known, 
 and tended to keep up the opposition to the administration. 
 
 The present minister of France, Mr. Ternant, who had been appointed 
 by the king, was recalled, and succeeded by one more zealously disposed 
 to carry out the designs of the new government. The name of the new 
 minister was Edmund C. Genet, usually called Citizen Genet, the title 
 of citizen having been substituted for that of Mr. There is scarcely a 
 more interesting chapter in the history of our government, than that 
 which records, the diplomatic career of this minister in the United States. 
 It discloses the designs of the French government to induce the United 
 States " to make common cause " with that country in a war against 
 Great Britain and other European powers ; and but for the prudence and 
 firmness of the American executive, and the indiscretion of the French 
 minister himself, this country would probably have been involved in a 
 most perilous war. 
 
 Genet arrived at Charleston, S. C, April 8th, 1793, where he was 
 received with great enthusiasm. He immediately commenced enlisting 
 American citizens, and fitting out and commissioning vessels of "vVar to 
 cniise against the enemies of France. The transactions of Genet at 
 Charleston were made the subject of complaint by the British minister 
 to the president. To this cause of complaint was soon added that of 
 the annoyance of British commerce by the privateers fitted out by Genet, 
 and of the capture, by the French frigate, L' Ambuscade, of the British 
 ship Grange, within the capes of Delaware, on her way from the port of 
 Philadelphia to the ocean ; for which the British minister demanded 
 restitution. 
 
 The memorials of Mr. Hammond, the British minister, having been 
 laid before the cabinet, it was unanimously decided, that, as no foreign 
 power could exercise authority within the jurisdictional limits of an inde- 
 pendent nation, the acts complained of, not being warranted by treaty, 
 were violations of neutral rights. The decision was also unanimous, 
 
GENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER. 113 
 
 that the Grange, ha\dng been captured witliin the waters of the United 
 States, should be restored to her owners. But with respect to the resto- 
 ration of the vessels captured by the privateers fitted out by Genet, there 
 was a difference of opinion. Jefferson and Randolph held, that if the 
 commissions issued by Genet were invalid, the courts would adjudge the 
 property to the former owners. Remedy ought therefore to be sought 
 by a recourse to law and not to the government. And with a disavowal 
 of the act, and the taking of measures to prevent its repetition. Great 
 Britain ought to be satisfied. Hamilton and Knox maintained that the 
 captures were illegal, and in -violation of the proclamation of neutral- 
 ity ; and that, by refusing to make restitution, the United States would 
 become a party to the war. The case being one in which the national 
 sovereignty was infringed, it was a proper one for the government, and 
 not for the courts to determine. They therefore advised the restoration 
 of the vessels. On this point, the president took time to deliberate. He 
 afterwards adopted the opinions of the two latter gentlemen. 
 
 The decision that the commissions issued by Genet were illegal and 
 void, and that the Grange should be restored — points upon which all 
 were agreed — was communicated to the British and French ministers, 
 the day before the amval of Genet at Philadelphia. Letters were also 
 addressed to the executives of the several states, requiring them to aid 
 in executing the rules established. After a stay of several weeks at 
 Charleston, Genet proceeded to Philadelphia. He was received at 
 different places on the way, with expressions of the warmest attach- 
 ment. On the 16th of April, he arrived at the seat of government, 
 amidst the shouts of the joyous multitude, embracing a large portion of 
 the inhabitants. The communication sent the day previous to Mr, Ter- 
 nant, was by him in due time delivered to Genet, whose displeasure was 
 highly excited by the decisions of the administration on the French 
 question. 
 
 Genet was the bearer of a public letter addressed by the national con- 
 vention to the people of the United States. This letter, published at 
 Paris in December, had been republished in this country before his 
 arrival. In it the convention say : " The immense distance which parts 
 us, prevents your taking, in this glorious regeneration of Europe, that 
 concern which your principles and past conduct reserved to you." On 
 the 18th of May, he was formally presented to the president and 
 duly received. On this occasion he assured the president that, " on 
 account of the remote situation of the United States, and other circum- 
 stances, France did not expect that they should become a party in the 
 war, but wished to see them preserve their prosperity and happiness in 
 peace." It afterwards appeared, however, that he had brought with him 
 8 
 
114 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 secret instructions, charging him to endeavor to induce the American 
 government to make common cause with France. 
 
 On the 23d of May, Genet communicated a decree of the French 
 convention, by which American vessels were admitted into the ports of 
 France and her East and West India colonies with the same privileges 
 as those enjoyed by her o\;vn. In the letter accompanying this decree, 
 he says : " The French republic, seeing in the American, but brothers, 
 has opened to them, by the decrees now inclosed, all her ports in the 
 two worlds; and has charged me to propose to your government to 
 establish, in a true family compact, the liberal and fraternal basis on 
 which she wishes to see raised the commercial and political system of 
 the two people, all whose interests are confounded." In forming this 
 new " compact " it was the object of the French executive council, as 
 appears from their instructions to enlarge the treaty of 1778. They 
 suggest " a national agi-eement, to befriend the empire of liberty, to 
 guaranty the sovereignty of the people, and to punish those powers who 
 still keep up an exclusive colonial and commercial system, by declaring 
 that their vessels shall not be received in the ports of the contracting 
 parties." Genet was instructed to require of the United States, 
 in the " enlarged " treaty, a new guaranty of the French West India 
 Islands, as a condition of their free commerce with those islands. His 
 instiTictions say : " The citizen Genet will find the less difficulty in mak- 
 ing this proposition relished in the United States, as the trade which will 
 be the reward of it will indemnify them ultimately for the sacrifices they 
 may make at the outset ; and the Americans can not be ignorant of the 
 great disproportion between their resources and those of the French 
 republic ; and that for a long period, the guaranty asked of them will be 
 little else than nominal for them, while that on our part will be real ; 
 and we shall immediately put ourselves in a state to fulfill it, in sending 
 to the American ports a sufficient force to put them beyond insult, and 
 to facilitate their communication with the islands and with France." 
 
 From these instructions, and the subsequent conduct of Genet, it 
 became evident to the American government, that, in the proposed modi- 
 fication of the commercial and political relations of the two countries, 
 the chief object was to effect such a political connection with France, as 
 would have identified the United States ^vith her in all her fortunes. 
 
 France being engaged in war, and in want of funds. Genet was in- 
 structed to request the immediate payment of the remainder of the 
 French debt, not yet due. As an inducement, he proposed to expend 
 the whole sum (between two and three millions of dollars,) in the pur^ 
 chase of provisions and other productions of the United States. The 
 government, unwilling to resort to new loans for this purpose, especially 
 
GENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER. 115 
 
 as money could not then be obtained on favorable terms, declined the 
 proposal. At this refusal Genet took offense, and in his reply, said it 
 tended " to accomplish the infernal system of the king of England, and 
 of the other kings, his accomplices, to destroy, by famine, the French 
 republicans and liberty." 
 
 Upon every decision of the government unfavorable to the designs of 
 Genet, he made direct issue. He claimed the right to arm vessels in 
 the ports of the United States, under that article of the treaty by which 
 the parties agreed not to permit the enemies of either to fit out priva- 
 teers in their ports. The express prohibition of this privilege to ene- 
 mies^ he considered as implying a permission to the parties themselves. 
 The president maintained, that the silence of the treaty respecting the 
 rights of the contracting parties did not justify the inference of the right 
 claimed. This point, on which the treaty was silent, must be determined 
 by circumstances. Genet also insisted on the right, by the treaty, to arm 
 vessels and to try and sell prizes in American ports, under the article 
 allowing each party to bring prizes into the ports of the other. The 
 president considered this provision as merely a permission to the parties 
 to enter and leave the ports of each other with prizes, but not of equip- 
 ping vessels. Genet also held the singular doctrine, that the American 
 government was not responsible for the acts of its citizens who had 
 enlisted on board of the French privateers, as they had for the time 
 renounced the protection of their own country. 
 
 Notwithstanding the determination of the government to enforce the 
 rules of neutrality. Genet persisted in his unlawful acts. In his war- 
 fare against the government, he was encouraged by the aid he received 
 from our own citizens. A powerful political party and its presses were 
 allied with him in this warfare. The two opposition papers at Philadel- 
 phia, Freneau's Gazette, and Bache's Advertiser, both pronounced the 
 proclamation, not only a violation of the treaties with France, but a 
 usurpation of the rights of congress. Genet was expressly told that the 
 people would sustain him. The lead of these papers was soon followed 
 by kindred presses in other parts of the union. 
 
 The paper first above mentioned exhorted thus : " The minister of 
 France, I hope, will act with firmness and with spirit. The people are 
 his friends, or the friends of France, and he will have nothing to appre- 
 hend ; for as yet the people are sovereign of the United States. * * * 
 If one of the leading features of our government is pusillanimity, when 
 the British lion shows his teeth, let France and her minister act as be- 
 comes the dignity and justice of her cause, and the honor and faith of 
 nations." The other paper said : " It is no longer possible to doubt, 
 that the intention of the executive of the United States is, to look upon 
 
116 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the treaty of amity and commerce between France and America, as a 
 nullity ; and that they are prepared to join the league of kings against 
 France." 
 
 An impulse was also sought to be given to the cause of France by the 
 formation of " democratic societies," on the plan of the Jacobin clubs of 
 Paris. The first of these was formed in Philadelphia, soon after Genet's 
 arrival. The declared object of these societies was the protection of 
 American liberty against a " European confederacy," and " the pride of 
 wealth and arrogance of power " at home. These societies brought their 
 influence to bear against the president, and in favor of the French min- 
 ister. After the fall of RobespieiTe in France, these societies, as did 
 their prototypes in Paiis, soon died away. 
 
 Thus supported, it is not so strange that Genet persisted in setting 
 the government at defiance. It was said that not less than fifty British 
 vessels — some of them within the jurisdiction of the United States — 
 were captured by vessels fitted out and acting under his authority. And 
 in spite of express prohibitions, French consuls continued to exercise ad- 
 miralty powers, in holding prize courts, and iu the condemnation and 
 sale of prizes. 
 
 The language of the French minister in his correspondence was highly 
 disrespectful and offensive. Obstructions to the arming of French ves- 
 sels he pronounced " an attempt on the rights of man," and insinuated 
 the charge against the American government of " a cowardly abandon- 
 ment of their friends," and of acting against "the intention of the 
 people of America," whose " fraternal voice resounded from every 
 quarter around him." 
 
 Another subject of complaint by the French minister was, that French 
 property had been taken by British cruisers from American vessels, 
 without any effort on the part of our government to reclaim it. This he 
 declared to be contrary to the principles of neutrality and the law of 
 nations, that " friendly vessels make friendly goods." In permitting 
 this seizure of French goods, he charged our government, indirectly, 
 with tolerating " an audacious piracy," and says, " the French, too con- 
 fident, are punished for having believed that the (American) nation had 
 a flag ; that they had some respect for their laws, some conviction of 
 their strength ; and entertained some sentiment of dignity. But," says 
 he, " if our fellow-citizens have been deceived, and if you are not in a 
 condition to maintain the sovereignty of your people, speak ; we have 
 guaranteed it when slaves, we shall be able to render it formidable, having 
 become freemen." And he wished to know what measures had been 
 taken to restore the property plundered from his fellow-citizens, under 
 the American flag. 
 
GENET, THE FRENCH MINISTER. Il7 
 
 The secretary of state, in answer, reminds the minister of a very im- 
 portant mistake. He is told that, by the law of nations, " the goods of 
 a friend, found in the vessel of an enemy, are free ; and that the goods 
 of an enemy, found in the vessel of a friend, are lawful prize." It was 
 true, that, by a special provision in onr treaty with France, the character 
 of the vessel should be imparted to the cargo ; that is, free ships should 
 make free goods. But no such regulation existed between the United 
 States and Great Britain: therefore, in this case, the law of nations 
 must govern. 
 
 Genet's disrespect of the public authorities was strikingly evinced in 
 the case of the Little Sarah. This vessel had been taken by a French 
 frigate, and brought into the port of Philadelphia, where she was 
 equipped as a privateer, and called Little Democrat. When the vessel 
 was about to sail, Mr. Hamilton, to whom the fact had become known, 
 communicated the same to the other secretaries, the president having 
 been suddenly called to Mount Vernon. The interposition of the 
 governor of Pennsylvania was requested, who sent his secretary of state, 
 Mr. Dallas, to persuade Genet to detain the vessel, and save him the 
 necessity of employing force. On receiving the message, Genet became 
 enraged, and indulged in intemperate language toward those officers of 
 the government whom he considered inimical to the cause of France, 
 and by whom the president was misled. He said the president had not 
 the power to issue a proclamation of neutrality ; it belonged to congress ; 
 and he intimated his intention to appeal from the president to the 
 people. He would remain until the meeting of congress ; and if the 
 representatives of the people should sustain the president, he would 
 depart, and leave the dispute to be settled by the two nations. 
 
 Genet ha\dng refused to give any pledge to detain the vessel, Gov. 
 Mifflin ordered out one hundred and twenty men to take possession of 
 her. Mr. Jefferson, desirous to prevent the employment of military 
 force, called on Genet to induce him to give his word that the privateer 
 should remain till the return of the president. But he refused, saying 
 the crew would resist by force any attempt to seize the vessel ; declaring 
 at the same time that she was not ready to sail. It was intended 
 merely to move a little down the river that day ; and the declaration 
 that she was not ready to sail, was repeated in such a manner as to in- 
 duce the belief that she would not depart. Mr. Jefferson having ex- 
 pressed this belief to the governor, the militia were dismissed. Messrs. 
 Hamilton and Knox then proposed to erect a battery on Mud Island to 
 prevent her passage down the river. Mr. Jefferson dissenting, the 
 measure was not adopted ; and before the arrival of the president, the 
 vessel passed down to Chester, whence she might at any time sail without 
 fear of having her progress arrested by the government. 
 
118 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The president reached Philadelphia on the 11th of July, and requested 
 a cabinet meeting at his house the next morning. On reading the papers 
 of the secretary of state relating to the Little Democrat, and the secre- 
 tary not being present, a messenger was dispatched for him ; but he had 
 retired, indisposed, to his country seat. The president immediately 
 addressed a letter to him, which contained the following : " What is to 
 be done in the case of the Little Sarah now at Chester ? Is the minister 
 of the French republic to set the acts of this government at defiance with 
 impunity, and then threaten the executive with an appeal to the people ? 
 What must the world think of such conduct, and of the government of 
 the United States in submitting to it ? These are serious questions — 
 circumstances press for decision ; and as you have had time to consider 
 them, (upon me they come unexpectedly,) I wish to know your opinion 
 upon them even before to-morrow ; for the vessel may then be gone." 
 The secretary answered, that immediate coercive measures had been sus- 
 pended, on the assurances of Genet that the vessel would await the pres- 
 ident's decision. 
 
 It was agreed in the cabinet council, to refer to the judges of the 
 supreme court, the case of the Little Democrat, together with the 
 subjects of difference between the executive and the French minister in 
 the construction of treaties ; and to retain in port all privateere equipped 
 by France and England within the United States. Genet was informed 
 of this determination ; but before any decision could be had, the Little 
 Democrat sailed, and other vessels soon followed. 
 
 The conduct of the French minister having at leng-th become intoler- 
 able, it was unanimously agreed in cabinet council, that a statement of 
 his acts, and a copy of his correspondence, with a letter requesting his 
 recall, should be sent to Gouverneur Morris, to be laid before the French 
 executive council. Genet, to whom a copy of the statement was com- 
 municated, was highly exasperated by this proceeding. His invectives 
 were directed not only against the president and those members of the 
 cabinet whom he considered " partisans of monarchy ; " he did not in this 
 case spare the secretary of state, whom he had regarded as a friend, and 
 who had " initiated him into mysteries which had inflamed his hatred 
 against all those who aspired to absolute power." He disapproved the 
 use of " an official language, and a language confidential." 
 
 Genet, as well as the French consuls, persisted in the exercise of his 
 unauthorized powers. His crowning acts of sovereignty within the 
 United States, were the setting on foot of two military expeditions 
 against the Spanish dominions ; one from South Carohna and Georgia 
 for the invasion of the Floridas ; the other from Kentucky against New 
 Orleans and Louisiana. He had issued commissions for the enlistment 
 
POLICY OF GREAT BRITAIN. 119 
 
 of men, and considerable progress liad been made in raising troops, wben 
 the movement, tbougli conducted secretly, became known, and measures 
 were taken by the government of South Carolina for its suppression. 
 The other project found great favor with the western inhabitants, who 
 complained of the exclusion, by Spain, of the people of the United States, 
 from a free navigation of the Mississippi ; and it was not without some 
 difficulty that the federal authorities succeeded in arresting the 
 enterprise. 
 
 But we may not extend this sketch of the proceedings of the French 
 minister. Suffice it to siy, that, in consequence of his continued inso- 
 lence, and his efforts to array the people and their representatives against 
 the executive, the president* came to the determination to refuse all far- 
 ther intercourse with him ; and was about to present the subject to con- 
 gress, when his recall was officially communicated by Mr. Morris. 
 Fauchet, the new minister, arrived soon after, (February, 1794,) and Mr. 
 Morris, not sufficiently zealous for the French cause, was recalled at the 
 request of the executive government of Franco ; and Mr. Monroe, an 
 ardent friend of France, was appointed to succeed him. 
 
 There was, perhaps, no time when there was not a majority of the 
 people in favor of neutrality and the proclamation. The reprehensible 
 conduct of the French minister, and the horrid excesses committed by 
 the revolutionists, doubtless weakened the cause of Franco in this 
 country. There was, however, a powerful party opposed to the proclama- 
 tion, and in favor of joining France. This party derived not a little 
 strength from the divisions known to exist in the cabinet. Mr. Jefferson 
 entertained a strong partiality for France, and considered the guaranty 
 in full force. Although he had assented to the proclamation, he regarded 
 the question of neutrality as merely reserved to the meeting of congress. 
 
 This question was publicly discussed by Hamilton and Madison. 
 These two distinguished statesmen, who had been associated in advo- 
 cating the adoption of the constitution, in those celebrated numbers of 
 the Federalist, now took opposite sides in the practical construction of 
 that instrument with reference to an important question. Hamilton 
 appeared in seven numbers, under the signature of Pacificus, in which 
 the authority of the executive to issue the proclamation and its consis- 
 tency with our treaties with France, were maintained with great ability. 
 These numbers were replied to by Madison at the request, it is said, of 
 Jefferson. The reply was in five numbers, signed Helvidius, in which 
 the positions of Pacificus were combated with great ingenuity and force. 
 
 The reaction in favor of the government produced by the causes above 
 mentioned, were more than counterbalanced by the operation of certain 
 measures of the British government annoying to neutral trade.- The 
 
120 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 transfer of a large portion of the laboring population of France from 
 their usual avocations to the military service, added to other causes, had 
 produced a scarcity of provisions. Induced by this state of things, as 
 well as by other motives, she had, as has been observed, opened her ports 
 to neutral commerce. 
 
 In perfect contrast with this measure, was the policy of Great Britain. 
 In the hope of reducing her enemy by famine, it was determined to cut 
 off external supplies. Instructions were accordingly issued to the 
 British cruisers to stop all vessels having on board breadstuffs, and 
 bound to any port of Fi-ance, and to bring them into a conveniient port. 
 If they were proved to be neutral property, the cargoes were to bfe pur- 
 chased and the ships released ; or, both ships and cargoes were to be 
 released on the master's giving bond that they would proceed to dispose 
 of the cargo in the ports of countries at peace with Great Britain. These 
 instructions, issued the 8th of June, 1793, did not reach the United 
 States until September. Great Britain, in justification of this measure, 
 alleged that, by the law of nations, as laid down by the most modern 
 writers, all provisions were deemed contraband and liable to confiscation, 
 when the depriving of an enemy of these supplies was one of the means 
 intended to be employed for reducing him to reasonable terms of peace. 
 But the British orders, it was said, did not go even to the extent allowable, 
 neither prohibiting all kinds of provisions, nor requiring forfeiture. The 
 American government, on the other hand, maintained, that both " reason 
 and usage had established, that when two nations went to war, those who 
 chose to live in peace, retain their natural rights to pursue their agricul- 
 ture, manufactures, and other ordinary vocations ; to caiTy the produce 
 of their industry, for exchange, to all nations, belligerents or neutrals, 
 as usual ; to go and come freely, without injury or molestation." 
 
 Great Britain also urged that the neutral character of the trade was 
 changed by the fact, that the contracts for the greater part of the car- 
 goes had been made by the French government. It was therefore a 
 national, not an individual transaction. It was farther urged in justifi- 
 cation, that the measure was sanctioned by the example of France her- 
 self. A decree of her national convention, issued in May, and remain- 
 ing in full force, authorized the capture and condemnation of an enemy's 
 property in neutral vessels, (not excepting those of the United States,) 
 contrary to a special stipulation in the treaty between the United States 
 and France, that " free ships should make free goods." 
 
 The enforcement of these orders, in which the allied powers were 
 united, greatly embarrassed American commerce. This measure, super- 
 added to the supposed encouragement of Indian hostilities by the British 
 in Canada ; the continued occupation of the western military posts ; the 
 
THE THIRD CONGRESS. 121 
 
 alleged agency of the British government in the depredations upon our 
 commerce, and the enslavement of our seamen by Algerine cruisers ; and 
 the impressment of American seamen into the British service ; awakened 
 resentments in the American people, towards Great Britain, scarcely less 
 intense than those which impelled them to arms to secure their independ- 
 ence. Add to all this the menacing aspect of affairs with Spain, the 
 Florida boundary question remaining unsettled ; the southern states 
 threatened with war from the Creeks and Cherokees, supposed to have 
 been instigated by the Spanish government ; the Mississippi closed 
 against the Americans, a cause of general discontent among the western 
 inhabitants ; and a strong suspicion of an alliance between Spain and 
 Great Britain against the United States ; — and it wias easy to imagine 
 the difficulty of maintaining the position of neutrality assumed by the 
 administration. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE THIRD CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS. JEFFERSOn's 
 
 COMMERCIAL REPORT ; HIS RESIGNATION. MADISOn's RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 PROSPECT OF WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. JAy's MISSION TO ENGLAND. 
 
 In the state of affairs just described, the new congress convened on 
 the 2d of December, 1793 ; and its deliberations were awaited with deep 
 interest. 
 
 At this session, a resolution was passed by the senate, declaring that 
 the business of that body, hitherto transacted with closed doors, should 
 be done publicly, after the termination of the present session. 
 
 In the House, Frederick A. Muhlenburg, of Pennsylvania, was elected 
 speaker over Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, by a majority of ten 
 votes, indicating a predominance of the opposition party in that body. 
 
 The president, in his speech, alluding to the measures adopted as a 
 rule of conduct toward belligerent nations, ascribed them to a desire to 
 prevent the interruption of our intercourse with them, and to manifest a 
 disposition for peace. He said : In this posture of affairs, both new 
 and delicate, I resolved to adopt general rules which should conform to 
 the treaties, and assert the privileges of the United States. These were 
 reduced to a system, which shall be communicated to you." He sug- 
 gested to congress the expediency of providing remedies in cases " where 
 individuals shall, within the United States, array themselves in hostility 
 against any of the powers at war, or enter upon military expeditions or 
 
122 . THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 enterprises, or usurp and exercise judicial authority, witliin tlie United 
 States ; " and then said : 
 
 " I can not recommend to your notice measures for the fulfillment of 
 our duties to the rest of the world, without again pressing upon you the 
 necessity of placing ourselves in a condition of complete defense, and of 
 exacting from them the fulfillment of their duties toward us. * * * 
 There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be 
 withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we 
 desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it ; if we desire to secure 
 peace — one of the most powerful instruments of our prosperity — it must 
 be known that we are, at all times, ready for war," He also suggested 
 provisions for "the regular redemption and discharge of the public 
 debt," and the "productiveness of the public revenues." 
 
 In this message was recommended a just and humane policy towards 
 the Indian nations, designed " to conciliate their attachment " and " to 
 render tranquillity with them permanent, by creating ties of interest" — 
 a pohcy strictly pursued during several successive administrations. 
 
 In a message communicated a day or two after, the president referred 
 to the orders and decrees of Great Britain and France, so injurious to 
 our commerce, and informed congress of the acts and proceedings of the 
 French minister, " the tendency of which," he said, " had been to in- 
 volve us in war abroad, and discord and anarchy at home." 
 
 The house of representatives, in their answer, which was unanimously 
 adopted, said : " The maintenance of peace was justly to be regarded 
 as one of the most important duties of the magistrate charged with the 
 faithful execution of the laws. We therefore witness, with approbation 
 and pleasure, the vigilance with which you have guarded an interruption 
 of that blessing by your proclamation, admonishing our fellow-citizens 
 of the consequences of illicit and hostile acts toward the belligerent 
 parties ; and promoting, by a declaration of the existing legal state of 
 things, an easier admission of our right to the immunities belonging to 
 our situation." The senate responded in similar terms of approbation. 
 
 On the 16th of December, Mr. Jefferson made a report to the house 
 on the commerce of the United States, in pursuance of a resolution of 
 that body, passed in February, 1791, instructing him "to report to 
 congress the nature and extent of the privileges and restrictions of the 
 commercial intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, and 
 the measures which he should think proper to be adopted for the im- 
 provement of the commerce and navigation of the same." This report 
 is by some considered one of the ablest official productions of Mr. Jef- 
 ferson. 
 
 From this report it appeared, that the exports of the United States in 
 
 < 
 
Jefferson's commercial report. 123 
 
 domestic produce and manufactures, amounted to $19,587,055, the im- 
 ports to $19,823,000. Of the exports, nearly one-half were carried to 
 Great Britain and her dominions ; of the imports, about four-fifths came 
 from the same countries. American shipping was 277,519 tons, of 
 which not quite one-sixth was employed in the trade with those countries. 
 In all the nations of Europe, most of our products bore heavy duties, 
 and some articles were prohibited. In Great Britain, our trade was on 
 the whole on as good footing as that of other countries : some articles 
 were more favored than similar articles from other countries. 
 
 Our navigation was seriously affected by the regulations of Great 
 Britain. Her navigation acts of 1660 and 1663, which prohibited to 
 the colonies the privilege allowed to other countries, of bringing their 
 own productions into Great Britain, were unrepealed. Since the war, 
 the king had been authorized to extend this privilege to the United 
 States, and had done so from year to year by proclamation ; but a more 
 secure enjoyment of the right was desirable. The report stated also, 
 that a large proportion of the commodities exported to Great Britain, 
 were required to be carried to her ports, to be thence reexported ; thus 
 subjecting them to additional charges of double voyage. 
 
 As a method of relief to our commerce, the secretary proposed, first, 
 as being preferable, the removal of these restrictions by friendly arrange- 
 ments ; or, secondly, by countervailing acts. If a nation persists in a 
 " system of prohibitions, duties, and regulations, it behooves the United 
 States to protect their citizens, their commerce, and navigation, by 
 counter prohibitions, duties, and regulations also." Our navigation was 
 said to be valuable as a branch of industry, but more so as a resource of 
 defense. 
 
 It was stated, that France had proposed entering into a new treaty for 
 improving the commercial relations of the two countries ; but her inter- 
 nal disturbances had prevented the prosecution of the negotiation to 
 effect. Proposals of friendly arrangements with Great Britain had been 
 made on our part ; " but being already on as good a footing in law, and 
 a better in fact, than the most favored nations, she has not as yet dis- 
 covered any disposition to have it meddled with." 
 
 The secretary stated, that, since the report was prepared in time to be 
 laid before the j^receding congress, France had relaxed some of the 
 restraints mentioned in the report ; and Spain had made free ports of 
 New Orleans, Pensacola, and St. Augustine, to the vessels of friendly 
 nations having treaties of commerce with her. She had excHided our 
 rice from her dominions. On account of the war she had given us free 
 access to her West India islands ; but our vessels were liable to serious 
 vexations and depredations. 
 
124 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 In a subsequent report, (December 30,) the secretary communicated 
 the copy of a decree of the French national convention, admitting pro- 
 visions and certain other articles into the French West India islands, in 
 American vessels, free of duty; also, a copy of the Spanish decree 
 alluded to in the former report. 
 
 This, the last official act of the secretary, was followed, the next day, 
 by his resignation. He had in the summer intimated an intention to 
 resign in September ; but he had, on solicitation, deferred the execution 
 of his pilrpose till the close of the year. Mr. Randolph was appointed 
 as his successor ; and the office of attorney-general, vacated by the 
 appointment, was filled by William Bradford, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 On the 4th of January, 1794, Mr. Madison introduced his noted reso- 
 lutions, designed to carry out the objects of Mr. Jefferson's commercial 
 report. The first of these resolutions declared it expedient to increase 
 the duties on the tonnage of vessels of nations which had no commercial 
 treaties with the United States, and on their manufactures of leather, 
 metals, wool, cotton, hemp, flax, and silk ; and to reduce the tonnage 
 duties on vessels of nations having such treaties. They also proposed an 
 increase of duty on importations from the West Indies in foreign vessels 
 from ports from which American were excluded. 
 
 On the 13th of January, Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, opened the 
 debate in opposition to these resolutions. He proposed to discuss the 
 subject as a purely commercial one, without reference to our political 
 relittions with foreign countries. He produced a table of statistics, 
 showing that our commerce was on the whole as much favored in Great 
 Britain as in France. These statisti(?s did not extend to a period later 
 than the fiscal year ending September 30, 1792. The commercial regu- 
 lations of France during the period of the revolution, had been too fluc- 
 tuating, too much influenced by momentary impulse, to be considered as 
 part of a system. So far as they proposed favors to this country, they 
 manifested an object of the moment, which could not be mistaken. The 
 privileges in the West India trade offered by Genet, he considered the 
 price of becoming a party in the war. 
 
 Previous to the demand in France created by the present war, the 
 exports of flour to Great Britain and her colonies, were to those of 
 France and her colonies, as twenty to one. He extended his statements 
 to all the principal articles of exportation to those two countries. The 
 average value of our exports, annually for three years from October 1, 
 1789, was, to Great Britain, $8,489,830; to France, $4,737,131. 
 
 The secretary had stated that a great part of the exports to Great 
 Britain were reexported thence at the disadvantage of double charges. 
 This statement Mr. S. believed was founded on statements of lord 
 
MADISON S RESOLUTIONS. 125 
 
 Sheffield, having reference to a period prior to the American revolution, 
 when Great Britain had a monopoly of our trade. But admitting that 
 she exported at present one-third of what she received from us, she 
 would still consume more of our products than France. 
 
 He considered large importations from Britain no giievance, but a 
 benefit. She could supply us with an assortment of the goods we wanted ; 
 and could also give us a credit, which was an advantage to a young 
 country wanting capital. If the encouragement of domestic manufactures 
 had been made the object of the resolutions, some alteration in our com- 
 mercial regulations with Great Britain might be advantageous. But the 
 object was to turn the tide of trade from Great Britain to France. He 
 admitted the disadvantage of a dependence on one nation for a supply of 
 necessaries; but a change should not be brought about by artificial 
 methods. To lessen the importations from Great Britain, we must 
 impose higher duties on her commodities than on those of other countries, 
 which would be a bounty on the manufactures, not of our own country, 
 but of those of foreign nations. 
 
 He also noticed the statement of the secretary, that Great Britain 
 alone had discovered no disposition to negotiate, but that " we had no 
 reason to conclude that friendly arrangements would be declined by other 
 nations." From the correspondence of the British minister, Mr. Ham- 
 mond, the fact appeared otherwise. Mr. JeflEcrson asked him if he was 
 empowered to treat on the subject of commerce. He replied that he 
 was fully authorized to enter into a negotiation for that purpose, though 
 not as yet empowered to conclude. Upon farther diflBculty and objection 
 on the part of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Hammond reassures him of his compe- 
 tency to enter on a negotiation, which is based on his commission as 
 minister plenipotentiary and his instructions. Mr. Jefferson requires a 
 communication of his full powers for that purpose, and declines the 
 negotiation. The declining, therefore, was not on the part of the British 
 minister. Forms were the obstacle with the secretary of state, whose 
 zeal, at best, was not greater than Mr. Hammond's. Measures had 
 been taken for forming treaties with Spain, and also with Portugal ; but 
 no proper treaty with either could be obtained. Why then was Great 
 Britain selected for attack, but that it was " most in unison with our 
 passions to enter into collisions with her ? " 
 
 Mr. Smith apprehended that the proposed regulations would provoke 
 Great Britain to a war, either of arms, or of commercial regulations. If 
 the former, she could easily persuade her allies to make common cause 
 with her. But if she should prefer the latter, how would the contest 
 stand ? A commercial warfare would disturb the course of one-sixth of 
 her trade, and more than one-half of ours. She had also the advantages 
 
126 THE AMERICAIf STATESMAN. 
 
 of greater capital, and of being both a manufacturing and an agricultural 
 nation. Our navigation was rapidly increasing under tbe present system • 
 and our other great national interests were in a progressive state. It 
 was therefore deemed impolitic to disturb the present order of things by 
 hazardous experiments. 
 
 The remarks of the speaker were extended to a very great length, but 
 we can not pursue them farther. 
 
 Mr. Madison replied to Mr. Smith the next day, January 14th. He 
 also was friendly to a free intercourse with all nations. But to this 
 rule, as to all general rules, there might be exceptions; and the rule 
 itself required, what did not exist, that it should be general. The navi- 
 gation act of Great Britain had secured to her eleven-twelfths of the 
 shipping and seamen employed in her trade. Here was a great gain 
 from a departure of the rule. Another exception to the advantages of a 
 free trade, is found in the case of two countries in such relation to each 
 other, that the one, by duties on the manufactures of the other, might 
 not only invigorate its o'svn, but draw from the other the workmen them- 
 selves. To allow trade to regulate itself, is, as our own experience has 
 taught us, to allow one nation to regulate it for another. » 
 
 Mr. Madison then adverted to the effects of foreign policy upon our 
 trade and navigation, and the attention it excited soon after the peace ; 
 and he recapitulated the various unsuccessful attempts to counteract the 
 foreign policy, which resulted in the establishment of a government com- 
 petent to regulate our commercial interests, and to vindicate our commer- 
 cial rights. When this subject was discussed in the first congress, it was 
 said we ought to be generous to Great Britain, and give time for nego- 
 tiating a treaty of commerce. We had waited four years, and no treaty 
 is either in train or in prospect. 
 
 Our navigation, he said, was not on an equal footing with England 
 and France. Our ports admitted the produce of all countries in British 
 vessels, while our vessels could carry into the ports of Great Britain 
 only our own commodities; and from her West India ports they were 
 entirely excluded. The effects of the British navigation acts would 
 appear from the following facts : 
 
 In our trade with that country, the amount of American tonnage em- 
 ployed, was 43,000 tons; that of Great Britain, 240,000 tons : while in 
 our intercourse with Spain, our tonnage was to hers as five to one ; with 
 Portugal as six to one ; Netherlands, fifteen to one ; Denmark, twelve 
 to one ; France, five to one. This proportion had been somewhat 
 changed by particular circumstances. Our tonnage in the same trade 
 with Great Britain, was still only as one to three ; \vith France between 
 four and five to one. Our exports were not only, for the most part, 
 
 II 
 
y Madison's resolutions. 127 
 
 necessaries of life, whicli tlie British manufacturers must Lave ; but 
 they were bulky, and required a large amount of shipping. Therefore, 
 by securing to ourselves the transportation of our own products, the pro- 
 portion of our shipping and sailors would be greatly increased. 
 
 Of manufactures imported, the amount was stated to be $15,290,000; 
 of which $13,960,000 came from Great Britain; from France only 
 $155,000, while the latter actually consumed more of our produce than 
 the former. The balance of trade, at the same time, was greatly in our 
 favor with every other nation, and greatly against us with Great Britain ; 
 and an unfavorable balance, to be paid in specie, was by all nations con- 
 sidered an evil — especially was Great Britain careful to prevent it. We 
 consume, said Mr. Madison, her manufactures to double the amount of 
 all she takes from us, and four times the amount of what she actually 
 consumes of our products. We take every thing after it has undergone 
 all the profitable labor that can be bestowed on it ; she receives in return,, 
 raw materials, the food of her industry. We send necessaries to her ; 
 she sends superfluities to us. 
 
 As to a discrimination in favor of nations having commercial treaties 
 with us, it had had the sanction of votes in that house ; and it was in 
 accordance with the practice of nations. It tended to procure beneficial 
 treaties from nations that desire an equality with other nations, in their 
 commerce. 
 
 The measure proposed was dictated by prudence. It would relieve us 
 from a state of commercial dependence. We should not be dependent 
 upon a single nation for necessary articles of consumption or of defense 
 in time of war. He apprehended no injury from the adoption of the 
 proposed measure ; it was not for the interest of Great Britain to re- 
 taliate. She would be the greater sufferer from a stagnation of trade 
 between the two countries. Her merchants, her manufacturers, her 
 navigation, and her revenue, would be seriously affected by it. Her 
 West Indies would be ruined by it. We too should suffer, but in a less 
 degree. In proportion as a nation manufactures luxuries, must be its 
 disadvantage in contests with its customers. Let the trade between the 
 United States and Great Britain cease, and 300,000 of her manufac- 
 turers would be thrown out of employment, and would probably be added 
 to the population of this country, the natural asylum for the distressed 
 of Europe. 
 
 It had been said that Great Britain treated the United States as well 
 as she treated other nations. That other nations were willing to submit 
 to unequal regulations, or were unable to vindicate their rights, ought 
 not to satisfy us. Mr. Madison compared the regulations of Great 
 Britain with those of other countries, to show that the former were not 
 
128 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 as favorable as the latter ; and he submitted a comparative statement of 
 the commercial policy of Great Britain and France toward us, veiy 
 different from that of Mr. Smith. He considered the present order of 
 things in France a settled order, and that the trade with that country 
 would maintain its present position. From the statement he presented, 
 it appeared that the total of French consumption of American products 
 exceeded that of British consumption by nearly one million of dollars. 
 
 The correspondence between the British minister and Mr. Jefferson 
 relating to negotiation, was reviewed, and the conclusion drawn from it 
 was, that the construction put by Mr. Hammond on his powers was in- 
 admissible, and that the executive had equally consulted dignity and 
 prudence, in silently dropping the subject in the manner they did, until 
 he should produce adequate powers in the accustomed form. 
 
 The resolutions were supported by several other gentlemen. It was 
 said that the credit given by British merchants, was but an injury. It 
 encouraged overtrading, and caused a heavy balance of trade against us ; 
 discouraged domestic manufactures ; and promoted luxury. The policy 
 of Great Britain had given her the control of om' trade ; and we should 
 endeavor to change its course. By buying the manufactures of France, 
 a portion of her population would be drawn off from agricultural 
 pursuits, and a market opened for our produce. The temporary disad- 
 vantage of this policy would be amply repaid by permanent benefits. 
 Great Britain being embarrassed with a dangerous foreign war, it was 
 deemed a favorable time to induce her to consent to some relaxation of 
 the rigorous policy she has hitherto pursued. 
 
 Several other speakers also opposed the resolutions. They would not 
 retaliate injuries under the cloak of commercial regulations. If the 
 resolutions were adopted, it should be because they would promote the 
 public interest. Their avowed objects were to favor navigation and man- 
 ufactures. If navigation was to have additional encouragement, let the 
 duties on all foreign vessels be increased, and let the impositions upon 
 American vessels in the several foreign countries be met by equal im- 
 positions, instead of encouraging one foreign nation at the expense of 
 anothei". Several members opposed to the resolutions, expressed them- 
 selves in favor of a navigation act which should meet the restrictions 
 imposed upon our vessels by other nations, with corresponding restric- 
 tions upon theirs. 
 
 Nor was the plan likely to promote domestic manufactures. This 
 object was to be effected by laying duties on the particular articles, the 
 manufacture of which was to be encouraged. But the primary motive 
 of the resolutions was not the increase of our agriculture, manufactures, 
 or navigation, but to humble Great Britain and build up France. 
 
malison's resolutions. 129 
 
 The foregoing sketch of this debate, though imperfect, presents the prin- 
 cipal arguments on both sides of the question ; some of which have been 
 more than once reproduced in the discussions of the same or kindred 
 subjects since that period. 
 
 On the 3d of February, the question was taken upon the first resolu- 
 tion, and carried by a majority of five. When the second resolution, 
 which related to the duties, came up for consideration, Mr. Fitzsimmons 
 moved an amendment designed to extend its operation to all nations. 
 This motion gave way to one from Mr. Nicholas, restricting its eff"ects to 
 Great Britain. The subject was then postponed until the first Monday of 
 March. 
 
 On the 5th of February, the house took up a report made in pursuance 
 of a resolution previously adopted, declaring " that a naval force ade 
 quate to the protection of the commerce of the United States against the 
 Algerine corsairs, ought to be provided." The bill provided for the 
 building of six frigates ; four of forty-four, and two of thirty-six guns, 
 each. The debate on this subject affords another of the many illustra- 
 tions of the common propensity to view public measures through a party 
 medium. 
 
 The proposed force was said to be insufficient to answer the intended 
 purpose, and could not be brought into immediate use. It would be 
 cheaper and more eligible to purchase the friendship of the Algerines, as 
 other nations had done. Or, if this was impracticable, we might pur- 
 chase the aid of foreign powers in protecting our commerce. But the 
 plan was most objectionable, as being the commencement of a permanent 
 navy; tLo expense of which would perpetuate the public debt, and load 
 the people with insupportable burdens. We had gone far enough in this 
 system of tyranny — that of governing a nation by debts. The oppres- 
 sions of the people of England and France, caused in great part by their 
 expensive navy establishments, had led to the overthrow of the monarchy 
 of the one, and was threatening that of the other. 
 
 To this it was replied, that the information lately communicated 
 forbade all hope of purchasing peace. To subsidize other nations to pro- 
 tect our commerce, when we were able to protect it ourselves, was dero- 
 gatory to the national character. Besides, nations at peace with Algiers 
 would be unwilling to relinquish that peace for any sum we would pay 
 them. Nations at war with that power, had sufficient inducements to 
 check the depredations of their enemy without subsidies. With a navy 
 of our own, we could cooperate effectually with any power that might 
 be at war with Algiers, and accomplish what could not be done by a 
 single nation. 
 
 Against the expense of the contemplated force, must be offset the 
 
 9 
 
130 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 value of ahlps and cargoes saved, and the money paid in extra insurance 
 and for the ransom of captured seamen. But a far more important 
 object was, to prevent an increase of the number of these unfortunate 
 captives. It was a matter of surprise that alarm should be taken at a 
 proposition to equip a small armament, especially by gentlemen who had 
 just advocated the improvement of our navigation as a measure of 
 defense, at the hazard of a commercial war with Great Britain. 
 
 The question on the final passage of the bill was carried by a majority 
 of eleven votes ; several members of the opposition having voted in the 
 affirmative. The bill was concurred in by the senate, and approved by 
 the president. 
 
 The British order of the 8th of June, 1793, designed to cut oflf sup- 
 plies from France, has been noticed. On the 6th of November, additional 
 instructions were issued to the commanders of British ships of war and 
 privateers, directing them " to stop and detain all ships laden with goods, 
 the produce of any colony belonging to France, or carrying provisions or 
 other supplies for the use of such colony, and to bring the same, with 
 their cargoes, to legal adjudication in the courts of British admiralty." 
 The American minister in England had no notice of these instructions 
 until the last of December. Under this new order, American vessels 
 engaged in French West India trade, were, without previous notice, 
 seized, carried into British West India ports, and some of them con- 
 demned. 
 
 The intelligence of these instructions increased the excitement against 
 Great Britain ; and war was considered a probable event. On the 12th of 
 March, Mr. Sedgwick moved a series of resolutions, proposing to raise a 
 military force of 15,000 men, to be brought into actual service only in 
 case war should break out ; and to be drilled, in the mean time, not 
 exceeding twenty-four days in a year, for which they were to receive half 
 a dollar per day. One of the resolutions authorized the president to 
 lay an embargo for forty days, if he should deem it necessary. The 
 majority, however, determined to resume the consideration of Mr. Madi- 
 son's commercial regulations. A debate ensued, no less animated than 
 the first ; but the house came to no decision. 
 
 It was now urged against this plan, that it was not adapted to the present 
 emergency. In the event of a war it would be useless. Besides, it was 
 a measure upon which the public sentiment was not sufficiently united. 
 Its tendency was to provoke war, and to prevent that unanimity in which 
 the strength of the country consisted. 
 
 In support of the resolutions, it was said, that they could do no harm, 
 even in case of war ; as they would not prevent the adoption of any other 
 measures that might be judged necessary. And in the negotiation of 
 
PROSPECTS OF WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 131 
 
 peace, they would serve a valuable purpose as a basis for such nego- 
 tiation. 
 
 The indications of war were now strengthened by the appearance of 
 what was said to be a speech of lord Dorchester at Quebec, on the 1 0th 
 of February, to the deputation of a general council of the Western 
 Indians, held at the rapids of the Miami. In this speech, a war between 
 the United States and Great Britain was spoken of as probable. 
 
 The resolutions of Mr. Sedgwick had been negatived ; but the subject 
 was resumed on the 26th of March, and a substitute adopted, laying an 
 embargo for thirty days, on all vessels in the ports of the United States, 
 bound to any foreign place. This measure was intended to save our 
 commerce from farther exposure to depredation, or to prevent a supply 
 of the British forces in the West Indies. A bill was passed for fortify- 
 ing certain ports and harbors; and a report was adopted, providing 
 an addition to the regular military force, of 25,000 men, and authorizing 
 the requisition of 80,000 militia from the several states, to be ready to 
 march at a moment's warning. 
 
 Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, having given notice of a resolution, 
 declaring that " provision ought to be made for the indemnification of 
 all citizens of the United States, whose vessels or cargoes had been seized 
 and confiscated by any of the belligerent powers, contrary to the law of 
 nations," Mr. Dayton moved a resolution for the sequestration of all 
 debts due from American citizens to British subjects, and to compel 
 their payment into the treasury as a fund for the proposed indemnification. 
 
 This resolution was debated with great vehemence. The peace meas- 
 ures of the government were severely reprobated, as manifesting a disre- 
 gard of public sentiment in behalf of France, and as having encouraged 
 Grreat Britain to new aggressions. The resolution was opposed as 
 injurious to our credit, unjust, and of dangerous tendency. 
 
 Before any question was taken on this proposition, information was 
 received from Mr. Pinckuey, our minister at London, that the British 
 order of November 6th had been revoked by another of January 8 th, 
 instructing British cruisers to capture only those neutral vessels which 
 were bound with the produce of the French islands on a direct voyage to 
 Europe ; or whithersoever bound, if such produce belonged to French 
 subjects ; thus leaving the direct trade to the French islands free to 
 Amerioan vessels conveying the property of our own citizens. 
 
 Mr Pinckney also communicated an explanation by lord Grenville, 
 stating that the objects of the order of November 6th, were to prevent 
 apprehended abuses from the St. Domingo fleets having sailed to the 
 United States, and to favor a contemplated attack upon the French 
 West India islands ; for which purposes the order was no longer neoos- 
 
J3*^ THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 sary. It was stated also, that no vessels were to be condemned undei 
 that order, if, on trial, they should not be found to have violated other 
 laws. The concealment of the first order from our minister admitting of 
 no justification, and both the orders being an infringement of neutral 
 rights, tho explanation was unsatisfactory. Nor did it allay the public 
 excitement. The minority of the house, and all who refused to espouso 
 the French cause, were represented as British partisans. One of the 
 numerous facts illustrative of the state of the French feeling, at this 
 period, is the following : In a report made by the secretary of state, 
 Mr. Randolph, relative to the vexations of American commerce, by offi- 
 cers and cruisers of the belligerent powers, said it was urged that the 
 French privateers had harassed our trade no less than those of the British, 
 and that France had violated her treaty with us. Although he had been 
 long known as a devoted friend of France, his fidelity to the cause of 
 France and liberty was suspected. 
 
 Regulations more stringent than those contemplated by Mr. Madison's 
 resolulions, being deemed necessary at the present juncture, Mr. Clark, 
 of New Jersey, on the 7th of April, moved a resolution to prohibit all 
 commercial intercourse with Great Britain, so far as respected the pro- 
 ducts of Great Britain and Ireland, until her government should make 
 compensation for injuries sustained by citizens of the United States from 
 British armed vessels, and until the western posts should be given up. 
 The favor with which this proposition was received, indicated its passage 
 by the house ; and the equal division of parties in the senate rendered 
 its rejection by that body doubtful. 
 
 Determined to leave unemployed no means consistent with the national 
 honor to prevent war— an event quite likely to follow the measure pro- 
 posed—the president concluded to make an effort at negotiation. 
 Accordingly, on the 16th of April, he nominated to the senate John Jay 
 as envoy extraordinary of the United States, to Great Britain. ^ This 
 nomination was opposed, because the mission was deemed impolitic and 
 unnecessary; also because he was a judge of the supreme court, and was 
 withal considered too friendly to Great Britain, having, while secretary of 
 foreign affairs, stated certain infractions of the treaty of peace on the part 
 of the United States. The nomination was confirmed, however, 18 to 8. 
 The discussion of Clark's resolutions was continued. They were op- 
 posed on the ground that they would be an obstacle to negotiation— that 
 ihej manifested a partiality toward one of the belligerents, incompatible 
 with a state of neutrality. On the other hand it was urged that the 
 measure could not lead to war ; and it would facilitate instead of embar- 
 rassing negotiation. The condition on which the intercourse was to be 
 restored— the surrender of the western military posts— having been 
 struck out, the resolutions were adopted, 58 to 38. A bill conforming to 
 
PROSPECTS OF WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. 133 
 
 the same was passed by the house by the same vote ; but was defeated 
 in the senate by the casting vote of the vice-president. 
 
 As the success of Mr. Jay's contemplated mission was considered 
 doubtful, and as a state of war was likely to follow the failure of nego- 
 tiation, it was deemed proper to prepare for such event, by carrying into 
 effect the measure previously reported. The raising of 25,000 more was 
 negatived. The proposed detachment of the 80,000 minute-men, and 
 other necessary preparations for war were authorized. Additional taxes 
 would of course become necessary. But in selecting the objects of tax- 
 ation there was a difference of opinion. The bill, as passed, imposed ad- 
 ditional duties on imports, taxes on pleasure carriages, snuff, refined 
 sugar, on sales at auction, and on licenses for retailing liquors. It re- 
 ceived much opposition. A direct tax, (laud tax,) had been reported by 
 the committee, and had some strenuous advocates among the opposition 
 members. It was declared to be a less objectionable tax than any other. 
 They were in favor of raising the whole sum by direct taxes and duties 
 on imports. The tax on carriages was pronounced unconstitutional ; and 
 its payment was afterward refused in Virginia, until the question was 
 decided by the supreme court of the United States. 
 
 At this session, a second inquiry into the official conduct of the secre- 
 tary of the treasury, was moved by Mr. Giles, the mover in the former 
 case. The motion was agreed to without opposition, Mr. Hamilton him- 
 self being known to desire the inquiry. After a laborious investigation 
 by the committee, of which Mr. Giles was the head, no cause of censuro 
 was found. The result was deemed the more honorable to the secretary, 
 as the inquiry was conducted by his political opponents. 
 
 A law was also passed, prohibiting the exercise, within the United 
 States, of the powers assumed by Genet, of enlisting men and arming 
 vessels, setting on foot military expeditions against nations at peace with 
 the United States, and authorizing the president to employ force in 
 executing the laws. Notwithstanding the favorable responses of both 
 houses to that part of the president's speech at the opening of the session, 
 relating to his efforts to maintain neutrality, this bill met with a 
 determined opposition. It originated in the senate, where it was saved 
 only by the casting vote of the vice-president. In the house, as in the 
 senate, motions were made to strike out some of its clauses deemed most 
 essential ; and with respect to that which prohibited the condemnation 
 and sale, within the United States, of prizes of the subjects of nations 
 at peace with us, the motion was successful. This law is still m force. 
 
 On the 9th of June, the third congress closed its first session, and ad- 
 journed to the first Monday of November. The most important events 
 that occurred in the intermediate time, were the defeat of the western 
 Indians by General Wayne, and the suppression of the " whisky insiu- 
 
134 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Tection," so called, in western Pennsylvania, which have been mentioned 
 in a preceding chapter. 
 
 The release of a number of American vessels captured under the 
 British order of November 6th, together with a declaration by lord 
 Grenville in the British parliament, of friendly designs toward the 
 United States, and the disavowal, by that government, of having en- 
 couraged Indian hostilities, slightly checked the popular indignation, 
 and encouraged the hope of a peaceable settlement of the disputes be- 
 tween the two countries. 
 
 Mr. Jay embarked on his mission on the 13th of May. He was re- 
 garded by his political friends as eminently qualified for the trust con- 
 fided to him. For purity of character, disinterested patriotism, sound 
 judgment, and diplomatic experience, he was probably unsurpassed. 
 But, although hopes were indulged of an amicable adjustment of the 
 difficulties with Great Britain, these hopes were moderated by her well 
 known unwillingness to relinquish any advantage, of which she had re- 
 cently given fresh evidence by her obstinate refusal to enter into a com- 
 mercial treaty. The principal objects of the mission were, restitution 
 for spoliations of American commerce, and the fulfillment of the treaty 
 of peace. These two objects obtained, a treaty of commerce was then 
 to be proposed. 
 
 The instructions to Mr. Jay acquit the president of the charge of un- 
 friendliness to France and partiality for Great Britain. As it was 
 deemed not improbable that the British government would ofier induce- 
 ments to the United States to dissolve their alliance with France, Mr. 
 Jay was instructed to say " that the United States would not derogate 
 from their treaties and engagements with France." To the same effect 
 were the instructions to Mr. Monroe, our minister to France, appointed 
 soon after Mr. Jay's departure. Secretary Randolph, in his letter of 
 instructions, says : " The president has been an early and decided friend 
 of the French revolution ; and whatever reasons there may have been to 
 suspend an opinion upon some of its important transactions, yet is he 
 immutable in his wishes for its accomplishment. * * * From Messrs. 
 Genet and Fauchet we have uniformly learned that France did not desire 
 us to depart from neutrality ; and it would have been unwise to ask us 
 to do otherwise. For our ports are open to her prizes, while they are 
 shut to those of Great Britain ; and supplies of grain could not be for- 
 warded to France with so much certainty, were we at war, as they can 
 even now, notwithstanding the British restrictions. We have therefore 
 pursued neutrality with faithfulness. We mean to retain the same line 
 of conduct in future ; and to remove all jealousy as to Mr. Jay's mission 
 to London, you may say that he is positively forbidden to weaken the 
 engagements between this country and Franco. " 
 
 ■\ 
 
DECLINE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES. .185 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 DECLINE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES. FUNDING SYSTEM CONSUMMATED. 
 
 RESIGNATION OF HAMILTON AND KNOX. THE JAY TREATY. TREATIES 
 
 WITH SPAIN AND ALGIERS. MONROE RECALLED. 
 
 Congress had adjourned to the 3d of November, 1794 ; but no quorum 
 appeared in the senate until the 18th. 
 
 In his address, delivered the next day, the president gave a detailed 
 account of the insurrection in Pennsylvania, and of the measures taken 
 to reduce the insurgents to submission ; and he strongly intimated that, 
 in tracing the origin and progress of the insurrection, it would be found 
 to have " been fomented by combinations of men, who, careless of conse- 
 quences, and disregarding the unerring truth, that those who rouse, can 
 not always appease a civil convulsion, have disseminated, from an igno- 
 rance or perversion of facts, suspicions, jealousies, and accusations of the 
 whole government." By the " combinations of men," were meant the 
 democratic societies formed under the auspices of Grenet. 
 
 The senate, in answer, responded to the opinion of the president as to 
 the effects of these " self-created societies," whose proceedings tended to 
 disorganize our government, and had " been instrumental in misleading 
 our fellow-citizens into the scene of insurrection." This part of the 
 address, however, was not adopted without strong opposition. The 
 answer of the house made no allusion whatever to this subject, nor to the 
 success of G-en. Wayne, nor to the foreign policy of the executive ; all of 
 which were approved by the senate. The interference with the proposed 
 commercial regulations, by the appointment of a minister to England, 
 was presumed to be the cause of the omission to notice the last of the 
 subjects mentioned. 
 
 The thrust of the president at the democratic societies produced con- 
 siderable excitement, and perhaps contributed to accelerate their decline, 
 which, however, was owing chiefly to causes before mentioned. Robes- 
 pierre was overthrown ; and his clubs were unable to maintain the con- 
 test for supremacy with the French convention. A vindication of the 
 clubs would have been nothing less than opposition to the government 
 of France ; a position which the republicans of the United States did 
 not wish to assume. Hence the societies soon disappeared. It ought 
 perhaps to be here stated, that the president's unfavorable opinion of these 
 societies was not wholly occasioned by their attacks upon his administra- 
 tion. Judge Marshall says : " So early as 1786, in a letter to a favorite 
 
136 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 nephew, who had engaged with the ardor of youth in a political society. 
 Gen. Washington stated, in decided terms, his objections to such insti- 
 tutions, and the abuses of which they were peculiarly susceptible." 
 
 The president again called the attention of the house to the subject 
 of the public debt, and recommended the adoption of a " definitive plan 
 for its redemption." On the 15th of January, Mr. Hamilton reported a 
 plan for this purpose, and forcibly urged its adoption. He said there 
 waa " danger to every government from a progressive accumulation of 
 debt. A tendency to it is perhaps the natural disease of all govern- 
 ments; and it is not easy to conceive any thing more likely than this to 
 lead to great convulsive revolutions of empires. * * * There is a 
 general propensity in those who administer the affairs of government, 
 founded in the constitution of man, to shift off the burden from the pre- 
 sent to a future day ; a propensity which may be expected to be strong 
 in proportion as the form of the state is popular." At whom the follow- 
 ing remarks were aimed, the house could not fail to understand. " To 
 extinguish a debt which exists, and to avoid contracting more, are ideas 
 almost always favored by public feeling and opinion ; but to pay taxes 
 for the one or the other purpose, which are the only means to avoid the 
 evil, is always more or less unpopular. Hence it is no uncommon specu- 
 tacle to see the same man clamoring for occasions of expense, when they 
 happen to be in unison with the present humor of the community, well 
 or ill directed, declaiming against a public debt, and for the reduction 
 of it ; yet vehement against every plan of taxation, which is proposed to 
 discharge old debts, or to avoid new ones by defraying the expenses of 
 exigencies as they emerge." 
 
 An act conforming nearly to the plan reported was passed. It estab- 
 lished a sinking fund, consisting of the surplus revenues, of bank divi- 
 dends, and the proceeds of the sales of public lands ; together with a few 
 other items. The permanent appropriation of the duties on domestic 
 spirits and on stills, being strongly objected to, these temporary taxes 
 were to be continued only till 1801 ; the others were permanently pledged 
 to the payment of the public debt ; for which purpose this fund was to 
 be vested, as property in trust, in the commissioners of the sinking fund. 
 By this act was consummated the funding system of the secretary of the 
 treasury, under which the whole national debt was ultimately extin- 
 guished. 
 
 On the 31st of January, 1795, Mr. Hamilton resigned, and was euo- 
 ceeded by Oliver "Wolcott, of Connecticut. Gen. Knox had resigned on 
 the first day of the month, and Timothy Pickering, of Massachusetts, 
 then postmaster-general, was appointed as his successor. He was suo- 
 ceeded by Joseph Habersham, ol Georgia, as postmaster-general 
 
THE JAY TREATY. 137 
 
 On the 3d of March, the constitutional term of the third congress 
 expired. This session was less distinguished for the number of its 
 important acts — though some of them were really such — than for the 
 warmth and acrimony of its debates. 
 
 On the 7th of March, 1795, the president received " a treaty of amity, 
 commerce, and navigation, between his Britannic majesty and the United 
 States," which had been concluded by Mr. Jay and lord Grenville, on 
 the 19th of November. On the 8th of June, the treaty was submitted 
 to the senate, specially convened for this purpose. The first of the two 
 primary objects of negotiation, namely, indemnity to American merchants 
 for the illegal capture of their property under British orders, was secured 
 by the treaty. The second of these objects was partially attained. The 
 western posts were to be surrendered by the 1st of June, 1796. The 
 negroes carried away by the British commander not being deemed by the 
 British negotiator of a class to which the prohibition of the treaty 
 applied, no compensation for them was allowed. The British creditors 
 were to be compensated for losses caused by laws of any of the states 
 obstructing the collection of debts contracted prior to the revolutionary 
 war. 
 
 The citizens of each country were to enjoy the right to hold and con- 
 vey lands in the territories of the other. Debts contracted, or engage- 
 ments made by the citizens of the one with those of the other, were not to 
 be impaired in case of national differences. Free trade with the Indians, 
 except within the limits of the Hudson's bay company ; and the free use 
 of the Mississippi river, were to be enjoyed by both parties. So far, the 
 provisions of the treaty were to be permanent. 
 
 The other articles, relating to commerce and navigation were limited 
 to two years after the termination of the existing European war, and in 
 any case, to a term not exceeding twelve years. In the trade between the 
 United States and the British dominions in Europe and the East Indies, 
 the vessels and cargoes of each party were to be admitted into the ports 
 of the other, on terms of equality with the most favored nation ; the 
 British government reserving the right to countervail American discri- 
 minating tonnage and import duties. A direct trade with the British 
 West Indies was permitted in American vessels of a burden not exceed- 
 ing seventy tons, and in the products of the United States and those of 
 the islands. But this privilege, restricted as it was, was only to be 
 obtained by yielding the right of carrying molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa, 
 or cotton, either from the United States, or the islands, to any other 
 country. 
 
 The treaty also enumerated certain articles which were to be deenaed 
 contraband of war. Provisions and other articles not usually contraband, 
 
138 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 if they should at any time become so, according to the law of nations, 
 wci-e not to be confiscated, but paid for by the captors or the government. 
 Vessels having made prizes of the property of the citizens of either party, 
 were not allowed a shelter in the ports of the other ; but this privilege 
 was to be enjoyed by the ships of war, or privateers of the contracting 
 parties. 
 
 The treaty was far from meeting the wishes either of the president, or 
 of the senate ; yet, considering the tenacity with which Great Britain 
 clung to a system to which she owed her commercial importance, more 
 favorable terms could hardly have been expected. The most objection- 
 able provision was that in the 12th article, which related to the West 
 India trade. Among the commodities, the carrying of which to Europe 
 in American vessels was to be prohibited, was cotton. This article, of 
 which the United States had scarcely produced a supply for home con- 
 sumption, had just begun to be exported ; a fact said to have been un- 
 known to Mr. Jay. As this product was soon to become one of tho 
 principal exports from this country, and as the relinquishment of the 
 right to transport the other articles above mentioned, was a suflSicient 
 sacrifice for the restricted West India trade allowed by the treaty, the 
 senate concluded to exclude this provision in the ratification, and recorrv 
 mended the addition of a clause suspending its operation ; leaving for 
 future negotiation, this question, with that of the impressment of Ameri- 
 can seamen, and others, upon which the parties had been unable to come 
 to a satisfactory agreement. In this shape, the senate, by a vote of 20 
 to 10, a bare constitutional majority, advised the ratification. 
 
 The president, considering the defects of the treaty to be overbalanced 
 by its advantages, had resolved to ratify it, if it should be approved by 
 the senate. This determination was also approved by the members of 
 the cabinet, with one exception. But the recommendation, by the senate, 
 of the suspending clause, required consideration. It was not clear to 
 the mind of the president, that the senate could advise and consent to aii 
 article that had not been laid before them ; or that he could ratify the 
 treaty until the proposed clause had been added. The doubts of the 
 president, however, were soon removed. But before signing the treaty, 
 an additional cause of delay arose. It was stated in English papers, 
 though not officially, that the order of the 8th of June, 1793, for the 
 seizure of provisions going to French ports, had been renewed. Great 
 Britain, it will be recollected, claimed the right of making provisions 
 contraband, with a view to reduce an enemy. This right the American 
 government did not concede, except in cases of blockade. The president, 
 therefore, deferred for a time the execution of his design, and directed a 
 memorial to the British government against this order to be prepared. 
 
THE JAY TREATY. 149 
 
 together with instructions to our minister to continue negotiations upon 
 matters yet unadjusted. He then (July 15th) left for Mount Vernon. 
 
 No preceding measure of the administration, probably, encountered a 
 more furious opposition than this. Public meetings were held, not only 
 in the cities, but in country towns, to condemn the treaty. Essays were 
 written, in which it was closely scrutinized and severely reprobated. In 
 Philadelphia, an attempt was made to burn Mr. Jay and the ratifying 
 senators in effigy ; and copies of the treaty were carried before the doors 
 of the British minister, British consul, and Mr. Bingham, a senator who 
 had voted for its ratification, and burned amid the huzzas of the multi- 
 tude. Subsequently, in Boston, an effigy of Mr. Jay was burned in the 
 street. 
 
 The president returned to Philadelphia on the 11th of August; and 
 the next day the question of ratification was brought before the caWnet. 
 Mr. Randolph, who had before recommended a suspension of the ratifi- 
 cation until the provision order should be repealed, now gave it as his 
 opinion that the treaty ought not to be ratified while the war continued 
 between Great Britain and France. The other three members concur- 
 ring with the president in the expediency of immediate ratification, with 
 a memorial against the provision order, the treaty, with the suspension 
 clause, was signed on the 14th, and Mr. Randolph was directed to com- 
 plete the memorial and instructions, then remaining unfinished. This 
 course was successful. The order was revoked, and the ratifications of 
 the treaty were exchanged. 
 
 It was hoped by the president, that the ratification of the treaty 
 would check the violence with which it had been assailed. But it seemed 
 rather to increase the bitterness of the opposition. To weaken the sup- 
 port which the treaty was known to derive from the president's personal 
 popularity, his merits as a soldier and statesman were disparaged. His 
 private character did not escape detraction. He was accused of having 
 overdrawn the amount of salary, and appropriated the money to his 
 private use. In authorizing the negotiation of a treaty without pre- 
 viously consulting the senate, he had violated the constitution, for which 
 he ought to be impeached. 
 
 Notwithstanding the increased virulence of the opposition, the number 
 of the friends of the treaty also appeared to increase. The commercial 
 community generally were in its favor. Pujplic meetings were held in 
 many parts of the country. Reflecting men, governed by judgment 
 rather than partisan zeal, sustained the administration. Commerce, 
 notwithstanding the restrictions under which it labored, was rapidly in. 
 creasing ; and it was deemed unwise to jeopard the public prosperity by 
 a course of policy likely to result in a war, which, though perhaps justi- 
 fiable, was not indispensable to the maintenance of the national honor. 
 
140 TTTE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 During the ensuing fall and winter, the subject of the treaty was in- 
 frodueed into the legislatures of a majority of the states, for the purpose 
 of condemnation or approval. In one or two only of these states, it is 
 believed, did resolutions disapproving the treaty pass both houses. By 
 fhe legislature of Virginia, resolutions were adopted proposing several 
 anicndments to the constitution, abridging the power of the senate, and 
 reducing the term of office to three years ; and roLjuiring the concurrence 
 of the house of representatives in making treaties ; but we are not aware 
 that the proposition met with a favorable response in any state : by 
 several of the state legislatures they were discountenanced by a formal 
 vote. 
 
 In August, 1795, Mr. Randolph resigned the office of secretary of 
 state, and that of attorney-general was vacated by the death of Mr. 
 Bradford. Both these offices continued vacant until the next annual 
 meeting of the senate. On the 10th of December, Timothy Pickering, 
 secretary of war, by whom the duties of secretary of state also had been 
 performed, was appointed to the head of the state department ; and 
 Charles Lee, of Virginia, was on the same day appointed attorney- 
 general. On the 27th of January, 1796, James M'Henry, of Maryland, 
 was appointed secretary of war, in the place of Mr. Pickering. 
 
 On the 3d of August, 1795, a satisfactory treaty was concluded with 
 the north-western Indians. 
 
 On the 27th of October, after a negotiation of about fifteen years, a 
 treaty was also concluded with Spain ; by which the claim of the United 
 States as to the Florida boundary, and the right to a free navigation of 
 the Mississippi river, were both conceded. In defining neutral rights, 
 the treaty, as that with France, provided that provisions and naval stores 
 were not to be deemed contraband, and that free ships should make free 
 goods. And compensation was to be made to American citizens for 
 property illegally captured by Spanish cruisers. 
 
 A treaty of peace with the dey of Algiers was made on the 5 th of 
 September, and the American captives released from their cruel im- 
 prisonment. The ransom of these prisoners was effected at an expense 
 of about one million of dollars. 
 
 The fourth congress met on the 7th of December, 1795. In his 
 speech, delivered the next day, the president congratulated the country 
 on the restoration of peace yith the western Indians ; on the favorable 
 advices from Algiers and Spain, the treaties not having as yet been re- 
 ceived ; and on the general internal tranquillity, the rapid increase of 
 population, and the unexampled prosperity of our agriculture, commerce, 
 and manufactures, the molestations of our trade having been over- 
 balanced by the aggregate benefits derived from a neutral position. The 
 
PRESENTATION OF THE FRENCH COLORS. 141 
 
 decision of the British government with respect to the amended treaty, 
 being yet unknown, would be communicated when received. Subjects 
 of legislation to which he called the attention of congress, were, a review 
 of the military establishment, a more complete organization of the militia, 
 and more effectual provisions for the protection of the Indians from the 
 violence of the lawless part of our frontier inhabitants, as being neces- 
 sary to prevent destructive retaliations by the Indians. 
 
 The answer of the senate, expressing their approval of the foreign 
 policy of the president, was adopted, 14 to 8. 
 
 In the house, the answer reported by the committee, declared the un 
 diminished confidence of the people in the president. This declaration 
 was objected to as untrue ; and before a direct vote was taken upon it 
 the address was recommitted, and so modified as to render it acceptable 
 to the majority, which, as in the last preceding house, was opposed to 
 the administration. The treaty with Great Britain, though not directly 
 disapproved, was treated in a manner indicating the sense of the majority. 
 
 On the first of January, 1796, an occurrence of some interest took 
 place at the seat of government. Mr. Monroe, it will be recollected, 
 was appointed minister to France in the summer of 1794. Soon after 
 his arrival, he presented to the national convention the flag of the United 
 States, as a token of the friendship and good will of his country toward 
 the French republic. Fauchet having been recalled, Adet, his successor, 
 who arrived in the United States in June, 1795, was directed to recip- 
 rocate this expression of friendship, by presenting to the American 
 government the flag of France. This ceremony had been delayed until 
 the first of January, when the flag was publicly delivered to the presi- 
 dent, with a letter from the French committee of safety, expressing the 
 joy with which they had received the declarations which the American 
 minister had made of the friendly dispositions of his government toward 
 the French republic. 
 
 In his address to the president, Mr. Adet said France recognized the 
 people of the United States as " friends and brothers. Long accus- 
 tomed to regard them as her most faithful allies, she sought to draw 
 closer the ties already formed in the fields of America, under the 
 auspices of victory, over the ruins of tyranny." 
 
 The president, in reply, expressed his sympathies and those of his 
 fellow-citizens for the people of France, and congratulated them on the 
 recent substitution of a republican constitution for the revolutionary 
 government, and concluded thus : " I receive, sir, with lively sensibility, 
 the symbol of the triumphs and of the enfranchisements of your nation, 
 the colors of France, which you have now presented to the United 
 States. The transaction will be announced to congress, and the colors 
 
14^ ,.,j. ,|THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 will be deposited with the archives of the United States, which are at 
 once the evidence and the memorials of their freedom and independence : 
 may these be perpetual ! and may the friendship of the two republics be 
 commensurate with their existence !" 
 
 The colors of France, and the letter of the committee of safety, with 
 the address of Adet, and the president's answer, were all transmitted to 
 congress. 
 
 On the 1st of March, 1796, the president sent to the house a copy of 
 the treaty with G-reat Britain which had been returned, in the form ad- 
 vised by the senate, ratified by his Britannic majesty, with the informa- 
 tion that the treaty had been proclaimed as the law of the land. The 
 debate to which this communication gave rise was exceedingly animated. 
 Upon no other measure of the administration, perhaps, had the public 
 mind been more sensibly agitated, or party passion raised to a higher 
 pitch. It was viewed by many as virtually a question of peace or war ; 
 and what gave it additional importance was, that it involved the consti- 
 tutional questions, ivhether the assent of the house was essential to the 
 obligation of a treaty, and whether the president had a right to ?iegotiatc 
 a treaty of commerce. 
 
 The first discussion arose upon a motion of Edward Livingston, of 
 New York, to request the president to lay before the house a copy of 
 his instructions to Mr. Jay, with the correspondence and other docu- 
 ments relating to the treaty. Several days afterward, the resolution 
 was amended by the mover, by adding, " excepting such of the papers 
 as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed." The 
 propriety of this call was questioned by the minority, unless there was 
 an intimation to impeach the president or Mr. Jay. But the principal 
 topic of discussion was the nature and extent of the treaty-making 
 power ; or the right of the house to refuse the means of carrying a 
 treaty into effect. 
 
 It was argued by the friends of the administration, that a treaty was 
 complete, according to the constitution, when, by the advice and consent 
 of the senate, it had received the signature of the executive ; and that 
 the non-compliance, on the part of the house, with its stipulations, was 
 a breach of a solemn contract, and a violation of the public faith. On 
 the other hand, it was maintained, that the power to make treaties, if 
 extended to every object, would interfere with the constitutional powers 
 of congress. Hence, treaties requiring the appropriation of money, or 
 any other act of congress to carry them into effect, could not have force 
 without consent of the house ; therefore the refusing of such appropria- 
 tion or law was no violation of an existing obligation. The debate was 
 continued until the 24th of March , when the resolution was adopted, 62 
 to 37. 
 
• DISCUSSION ON THE JAY TREATY. 1 43 
 
 The president was now placed in a delicate situation. The house, not 
 having been made by the constitution a part of the treaty-making power, 
 had no right to demand the papers relating to the negotiation. To com- 
 ply with the call would be to concede this right, and to establish a 
 dangerous precedent. A non-compliance, on the contrary, would increase 
 the popular clamor against the administration, and confirm the suspicions 
 of many, that there were facts connected with the negotiation which the 
 president feared to expose. As there was nothing in the whole afi'air 
 which he wished to conceal — indeed all the papers aflFecting the negotia- 
 tion had already been laid before the senate — the question was simply 
 one of popularity or duty. 
 
 The answer declining a compliance with the call, was returned on the 
 30th of March. After disclaiming " a disposition to withhold any thing 
 which the constitution has enjoined it upon the president as a duty to 
 give, or which could be required of him by either house of congress as a 
 right," he proceeds to argue the question : " The nature of foreign nego- 
 tiations requires caution, and their success often depends on secrecy. 
 The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for 
 vesting the power of making treaties in the president, with the advice 
 and consent of the senate, the principle on which that body was formed 
 confining it to a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in 
 the house of representatives to demand, and to have, as a matter of 
 course, all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power, would 
 be to establish a dangerous precedent. * * * 
 
 " Having been a member of the general convention, and knowing the 
 principles on which the constitution was formed, I have ever entertained 
 but one opinion upon this subject ; and from the first establishment 
 of the government to this moment, my conduct has exemplified that 
 opinion : That the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the 
 president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, provided 
 two-thirds of the senate concur ; and that every treaty so made and pro- 
 mulgated, is thenceforward the law of the land. It is thus that the 
 treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations : and in all the 
 treaties made with them, ive have declared, and they have believed, that, 
 when ratified by the president, with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 they became obligatory. In this construction of tlie constitution, every 
 house of representatives has heretofore acquiesced ; and until the present 
 time, not a doubt or suspicion has appeared to my knowledge, that this 
 construction was not the true one. Nay, they have more than acquiesced; 
 for until now, without controverting the obligation of such treaties, they 
 have made all the requisite provisions for carrying them into effect." 
 
 In confirmation of this construction, the president refers to the deli- 
 
144 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. • 
 
 berations of tte state conventions on the constitution, in which it was 
 objected to that instrument, that in certain treaties the concurrence of 
 both houses was not required. Proof was also found in the concession 
 by the general convention, to the small states of an equal representation 
 in the senate, and investing this body at the same time with the treaty- 
 making power. And he refers also to the journals of the convention, 
 from which it appears that a proposition, " that no treaty should be 
 binding on the United States which was not ratified by a law," was 
 rejected. 
 
 " As, therefore," said the president in conclusion, " it is perfectly clear 
 to my understanding, that the assent of the house of representatives is 
 not necessary to the validity of a treaty ; as the treaty with Great Bri- 
 tain exhibits within itself all the objects requiring legislative provision ; 
 and on these the papers can throw no light ; and as it is essential to the 
 due administration of the government, that the boundaries fixed by the 
 constitution between the different departments shoiild be preserved ; a 
 just regard to the constitution, and to the duty of my office, under all 
 the circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your request." 
 
 On the 6th of April, this message was referred to a committee of the 
 whole, and two resolutions were moved by Mr. Blount, of North Caro- 
 lina, the first of which disclaimed the right of the house to interfere in 
 making treaties, but asserted the right to carry into effect, or not, any 
 treaty stipulations on subjects committed by the constitution to congress; 
 the second affirmed that the house was not bound to give any reasons for 
 a call upon the executive for information. These resolutions were car- 
 ried, 57 to 35. 
 
 On the 13th of April, copies of the treaties with Spain, Algiers, and 
 the north-western Indians, having been previously communicated to the 
 house, Mr. Sedgwick moved, " that provision ought to be made by law 
 for carrying into effect, with good faith, " the treaties concluded with 
 the dey and regency of Algiers, the king of Great Britain, the king of 
 Spain, and certain Indian tribes north-west of the Ohio." The object 
 of the mover in joining all these treaties in one motion, was not attained. 
 The motion was divided, and the question taken upon the treaties separ- 
 ately. Resolutions declaring it expedient to carry into effect the other 
 three treaties having been adopted, that relating to the British treaty 
 wag taken up. 
 
 The debate in committee of the whole commenced on the 15th of 
 April, and continued until the 29th. Speeches were made by more than 
 thirty members. Among the opponents of the treaty whose names are 
 most conspicuous, were Mr. Madison, by whom the debate was opened, 
 and Mr. Gallatin, who had just commenced his public career, as a repre- 
 
 4 
 
3. oL. kJicicLA^rLS 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE JAY TREATY. 145 
 
 sentative from the insurrection district in western Pennsylvania He 
 had been previously chosen a senator in congress ; but on its being ascer- 
 tained that he had not been nine years a citizen of the United States, ho 
 waa excluded from his seat in that body. He had taken the lead in the 
 debate on the call for the instructions, and was the most prominent and 
 effective speaker against the treaty. 
 
 To do justice to the principal participators in this celebrated debate, 
 would require the transfer, to our pages, of more copious extracts from 
 their speeches, than our prescribed limits will permit. The grounds on 
 which the treaty was opposed and supported, are thus summarily stated 
 by Pitkin : 
 
 " The objections of those opposed to carrying the treaty into effect, 
 were generally, that it wanted reciprocity ; that it gave up all claim of 
 compensation for negroes carried away contrary to the treaty of peace, 
 and for the detention of the western posts; that it contravened the 
 French treaty, and sacrificed the interest of an ally to that of Great 
 Britain ; that it gave up, in several important instances, the law of 
 nations, particularly in relation to free ships making free goods, cases of 
 blockade, and contraband of war ; that it improperly interfered with the 
 legislative powers of congress, especially by prohibiting the sequestration 
 of debts ; and that the commercial part gave few if any advantages to 
 the United States. 
 
 " On the other hand it was urged, the treaty had been constitutionally 
 made and promulgated ; that a regard to public faith and the best inter- 
 ests of the country, under all the circumstances, required that it should 
 be carried into effect, although not in all respects perfectly satisfactory ; 
 that it settled disputes between the two governments of a very long 
 standing, of a very interesting nature, and which it was particularly im- 
 portant for the United States to bring to a close ; that provision was 
 also made for a settlement of those of a more recent date, not less affect- 
 ing the sensibility as well as honor of the country, and in which the 
 commercial community had a deep interest ; that in no case had the law 
 of nations been given up ; that the question as to provisions being con- 
 traband, although not settled, was left as before the treaty ; that the 
 conventional rights of France were saved by an express clause. And as 
 to the sequestration of private debts, it was said to be contrary to every 
 principle of morality and good faith, and ought never to take place ; that 
 the commercial part would probably be mutually beneficial, was a matter 
 of experiment, and was to continue only two years after the close of the 
 war in Europe : that, in fine, on the part of the United States, the only 
 choice left was treaty or war." 
 
 The ability and eloquence displayed on this question have seldom been 
 
 10 
 
146 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 surpassed in that body. It was near the close of the debate, that the 
 celebrated speech of Fisher Ames in favor of the treaty was delivered. 
 As a specimen of eloquence, this speech has been considered by many as 
 almost unrivaled. Immediately after it was concluded, numerous calls 
 were made for the question ; but the opposition members, unwilling to 
 have the vote taken under the immediate influence of the speech, post- 
 poned the question until the next day, (April 29,) when it was carried, 
 in committee of the whole, by the casting vote of the chairman, (Muhlen- 
 burg,) who, though belonging to the opposition, did not wish to take the 
 responsibility of deciding the question, as the resolution would still be 
 subject to amendment in the house. In the house, after an ineflfectual 
 attempt so to amend the resolution, as to declare the treaty " highly 
 objectionable," it was carried, 51 to 48. [Appendix, Note B.] 
 
 Never, perhaps, have greater efforts been made to sustain or defeat a 
 measure than in the present instance. Public meetings were held in all 
 quarters of the union ; and petitions from all classes of the people were 
 poured in upon the house to back up the speeches of their representatives. 
 The prospect of a defeat of the treaty had alarmed the merchants. 
 Indeed its effects upon commerce were already felt. And the petitions 
 from this influential class of men, in all the great commercial cities, had 
 no slight share in producing the final result. 
 
 This was the last measure of much importance that engaged the atten- 
 tion of congress at the present session, which was terminated on the first 
 of June, 
 
 Thomas Pinckney, minister at London, having previously requested 
 a recall, was succeeded by Rufus King, who was appointed the 20th of 
 May, 1796. 
 
 The French government having been officially informed that the pre- 
 sident had ratified the treaty with Great Britain, the minister of foreign 
 affairs, in February, 1796, informed Mr. Monroe that the directory, (the 
 executive power under the new constitution, consisting of five persons,) 
 considered the alliance between the United States and France terminated 
 by Jay's treaty ; that Adet was to be recalled, and a special envoy was 
 to be sent to make the announcement to the American government. A 
 few days afterward, Mr. Monroe was presented with a list of the com- 
 plaints preferred by the French government against the United States. 
 
 The most prominent subject of complaint against the United States 
 was, that in their treaty with Great Britain, they had abandoned the 
 principle, that free ships should make free goods, and that naval stores 
 and provisions were made contraband. By the treaties of the United 
 States with France and Great Britain, French property in American 
 vessels was liable to seizure by British cruisers, while British goods were 
 
 n 
 
MONROE RECALLED. 147 
 
 secure in American vessels. This, however, was no just ground of com- 
 plaint. Great Britain had only reserved a right to which she was en- 
 titled by the law of nations; whereas, France, supposing it to be more 
 for her interest, had preferred a different principle, which unforeseen 
 events had rendered disadvantageous. 
 
 The French government was reminded of the decree of the convention 
 issued in May, 1793, in direct violation of this very stipulation of the 
 treaty. Under this decree, about fifty American vessels had been cap- 
 tured and deprived of their cargoes, which were yet unpaid for. Nearly 
 twice that number had been detained at Bourdeux. 
 
 De la Croix had intimated to Mr. Monroe, in February, that the 
 directory had determined on some retaliatory measures. Encouraged to 
 believe that the house of representatives would defeat the treaty by 
 withholding the means of carrying it into effect, the contemplated 
 measures were for the time delayed. News of the decision of the house 
 of representatives reached Paris in June ; and on the 2d of July, the 
 directory issued a decree, that " all neutral or allied powers shall, with- 
 out delay, be notified, that the flag of the French republic will treat 
 neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches, or capture, in the 
 same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them." 
 
 It is supposed to have been the purpose of France, with the aid of 
 Spain and Holland, to defeat the operation of the treaty. In August, 
 1796, France and Spain entered into a treaty of alliance, offensive and 
 defensive, by which they guarantied to each other all their possessions,. 
 and agreed to make common cause to ensure " safety to the neutral 
 flag;" in other words, to compel the United States to protect French 
 and Spanish property in American vessels, in contravention of the treaty 
 stipulation with Great Britain. Accordingly, Spain also, instigated 
 probably by France, complained to the American government of the un- 
 equal footing upon which she had been placed by the British treaty, and 
 made this a pretext for not delivering up the posts on the Mississippi 
 and running the southern boundary line. 
 
 Holland also, then dependent on France, remonstrated against the 
 United States permitting the property of her citizens to be taken from 
 American vessels. Said the minister of foreign affairs to John Quincy 
 Adams, then minister in that country : " When circumstances oblige our 
 commerce to confide its interests to the neutral flag of American vessels, 
 it has a right to insist that that flag be protected with energy, and that 
 it be not insulted at the expense of a friendly and allied nation." And 
 he intimated that the United States ought to make common cause with 
 the French republic. Mr. Adams, writing to the American government, 
 said he had received intimations of a secret purpose of the French 
 
148 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 government to defeat, if possible, tlic treaty lately concluded between tho 
 United States and Great Britain. 
 
 With the view to this object, probably, was the attempt afterward 
 made to separate the people of the west from the union, and to induce 
 them to jom with Spain in forming a new empire. The western people 
 having, since the first attempt at separation, obtained the free navigation 
 of the Mississippi, this new project met with little favor. 
 
 The president was not fully satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Monroe 
 at the French court. The principal ground of dissatisfaction was the 
 want of promptitude in making to that government the explanationa 
 furnished him by the president in justification of the treaty with Great 
 Britain. It was suspected that the delay had been occasioned by his 
 reluctance to justify a measure which he disapproved The president at 
 first determined to associate with Mr. Monroe a minister extraordinary, 
 in order to insure a more efficient representation of the views of the ad- 
 ministration. But perceiving, upon reflection, that the constitution 
 authorized him only to fill vacancies during the recess of the senate, and 
 not to appoint additional officers, he concluded to recall Mr. Monroe ; 
 and on the 9th of September, 1796, appointed in his place Charles 
 Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, brother of Thomas Pinckney 
 late minister to Great Britain. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 WASHINGTON DECLINES ANOTHER REELECTION. HIS LAST ANMJAL MES- 
 SAGE. MR. PINCKNEY EXPELLED FROM FRANCE. ELECTION OF ADAMS 
 
 AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 As a few months only were to intervene before a new election of chief 
 magistrate was to be made, the public attention had already begun to be 
 directed to the selection of candidates for that office. It was generally 
 supposed to be the determination of the president to decline being agaiq 
 a candidate. Notwithstanding the unscrupulous efi"orts, not only to 
 render his administration odious, but to shako the public confidence in 
 Washington himself, he etill retained the afiections of the great mass of 
 the people. His retirement at the present juncture would, it was 
 feared, expose the national policy just established to great hazard. Of 
 his reelection, should he be a candidate, there was no reasonable doubt. 
 
Washington's opinion of jefferson. 149 
 
 The success of any other person of the same political party, was doubt- 
 ful ; aind even if elected, it was by no means certain that his personal 
 popularity could impart to his administration sufficient strength to with- 
 stand the powerful" and determined opposition which it was destined to 
 encounter. 
 
 Hence Washington was strongly urged by many of his friends to 
 change his purpose, and once more to consent to sacrifice his individual 
 ease and happiness for the public welfare. Ardently as he desired a re- 
 lease from the cares and responsibilities of public life, induced, probably, 
 by the pressing solicitations of his friends, he delayed, for the present, 
 the announcement of his intention to decline. In the mean time, un- 
 scrupulous eflForts were kept up, not only to turn the popular sentiment 
 against his policy, but to weaken his hold on the affections of the people. 
 No artifice was supposed to be more likely to eff'ect this object, than to 
 represent him as friendly to England and inimical to France. 
 
 It will be recollected that the president addressed to the members of 
 his cabinet a series of questions for their consideration, prior to the 
 meeting at which it was decided to issue the proclamation of neutrality. 
 A number of essays appeared in the Aurora, in one of which these 
 queries were inserted, and made the subject of bitter denunciation. 
 '' Perfidy and ingratitude," it was said, "were stamped on their front." 
 They were " a stupendous monument of degeneracy. It would almost 
 require the authenticity of holy writ to persuade posterity that they 
 were not a libel ingeniously contrived to injure the reputation of the 
 savior of his country." 
 
 This document being strictly confidential, it could have become public 
 only by a betrayal of confidence. Mr. Jefferson, to free himself from 
 suspicion, immediately wrote a letter to the president, assuring him of 
 his own innocence. The president, in answer, said he did not suspect 
 him of having given the queries publicity. He was, however, " at no 
 loss to conjecture from what source they flowed, through what channel 
 they were conveyed, nor for what purpose they and similar publications 
 appeared." [The " source" here alluded to, was probably Mr. Randolph.] 
 The letter proceeds to say : 
 
 " As you have mentioned the subject yourself, it would not be frank, 
 candid, or friendly, to conceal, that your conduct has been represented 
 as derogating from that opinion I conceived you entertained of me ; 
 that to your particular friends and connections you have described, and 
 they have denounced me, as a person under a dangerous influence ; and 
 that if I would listen more to some other opinions, all would be well. 
 My answer invariably has been, that I had never discovered any thing 
 in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions in my mind of his 
 
J 50 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 sincerity that if lie would retrace my public conduct while he was in 
 the administration, abundant proof would occur to him, that truth and 
 right decisions were the sole objects of my pursuit; that there were as 
 many instances within his own knowledge of my having decided against 
 as in favor of the person evidently alluded to, (Hamilton;) and more- 
 over that I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics or measures 
 of any man living. In short, that I was no party man myself; and that 
 the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them. 
 
 " To this I may add, that until the last year or two, I had no concep 
 tion that parties would, or even could, go the lengths I have been witness 
 to • nor did I believe, until lately, that it was withm the bounds of 
 probability— hardly within those of possibility— that while I was using 
 my utmost exertions to establish a national character of our own, mde- 
 pendent as far as our obligations and justice would permit, of every 
 nation of the earth ; and wished, by steering a steady course, to preserve 
 this country from the horrors of a desolating war ; I should be accused of 
 being the enemy of one nation, and subject to the influence of another; 
 and to prove it, that every act of my administration would be tortured, 
 and the grossest and most insidious misrepresentations of them be made, 
 by giving one side only of a subject, and that, too, in such exaggerated 
 and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero-to a no- 
 torious defaulter, or even to a common pick-pocket. 
 
 " But enough of this; I have already gone further in the expression 
 of my feelings than I intended." 
 
 This letter would seem to indicate a suspicion, on the part of Wash- 
 ington, that Jefferson was secretly endeavoring to impair the public con-^ 
 fidence in him. This suspicion subsequent events tended to strengthen 
 and confirm. Among these was the appearance the next year, of a letter 
 written by Mr. Jefferson, in April, 1796, to P. Mazzei, a foreigner, and 
 which had found its way back to this country. The letter as it first ap- 
 peared in the papers, being, as Mr. Jefferson alleged, an imperfect 
 translation, we give it as corrected by himself. 
 
 " My dear friend : The aspect of our politics has wonderfully 
 changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and 
 republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, 
 an Anglican monarchical and aristocratic party has sprung up, whose 
 avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already 
 done the forms, of the British government. The main body of our 
 citizens, however, remain true to their republican principles : the whole 
 landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents. Against 
 us are the executive, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the / 
 legislature, all the officers of the government, all who want to be officejs, 
 
WASHINGTON DECLINES ANOTHER REELECTION. 151 
 
 all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of 
 liberty, British merchants, and Americans trading on British capitals, 
 speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance in- 
 vented for the purposes of corruption, and for assimilating us in all 
 things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model. It 
 would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have 
 gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and 
 Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the 
 harlot England. In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have 
 obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve 
 it ; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great, as to 
 leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have 
 only to awake, and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been 
 entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors. It 
 suffices that we arrest the progress of that system of ingratitude and in- 
 justice toward France, from which they would alienate us, to bring us 
 under British influence." 
 
 Such a letter from one with whom he had long sustained the most 
 intimate and friendly relations, private and official — accusing him of 
 antagonism to republican principles, and of cooperating with a monarchical 
 party to change the government — characterizing his administration as 
 " the calm of despotism," and representing its measures as " contrivances 
 invented for the purposes of corruption" — gave Washington great pain, 
 and greatly marred, if it did not terminate, the friendship which had so 
 long subsisted between these two eminent and esteemed individuals. 
 
 A principal object of Washington's opponents was to induce the belief 
 that he was inimical to France, and friendly to Great Britain. In 1777 
 a number of forged letters were published, purporting to have been writ- 
 ten by him in 1776, to certain friends, and containing expressions in 
 opposition to the cause of independence, and favorable to Great Britain. 
 The calumny was revived by the republication of these letters ; and as 
 he treated it with silence, the genuineness of the letters was, to some 
 extent, and for a time, believed. To prevent future injury to his politi- 
 cal character, on the day of his retirement from office, (March 3, 1797,) 
 he addressed to the secretary of state, a letter, solemnly declaring the 
 letters " a base forgery," and detailing circumstances proving them to be 
 such ; and concluding with a request, that the present letter might be 
 deposited in the office of the state department " as a testimony of the 
 truth to the present generation, and to posterity." 
 
 Having fully determined to decline another election, the president 
 announced his determination in a valedictory address to the people of 
 the United States, whicli bears date September 16th; 1796. This 
 
15'2 THE AMERICAN STATESM^VN. 
 
 address ccntains summary of the political maxims by which he ha«3 
 been governed in the conduct of his administration, and the observance 
 of which he deemed indispensable to the future safety and welfare of the 
 nation. [Note 0., Appendix.] 
 
 Washington having explicitly declined a reelection, the federalists 
 united upon John Adams and Thomas Pinckney as their candidates for 
 l)resident and vice-president ; and the republicans supported Mr. JefFer- 
 pon and Aaron Burr. The struggle was a very ardent and a bitter one. 
 The feelings, not only of the American people, but of foreigners, espe- 
 cially the French, were deeply enlisted in it. The French minister was 
 more than a concerned spectator to the contest. Just before the election 
 he sent a communication to the secretary of state, containing a repetition 
 of the various accusations against our government, of bad faith, of in- 
 justice, and of ingratitude towards France. The object of this letter at 
 this particular time, was sufficiently disclosed by its being sent, at the 
 same time, to the Aurora newspaper for publication. This extraordinary 
 diplomatic letter concludes thus : 
 
 " Alas ! time has not yet demolished the fortifications with which the 
 English roughened this country, nor those the Americans raised for their 
 defense : tlieir half rounded summits still appear in every quarter, 
 amidst plains, on the tops of mountains. The traveler need not search 
 for the ditch which served to encompass them ; it is still open under his 
 feet. Scattered ruins of houses laid waste, which the fire had partly 
 respected, in order to leave monuments of British fury, are still to be 
 found. Men still exist, who can say, here a ferocious Englishman slaugh- 
 tered my father ; there my wife tore her daughter from the hands of an 
 unbridled Englishman. Alas ! the soldiers who fell under the sword of 
 the Britons are not yet reduced to dust : the laborer, in turning up his 
 field, still draws from the bosom of the earth their whitened bones ; "hile 
 the ploughman, with tears of tenderness and gratitude, still recollects 
 that his fields, now covered with rich harvests, have been moistened with 
 French blood. While every thing around the inhabitants of this country 
 animates them to speak of the tyranny of Great Britain, and of the gen 
 erosity of Frenchmen ; when England has declared a war of death to 
 that nation, to avenge herself for its having cemented with its blood the 
 independence of the United States ; — it was at this moment their govern- 
 ment made a treaty of amity with their ancient tyrant, the implacable 
 enemy of their ancient ally. Oh, Americans, covered with Loble scars I 
 Oh, you who have so often flown to death and to victory with French 
 soldiers ! you who know those generous sentiments which distinguish the 
 true warrior ! whose hearts have always vibrated with those of your com- 
 panions in arms ! consult them to-day to know what they experieuca 
 
 
WASHINGTON'S LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE. 153 
 
 Recollect, at the same time, that if magnanimous souls with liveliness 
 resent an affront, they also know how to forget one. Let your govern- 
 ment return to itself, and you will still find in Frenchmen faithful friends 
 and generous allies." 
 
 Adet also announced in this letter the orders of the French directory 
 to suspend his ministerial functions with the federal government. This 
 act, however, was not intended " as a rupture between France and the 
 United States, but as a mark of just discontent which was to last until 
 the government of the United States returned to sentiments and to 
 measures more conformable to the interests of the alliance, and the sworn 
 friendship between the two nations." After the manner of Genet, he 
 denounces the government, but flatters the people. " Notwithstanding 
 the wrongs of the government,'''' he says, " the directory do not wish to 
 break with a people whom they love to salute with the appellation of a 
 friend." 
 
 It is but justice to the discreet and reflecting men of the opposition 
 party, to say, that they disapproved this interference, on the part of a 
 foreign minister, in the election of a chief magistrate ; and we are in- 
 formed that it appeared to have had no sensible effect upon the election. 
 
 About the same time, there appeared in the same newspaper, an order 
 from Adet, in the name of the French directory, to Frenchmen in the 
 United States, to wear the tri-colored cockade ; which was accordingly 
 done, not by Frenchmen only, but by many of our own citizens. 
 
 Congress met on the 5th of December, 1796 ; and on the 7th, Wash- 
 ington addressed the legislature for the last time. The adjustment of 
 difficulties with the Indians, with Great Britain, Spain and Algiers, and 
 the pending negotiations with Tunis and Tripoli, were made subjects of 
 communication. To secure respect to our neutral flag, and to protect 
 our trade to the Mediterranean, he recommended the gradual creation 
 of a navy. The encouragement of manufactures, agriculture, the arts 
 and sciences, was also commended to the attention of congress. In 
 adverting to our relations with France, the president said : " Our trade 
 has suffered, and is suffering, extensive injuries in the West Indies from 
 the cruisers and agents of the French republic ; and communications 
 have been received from its minister here, which indicate the danger of 
 a farther disturbance o^' our commerce, by its authority, and which are, 
 in other respects, far from agreeable." He expressed the wish to con- 
 tinue to maintain cordial harmony and a friendly understanding with 
 that nation, and cherished the " expectation that a spirit of justice, can- 
 dor, and friendship, on the part of the republic, would eventually insure 
 success." 
 
 The following is the concluding paragraph of his speech • " The situ- 
 
154 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ation ill which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst of the repro- 
 seutatives of the people of the United States, naturally recalls the period 
 when the administration of the present form of government commenced* 
 and I can not omit the occasion to congratulate you and my country on 
 the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my fervent supplications to 
 the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and the Sovereign Arbiter of nations, 
 that his providential care may still be extended to the United States ; 
 that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved ; and that 
 the government which they have institated for the protection of their 
 liberties may be perpetuated." 
 
 The answers of both houses were such as could not fail to be gratify- 
 ing to the president. That of the house, however, was not adopted with- 
 out considerable opposition. From the draft, as reported by the com- 
 mittee, Mr. Giles moved to strike out several whole paragraphs, one of 
 which was the following : " And while we entertain a grateful conviction 
 that your wise, firm, and patriotic administration has been signally con- 
 ducive to the success of the present form of government, we can not 
 forbear to express the deep sensations of*regret with which we contem- 
 plate your intended retirement from ofl&ce." 
 
 Mr. Giles would not admit that the administration had been wise and 
 firm. It was from a want of wisdom and firmness that we were brought 
 into our present critical situation. He did not regret his retirement 
 from office. He hoped he would retire to his country-seat and enjoy all 
 the happiness he could wish ; and he believed he would enjoy more there 
 than in his present situation. He believed there were a thousand men in 
 the United States, who were capable of filling the presidential chair aa 
 well as it had been filled heretofore. The motion of Mr. Giles to strike 
 out was lost. 
 
 Objection was also made to the words, " the spectacle of a whole 
 nation, the freest and most enlightened in the world." The excep- 
 tion taken to this expression is presumed to have been on the ground of 
 its giving to this country, in respect to freedom and intelligence, the pre- 
 cedence of France. It was amended so as to read, " the spectacle of a 
 free and enlightened nation." 
 
 A motion was also made to strike out the concluding sentence : " For 
 our country's sake ; for the sake of republicanism, it is our earnest wish 
 that your example may be the guide of your successors, and thus, after 
 being the ornament and safeguard of the present age, become the patri- 
 tnouy of our descendants." The motion failed. Of the twenty-four who 
 voted for it, were Gallatin, Giles, Andrew Jackson, Edward Livingston, 
 and Macon. On the question of adopting the address, the yeas and nays 
 were called for by a member of the opposition. Among the twelve whc 
 voted in the negative, were Giles, Jackson, Livingston, and Macon. 
 
MR. PINCKNEY EXPELLED FROM FRANCE. iSb 
 
 In contrast with the answer of the two houses of congress to the speech 
 of the president, and with the popular sentiment of the nation, we pre- 
 sent an extract from an article which appeared a few days after in the 
 Philadelphia Aurora, a violent opposition paper. " If ever a nation was 
 debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Wash- 
 ington. If ever a nation has been deceived by a man, the American 
 nation has been deceived by Washington. Let his conduct, then, be an 
 example to future ages. Let it serve to be a warning that no man may 
 be an idol. Let the history of the federal government instruct mankind 
 that the mask of patriotism may be worn to conceal the foulest designs 
 against the liberties of the people." 
 
 As has been stated, the object of Mr. Pinckney's mission was to make 
 full explanations to the French government of the conduct of the admin- 
 istration towards France, for the purpose of restoring harmony betweeu 
 the two countries. On the 19th of January, 1797, the president trans- 
 mitted to congress a full and minute statement of the controversy with 
 France ; in which all her complaints were noticed, and her conduct, and 
 that of her ministers, as well as that of our own government, carefully 
 reviewed ; and in which the latter was successfully vindicated. This 
 exposition of our affairs with France was in the shape of a letter to Mr. 
 Pinckney, designed to aid him in making a proper representation of the 
 subject to the French government. And that the American people 
 might have a correct view of this exciting controversy, the letter and the 
 accompanying documents were made public. 
 
 Mr. Pinckney arrived at Paris about the 1st of December, 1796. On 
 the 9 th, Mr. Monroe presented his letter of recall, and Mr. Pinckney his 
 letter of credence. Two days after, the minister of foreign affairs in- 
 formed Mr. Monroe, that the directory would " no longer recognize a 
 minister plenipotentiary from the United States-, until after a reparation 
 of the grievances demanded of the American government, and which 
 the French government had a right to expect." Mr. Pinckney addressed 
 a note to the French minister, inquiring whether it was intended that he 
 should quit the republic. The minister, (De la Croix,) considering a 
 direct communication with Mr. Pinckney an acknowledgment of him as 
 minister, sent one of his secretaries to inform him that such was the 
 intention of the directory. For his own justification, Mr. Pinckney 
 desired a written answer ; but obtained none imtil the last of January, 
 when he received a written notice to quit the territory of the republic. 
 He proceeded to Amsterdam to wait for instructions from his govern- 
 ment. While at Paris, he was threatened with prosecution for a viola- 
 tion of the law which prohibited foreigners from remaining there without 
 special permission. But he insisted with firmness on the protection of 
 the law of nations due to him as the known minister cf a foreign power. 
 
150 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 On the 8th of February, the electoral votes were opened and counted 
 in the presence of both houses. Mr. Adams had received 71 votes, and 
 Mr. Jefferson 69. Thomas Pinckney received 59 ; Aaron Burr, 30 ; 
 Samuel Adams, 15; Oliver Ellsworth, 11 ; George Clinton, 7; John 
 Jay, 5 ; scattering, 1 0. 
 
 At the close of this session, March 3, 179T, terminated the adminis- 
 tration of Washington ; during which all disputes with foreign nations, 
 except tliose with France, were adjusted ; credit was restored ; the pay- 
 ment of the public debt was provided for ; commerce was prosperous , 
 agricultural products had a ready market ; exports and imports had been 
 nearly tripled ; and the revenues exceeded all calculations. 
 
 After attending the inauguration of his successor, which took place the 
 next day, he departed for Mount Vernon, receiving on his journey marks 
 of undiminished esteem and affection from his fellow-citizens. 
 
 But these and numberless other unequivocal expressions of respect and 
 veneration for the character of Washington did not shield him from 
 detraction and calumny. His retirement furnished the occasion for at 
 least one more assault of impotent malice through its accustomed chan- 
 nel, the organ of the opposition at the seat of government. Scarcely had 
 he taken his departure from Philadelphia, before the following, ascribed 
 to a public functionary high in the confidence of the leaders of the oppo- 
 sition, appeared in the Aurora : 
 
 '' ' Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes 
 have seen thy salvation,' was the pious ejaculation of a man who beheld 
 a flood of happiness rushing in upon mankind. If ever there was a time 
 which would license the reiteration of this exclamation, that time is now 
 arrived ; for the man who is the source of all the misfortunes of our 
 country is this day reduced to a level with his fellow-citizens, and is no 
 longer possessed of power to multiply evils upon the United States. If 
 ever there was a period for rejoicing, this is the moment. Every heart 
 in unison with the freedom and happiness of the people, ought to beat 
 high with exultation that the name of Washington from this day ceases 
 to give a currency to political iniquity and to legalized corruption. A 
 new era is now opening upon us — an era which promises much to the 
 people; for public measures must now stand upon their own merits, and 
 nefarious projects can no longer be supported by a name. It is a subject 
 of the greatest astonishment, that a single individual should have carried 
 his designs against the public liberty so far as to have put in jeopardy, 
 its very existence. Such, however, are the facts ; and with these staring 
 U3 in the face, this day ought to be a jubilee in the United States !' 
 
TXAUGURATION OF MR. ADAMS. 157 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 INAUGURATION OF MR. ADAMS. RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. SPECIAL SES- 
 SION. MEASURES OF DEFENSE. ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 
 
 On the 4th of March, 1797, John Adams was inaugurated president 
 of the United States, in Congress Hall, at Philadelphia. Among the 
 persons of distinction in attendance, were General Washington, the vice- 
 president elect, the government officers, foreign ministers, members of 
 congress, and many private citizens. After the address had been deliv- 
 ered, the oath of office was administered by Oliver Ellsworth, chief- 
 justice of the supreme court. 
 
 Prominent members of the administration had been charged with 
 disesteem for France, and a controlling sympathy for Grreat Britain, 
 and. a predilection for her form of government, especially for a more 
 durable executive and senate than had been provided by the constitution. 
 Mr. Adams availed himself of this occasion to disclaim these sentiments. 
 He had, he said, first seen the constitution while in a foreign country, 
 and had " read it with great satisfaction, as a result of good heads, 
 prompted by good hearts, as an experiment better adapted to the genius, 
 character, situation, and relations of this nation and country, than any 
 which had ever been proposed or suggested." He had expressed his 
 approbation of it on all occasions, in public and in private. It had never 
 been any objection to it in his mind, that the executive and the senate 
 were not more permanent. Having witnessed its successful operation, 
 he had acquired an habitual attachment to it, and veneration for it. 
 
 Having expressed his admiration of some of the leading features of 
 the government, he proceeds : " The existence of such a government as 
 ours for any length of time, is a full proof of a general dissemination of 
 knowledge and virtue throughout the whole body of the people. And 
 what object or consideration more pleasing than this can be presented to 
 the human mind ? If national pride is ever justifiable, or excusable, it 
 is when it springs, not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from 
 conviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence. 
 
 " In the midst of these pleasing ideas, we should be unfaithful to our- 
 selves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties, if any 
 thing partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, vir- 
 tuous, and independent elections If an election is to be determined by 
 a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through 
 artifice or corruption, the government may be the choice of a party for 
 
T59 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 its own ends, not of the nation for the national good. If that solitary 
 suffrage can be obtained by foreign nations by flattery or menace^ by 
 fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the government may 
 not be the choice of the American people, but of foreign nations. It 
 may be foreign nations who govern us, and not we, the people, who 
 govern ourselves. And candid men will acknowledge, that in such cases 
 choice would have little advantage to boast of over lot or chance." 
 
 The president then passed upon his illustrious predecessor the follow- 
 ing truthful and appropriate encomium : 
 
 " Such is the amiable and interesting system of government, and such 
 are some of the abuses to which it may be exposed, which the people of 
 America have exhibited to the admiration and anxiety of the wise and 
 virtuous of all nations for eight years, under the administration of a citi- 
 zen, who, by a long course of great actions, regulated by prudence, 
 justice, temperance, and fortitude, conducting a people, inspired with 
 the same virtue, and animated with the same ardent patriotism and love 
 of liberty, to independence and peace, to increasing wealth and unex- 
 ampled prosperity, has merited the gratitude of his fellow-citizens, com- 
 manded the highest praises of foreign nations, and secured immortal 
 gloi*y with posterity. 
 
 " In that retirement which is his voluntary choice, may he long live 
 to enjoy the delicious recollection of his services, the gratitude of man- 
 kind, the happy fruits of them to himself and the world, which are daily 
 increasing, and that splendid prospect of the future fortunes of this 
 country which is opening from year to year. His name may still be a 
 rampart, and the knowledge that he lives, a bulwark against all open or 
 secret enemies of his country's peace. His example has been recom- 
 mended to the imitation of his successors by both houses of congress, and 
 by the voice of the legislature and the people throughout the nation." 
 
 His own principles and rule of action are thus expressed : 
 
 " On this subject it might become me better to be silent, or to speak 
 with diifidence ; but as something may be expected, the occasion I hope 
 will be admitted as an apology, if I venture to say that if a preference, 
 upon principle, of a free republican government, formed upon long and 
 serious reflection, after a diligent and impartial inquiry after truth ; if 
 an attachment to the constitution of the United States, and a conscien- 
 tious determination to support it until it shall be altered by the judgment 
 and wishes of the people, expressed in the mode prescribed in it ; if a 
 respectful attention to the constitutions of the individual states, and a 
 constant caution and delicacy toward the state governments ; if an equal 
 and important regard to the rights, interest, honor, and happiness, of all 
 the states in the union, without preference or regard to a northern or 
 
mAXJGURATION OF MR. ADAUfS. 159 
 
 southern, an eastern or western position, their various political opinions 
 on essential points, or their personal attachments ; if a love of virtuous 
 men of all parties and denominations ; if a love of science and letters, 
 and a wish to patronize every rational effort to encourage schools, col- 
 leges, universities, academies, and every institution for propagating 
 knowledge, virtue, and religion, among all classes of the people, not only 
 for their benign influence on the happiness of life in all its stages and 
 classes, and of society in all its forms, but as the only means of preserving 
 our constitution from its natural enemies, the spirit of sophistry, the 
 spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and 
 the pestilence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to 
 elective governments ; if a love of equal laws, of justice, and humanity, 
 in the interior administration ; if an inclination to improve agriculture, 
 commerce, and manufactures, for necessity, convenience, and defense ; if 
 a spirit of equity and humanity toward the aboriginal nations of America, 
 and a disposition to ameliorate their condition by inclining them to be 
 more friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to them ; if an 
 inflexible determination to maintain peace and inviolable faith with all 
 nations, and that system of neutrality and impartiality among the bel- 
 ligerent powers of Europe which has been adopted by this government,- 
 and so solemnly sanctioned by both houses of congress, and applauded 
 by the legislatures of the states and the public opinion, until it shall be 
 otherwise ordained by congress ; if a personal esteem far the French 
 nation^ formed in a residence of seven years chiefly among them, and a 
 sincere desire to preserve the friendship tohich has been so rmich for the 
 honor and interest of both nations ; if, while the conscious honor and 
 integrity of the people of America, and the internal sentiment of their 
 own power and energies must be preserved, an earnest endeavor to inves- 
 tigate every just cause, and remove every colorable pretense of complaint; 
 if an intention to pursue by amicable negotiation a reparation for the 
 injuries that have been committed on the commerce of our fellow-citizens, 
 by whatever nation, and if success cannot be obtained, to lay the facts 
 before the legislature that they may consider what further measures the 
 honor and interest of the government and its constituents demand ; if 
 a resolution to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and 
 to all nations, and maiatain peace, friendship, and benevolence, with all 
 the world ; if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources 
 of the American people, on which I have so often hazarded my all, and 
 never been deceived ; if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this 
 country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of tho 
 moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people, deeply 
 engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by 
 
160 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 
 
 experience and age, and with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty 
 to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call 
 themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent 
 respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public 
 service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes ; it shall 
 be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two houses 
 shall not be without effect. 
 
 " With this great example before me, with the sense and spirit, the 
 faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the same American people 
 pledged to support the constitution of the United States, I entertain no 
 doubt of its continuance in all its energy ; and my mind is prepared, 
 without hesitation, to lay myself under the moat solemn obligations to 
 support it to the utmost of my power. 
 
 " And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of order, 
 the Fountain of justice, and the Protector, in aJ ages of the world, of 
 virtuous liberty, continue his blessing upon this nation and its govern- 
 ment, and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the 
 ends of his providence !" 
 
 No change was made in the cabinet, which then consisted of Timothy 
 Pickering, secretary of state ; Oliver Wolcott, secretary of the treasury ; 
 James M'Henry, secretary of war ; and Charles Lee, attorney-general. 
 On the establishment of the navy department, the next year^ Benjamin 
 Stoddart, of Maryland, was appointed secretary of the navy; George 
 Cabot, of Massachusetts, having been first appointed and declined. 
 
 Our ministers at the principal foreign courts were the following : 
 Rufus King, of New York, minister to Great Britain ; appointed May 
 20, 1796. To France, Charles Colesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, 
 September 9, 1796. To Spain, David Humphreys, of Connecticut, May 
 20, 1796. To Portugal, John Quincy Adams, May 30, 1796. To 
 Netherlands, William Vans Murray, March 2, 1797. These were the 
 only foreign countries to which missions had been established. A mission 
 to Prussia was about this time ci-eated, and John Quincy Adams waa 
 appointed minister to that country, June 1, 1797 ; and his place in Por- 
 tugal was supplied by the appointment of William Smith, of South 
 Carolina. Mr. Smith was a member of the house, and had been, during 
 the whole term of Gen. Washington's administration. He was a leading 
 member of the administration party in that body. 
 
 The relations of this country with France were, as stated in the pre- 
 ceding chapter, in a critical condition ; our minister having been vir- 
 tually expelled from that country, and new license having been given to 
 spoliate on our commerce. A decree had been issued, authorizing the 
 capture of neutral vessels having on board any productions of Great 
 
MEASURES OF DEFENSE. 161 
 
 Britain or her possessions — a decree in direct violation of the rights of 
 neutral nations, and especially of the treaty between France and the 
 United States, providing that " free ships should make free goods." 
 Numerous captures of American vessels were made under this decree, 
 and most of the vessels were condemned. War being considered as not 
 an improbable contingency, the president regarded the occasion as 
 demanding a special session of the national legislature ; and accordingly 
 convened congress on the 15th of May, 1797. 
 
 Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey, was reelected speaker of the house. 
 There were at this time, in both bodies, majorities in favor of the ad- 
 ministration, and of the plan and purpose of convening congress at that 
 particular juncture. A number of important measures were adopted, 
 both for the preservation of peace, and for providing the means of defense. 
 
 An act was passed to prevent American citizens from privateering 
 against nations in amity with the United States ; an act prohibiting the 
 exportation of arms and ammunition, and for encouraging their importa- 
 tion ; an act to provide for the further defense of the ports and harbors 
 of the United States ; an act authorizing a detachment from the militia 
 of 80,000 men, to be in readiness to march at a moment's warning, and 
 also authorizing state executives to accept independent corps ; also an 
 act providing a naval armament. This act empowered the president, if 
 he should deem it expedient, to cause the manning and employing of the 
 three frigates, the United States, the Constitution, and the Constellation. 
 
 To provide for the additional expenditures required by these measures 
 of national defense, an act was passed for " laying duties on stamped 
 vellum, parchment, and paper " Some of the duties imposed by this act 
 were as follows : For every piece of either of these articles on which 
 was written or printed a certificate of naturalization, five dollars ; for an 
 attorney or solicitor's license to practice or a certificate of admission, 
 ten dollars ; papers containing the seal of the United States, four 
 dollars ; a certified copy of the same, two dollars ; for receipts, notes, 
 and other ordinary business instruments, from twenty-five cents to one 
 dollar, varying according to the amount for which they were given : in 
 short, all kinds of business paper, insurance policies, inventories, protests, 
 &c., &c., were liable to this duty. Another act imposed an additional 
 duty on salt imported ; all drawbacks on salt exported to apply to the 
 additional duty laid by the act ; and a farther allowance was made on salt 
 provisions exported. 
 
 Whatever may have been the justice or necessity of the duty on the 
 stamped articles, the act was obnoxious to a large portion of the people. 
 Both its title and its provisions resembled too much that memorable 
 measure of 1765, which was so unsavory to the colonial fathers 
 
 11 
 
162 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 These war measures, however, were not intended to supersede farther 
 attempts at negotiation. Congress being in session, the president nomi- 
 nated to the senate, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Elbridge Gerry, and 
 John Marshall, as envoys plenipotentiary to the French republic ; Mr. 
 Pinckney being then m Holland. They met at Paris in October. They 
 addressed a letter to the French minister of foreign affairs, in which 
 they informed him of their appointment, and expressed their desire to 
 wait on him at such an hour as he should please to appoint, to present 
 their letters of credence. A verbal answer was returned naming the 
 hour. 
 
 A novel mode of correspondence with the American ministers was 
 adopted. UnoflScial persons were employed for this purpose, who used 
 the letters, X, Y, Z, instead of their names ; as Mr. X, Mr. Y, Mr. Z. 
 One of these individuals assured our ministers that Talleyrand had a 
 great regard for America and her citizens, and desired a reconciliation ; 
 and that to accomplish it, he (X) would suggest a plan which Talley- 
 rand would probably approve; viz., that certain passages in the presi- 
 dent's message to congress, being offensive to some members of the 
 directory, should be softened, and that this would be necessary previous 
 to their reception ; that a sum of money would be required for the 
 pockets of the directory and ministers ; and that the United States 
 should accommodate the French government with a loan. X could not 
 point out the exceptionable passages of the president's speech, nor the 
 amount of the loan which would be required ; but the doceur for the 
 pocket was twelve hundred thousand livres — about fifty thousand pounds 
 sterling. After some farther conference with X and Y, a second set of 
 propositions was made. These propositions were wholly inadmissible ; 
 one of which was, that the government of the United States should 
 declare that a certain decree of the directory did not contain any thing 
 contrary to the treaty of 1778, and was not attended with any of the 
 fatal consequences ascribed to it. Y at length remarked : " But, gentle- 
 men, I will not disguise from you, that this satisfaction being made, the 
 essential part of the treaty remains to be adjusted: you mnst pay 
 fftoney ; you must pay a great deal of money.'''' 
 
 To these demands, our ministers could not accede. The proposition 
 for a loan in any form was not within the limits of their instructions ; 
 and they proposed, that one of their number would forthwith embark 
 tor America to consult the government ; provided the directory would 
 suspend all further captures of American vessels, and all proceedings on 
 those already captured, or which had not yet been disposed of. Thio 
 was refused. 
 
 At one of the conferences our ministers were told by X, that we had 
 
RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. 163 
 
 paid money to obtain peace with tlie Algerines, and with the Indians ; 
 and that it was doing no more to pay France for peace. To which they 
 answered, that " when our government commenced a treaty with either 
 Algiers or the Indian tribes, it was understood that money was to form 
 the basis of the treaty, and was its essential article ; . . . but that, in 
 treating with France, our government had supposed, that a proposition, 
 such as he spoke of, would, if made by us, give mortal offense." Our 
 ministers, in their report of this interview, farther say : " He asked if 
 our government did not know, that nothing was to be obtained hero 
 without money. We replied, that our government had not even 
 suspected such a state of tilings. He appeared surprised at it, and said 
 that there was not an American in Paris who could not have given that 
 information. * * * He stated that Hamburg and other states of Europe 
 were obliged to buy a peace ; and that it would be equally for our in- 
 terest to do so. Once more he spoke of the danger of a breach with 
 France, and of her power, which nothing could resist. We told him it 
 would be vain for us to deny her power, or the solicitude we felt to avoid 
 a contest with it ; . . . but that one object was still dearer to us than 
 the friendship of France, which was our national independence ; that 
 America had taken a neutral station : she had a right to take it ; no 
 nation had a right to force us out of it ; that to lend a sum of money 
 to a belligerent power, abounding with every thing requisite for war but 
 money, was to relinquish our neutrality, and take part in the war. To 
 lend this money under the lash and coercion of France, was to relinquish 
 the government of ourselves, and to submit to a foreign government im- 
 posed upon us by force ; that we would make at least one manly struggle 
 before we thus surrendered our national independence. * * * He said 
 that France had lent us money during our revolutionary war, and only 
 required that we should now exhibit the same friendship for her. We 
 answered that the cases were very different ; that America solicited a 
 loan from France, and left her at liberty to refuse it; but that France 
 demanded it of America, and left us no choice on the subject. , . . 
 There was another difference in the cases ; that the money was lent by 
 France for great national and French objects : it was lent to maim a 
 rival and an enemy whom she hated ; that the money, if lent by 
 America, would not be for any American objects, but to enable France 
 to extend still further her conquests. The public and private advance 
 of money was pressed and repressed in a variety of forms. At length 
 X said he did not blame us ; that our determination was certainly proper 
 if we could keep it ; but he showed decidedly his opii ion to be that we 
 could not keep it." 
 
 Through the agency of Z., an interview was arranged with Talleyrand. 
 
J 64 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the minister of foreign relations, at which Mr. Gerry only attended on 
 the part of the United States ; and at which Talleyrand presented tho 
 arret (decree) of the directory, in which the demand was again made of 
 an explanation of parts of the president's speech to congress at the special 
 session of the 16th of May. He was sensible difficulties would exist 
 relative to this demand ; " but that by our minister offering money, he 
 thought he could prevent the effect of the arret." On being told by Z. 
 at the request of Mr. Gerry, that the envoy had no such power, Talley- 
 rand replied, that they could take such power on themselves, and pro- 
 posed that they should make a loan. Mr. Gerry said, the uneasiness of 
 the directory, caused by the president's speech, had no connection with 
 the objects of the mission. Barras, in his speech to Mr. Monroe on his 
 recall, had expressed himself in a manner displeasing to the government 
 and citizens of the United States ; but it was not considered by our gov- 
 ernment as a subject of dispute between the two nations. Having no 
 instructions on this subject, they could make no explanations relating 
 to it. 
 
 It was subsequently proposed that, if our government would pay, by 
 way of fees, the sum of money demanded for private use, although the 
 directory would not receive the ministers, they might remain at Paris, 
 and would be received by Talleyrand, until one of them could go to 
 America, and consult our government concerning the loan. This singu- 
 lar kind of diplomatic correspondence was continued until about the 
 1st of November, when it was agreed by our ministers to hold no more 
 indirect intercourse with the government. 
 
 Under date of November 1 1 , they addressed the minister of foreign 
 affairs, expressing regret at the loss or suspension of friendly intercourse 
 between the two republics ; and the wish to restore it, and to discuss the 
 complaints of both parties. No answer having been received, they trans- 
 mitted to him, on the 17th of January, 1798, another letter, of great 
 length, in which the whole controversy is reviewed. This review em- 
 braces all the old subjects of dispute between the two governments, among 
 which were the course of neutrality adopted by Washington ; the treaty 
 agreement that " free ships should make free goods;" the annoyance of 
 our commerce under the rigorous decrees of France, &c. Neither did 
 this letter receive a formal answer. Another interview, however, was 
 had with Talleyrand, (March 2,) at which the proposition of a loan was 
 again the subject of conversation. Our ministers having stated that this 
 measure would amount to a declaration of war on our part against Great 
 Britain, and that they were expressly forbidden by their instructions to 
 take such a step ; Talleyrand argued that it would be no departure from 
 neutrality to stipulate a loan payable after the war ; and suggested that 
 
RELATIOVS WITH FRANCE. 165 
 
 the tranaaction might be done secretly. Having failed in this artifice, 
 he conceived another for compassing his end ; which was, to acknowledge 
 some of our claims for property taken from American citizens, and then 
 let our government give a credit as for the payment, say for two years ; 
 by which act we would consent to leave in the hands of Franco funds 
 which might be used in the prosecution of the war. This proposition 
 also was declined by our ministers, who argued that such a transaction 
 would be no less a loan than the one before suggested. 
 
 On the 18th of March, our ministers received a loritten communica- 
 tion from Talleyrand in answer to theirs of January 1 7. The ministers 
 replied at length. The directory having intimated a disposition to treat 
 with Mr. Gerry alone, (who had basn selected from the party which was 
 said to be friendly to France,) his two colleagues, as has been stated, 
 returned to the United States. Mr. Grerry's consenting to remain in 
 France was considered highly improper. 
 
 On the 21st of June, 1798, president Adams transmitted to congress 
 a letter from Mr. Gerry, with one from him to Talleyrand, and the 
 reply of the latter. The president said in his accompanying message : 
 " I presume that before this time he has received fresh instructions, (a 
 copy of which accompanies this message,) to consent to no loans ; and 
 therefore the negotiation may be considered at an end. I will never 
 send another minister to France, without assurances that he will be 
 received, respected, and honored, as the representative of a great, free, 
 powerful, and independent nation." 
 
 The 2d session of the 5th congress, (being its first regular session,) 
 terminated the 16th of July, 1798, having assembled on the 13th of 
 November, 1797. A large number of acts were passed during this long 
 session. Among the most important were the following : An act to pro- 
 vide for an additional armament for the further protection of the trade 
 of the United States, which authorized the president to equip an addi- 
 tional number of vessels, not exceeding twelve, nor carrying more than 
 twenty-two guns each ; an act for the increase of the army ; an act for 
 the protection of the commerce and coasts of the United States ; an 
 act for the defense of the forts and harbors ; an act to lay and collect a 
 direct tax of $2,000,000, upon real estate and slaves. An act was also 
 passed, to suspend commercial intercourse with France and her depend- 
 encies. By this act vessels of the United States were prohibited from 
 going to the dominions of France, or from being employed in trade with 
 or for persons residing therein, on penalty of the forfeiture of the vessel 
 and cargo. And French vessels were not allowed to enter or remain in 
 the United States, without a passport from the president, or except in 
 ^a3e of distress. Another act was passed, to authorize the defense of ouv 
 
1G6 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 mei chant vessels against French depredations. This act provided that 
 the commanders and crews of American merchant vessels might oppose 
 and defend them against search or seizure by the commanders and crews 
 of armed vessels sailing under French colors. 
 
 At this session was established the department of the navy. 
 
 These preparations for war having been made, the public mind was 
 soon directed to Gen. Washington, as the man to be placed at the head 
 of the army ; and the intention of the president to appoint him was com- 
 municated to him both by the president and the secretary of war, Mr. 
 McHenry. In his answer to the secretary, after having animadverted 
 upon the conduct of the French government, he says : " Under circum- 
 stances like these, accompanied by a«i actual invasion of our territory, it 
 would be difficult for me, at any time, to remain an idle spectator under 
 the plea of age or retirement. With sorrow, it is true, I should quit the 
 shades of my peaceful abode, and the ease and happiness I now enjoy, to 
 encounter anew the turmoils of war, to which, possibly, my strength and 
 powers might be found incompetent. These, however, should not be 
 stumbling-blocks in my own way." But before he could give a definitive 
 answer, he wished to ascertain whether, after having announced his final 
 retirement, public opinion would approve his reappearance upon the pub- 
 lic theater ; and whether it was the wish of the country that he should 
 take the command. Also the army should be so appointed as to aiford a 
 well-grounded hope of its doing honor to the country and credit to the 
 commander. 
 
 His reception of the letters of the president and secretary having been 
 casually delayed, he had been nominated by the president to the chief 
 command of all the armies, with the rank of lieutenant-general, and his 
 appointment unanimously consented to by the senate, before his answer 
 reached the seat of government. The appointment was accepted, on con- 
 dition that he might himself select the officers for the high departments 
 of the army. Presuming his wishes would be acceded to, he recom- 
 mended Alexander Hamilton, for inspector-general, who was to be next 
 in command ; and for major-generals, Charles C. Pinckney and Henry 
 Knox, or if either refused, Henry Lee. Others were named for briga- 
 diers, adjutant-general, &c. 
 
 Wise and proper as these defensive measures were generally regarded, 
 under the threatening aspect of affairs, they met with a determined and 
 vigorous opposition. Both in and out of congress were men whose af- 
 fection for France, the most flagrant insults and injuries were insufficient 
 to weaken. In congress were vice-president Jefierson, Gallatin, Giles, 
 Nicholas, Baldwin, Livingston, and others of no mean rank. The most 
 conspicuous of those out of congress, were Madison and Monroe. 
 
RELATIONS WITH FRANCE. 167 
 
 In March, 1798, resolutions were introduced into the house, declaring 
 that a resort to war agdinst France was, under existing circumstances, 
 inexpedient ; and that the arming of merchant vessels ought to be re- 
 stricted ; but they were in favor of fortifying the coast. In the debate 
 on these resolutions, the opposition members took strong ground for 
 peace measures. Their opposition to measures of defense has been im- 
 puted to the design of keeping the country in a condition which should 
 compel the administration to accede to the propositions of France. The 
 federal members contrasted the aversion of their opponents to a war with 
 France, under the strongest provocations, with their eagerness to fight 
 Great Britain, in 1794, for injuries far less aggravated. 
 
 The president had been charged with improperly withholding a part 
 of the correspondence with our ministers in France. Although it had 
 been deemed inexpedient to communicate certain parts of it, especially 
 the instructions to our envoys, of which it was not proper that France 
 should be informed, while negotiation was pending, the majority, not- 
 withstanding, assented to a call for all the papers, which were promptly 
 communicated by the president. These papers were read by the parti- 
 cular friends of France with feelings of disappointment and mortification. 
 The unceremonious reception of our ministers, the manner of conducting 
 the negotiation on the part of France, and the degrading terms upon 
 which alone the directory would treat, placed that government in a very 
 unfavorable light before the American people, and served in some degree 
 to strengthen the administration. 
 
 The indiscriminate publication of Mr. Jefferson's correspondence since 
 his death, has been deeply regretted by many of his warmest and most 
 judicious friends, as tending to mar his well-earned popularity. The 
 nature as well as the number of his private letters, shows him to have 
 been a busy, though for the most part a secret actor in party affairs. A 
 letter addressed to Mr. Madison on the appearance of these despatches, 
 represents him as still disposed to fix the wrong upon his own govern- 
 ment, and as hoping that the effect upon the public mind produced by 
 their publication, will not be permanent. He says : " The first impres- 
 sions with the people will be disagreeable, but the last and permanent 
 one will be, that the speech in May is now the only obstacle to accom- 
 modation, and the real cause of war, if war takes place. And how much 
 will be added to this by the speech in November, is yet to be learned. 
 It is evident, however, on reflection, that these papers do not offer one 
 motive the more for our going to war. Yet such is their effect on the 
 mind of wavering characters, that I fear that, to wipe off the imputation 
 of being French partisans, they will go over to the war measures so 
 furiously pushed by the other party." The "speech in May" here 
 
168 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 referred to, is the message to congress at the extra or special session 
 which contained the language, to which, it will be recollected, the French 
 directory took exceptions, and of which they demanded some explanation 
 as one of the conditions on which they would treat. Information of the 
 effect, upon that body, of the speech to congress in November, at the 
 opening of the then present session, had not yet, it seems, (April 6,) been 
 received. 
 
 The deep concern felt by Mr. Jefferson is farther manifest from a sub- 
 sequent letter to Mr. Madison, urging him to assist in defending the op- 
 position from the effects of the publication of the dispatches. He wrote : 
 " The public mind appears still in a state of astonishment. There never 
 was a moment in which the aid of an able pen was so important to place 
 things in their just attitude. On this depends the inchoate movement 
 in the eastern mind, and the fate of the elections in that quarter, now 
 beginning, and to continue through the summer. I would not propose 
 to you such a task on any ordinary occasion ; but be assured that a well- 
 digested analysis of these papers would now decide the future turn of 
 things, which are at this moment on the careen." He had previously 
 written to the same gentleman : " You will see in Fenno (publisher of 
 the United States Gazette) two numbers of a paper signed Marcellus. 
 They promise much mischief, and are ascribed, without any difference of 
 opinion, to Hamilton. You must, my dear sir, take up your pen against 
 this champion. You know the ingenuity of his talents, and there is not 
 a person but yourself who can foil him. For Heaven's sake, then, take 
 up your pen, and do not desert the public cause altogether." 
 
 By the aid derived from the publication of the papers, the bills for the 
 national defense yet pending were easily passed, the anti-war resolutions 
 having been dropped. The popularity of the administration was rapidly 
 increasing. The president received from all directions, and from numer- 
 ous bodies and public assemblages, addresses approving his policy. 
 Among the occurrences at Philadelphia, we give the following, as nar- 
 rated by Hildreth : " Besides an address from five thousand of the 
 citizens, presented to the president, the young men adopted a separate 
 address of their own, and went in a body to carry it, many of them 
 wearing the black cockade, the saijje which had been worn in the Ameri- 
 can army during the war of independence. This was done by way of 
 defiance and response to the tri-colored cockade worn by all Frenchmen 
 since Adet's famous proclamation, and by not a few American citizens 
 also, even by some companies of militia, who wished to exhibit, by this 
 outward sign, their extreme devotion- to the French republic. Hence the 
 origin of the term, ' Black Cockade Federalist,' which became ultimately 
 an epithet of bitter party reproach. Such was the warmth of party 
 
ACTS PASSED AT SPECIAL SESSION. 169 
 
 feeling, that several who wore the new emblem became the objt.'cts of 
 violent personal assault. But the zeal for mounting was a good deal in- 
 creased by the rage it inspired in the more violent democrats — a term 
 restricted at this time to the warm partisans of France, and as yet 
 chiefly employed by the federalists, along with the term Jacobin, as an 
 epithet of reproach. The song of * Hail, Columbia !' written by the 
 younger Hopkinson, .had, under the excitement of the moment, a 
 tremendous run ; and, though totally destitute of poetic merit, is still 
 kept in existence by the force of patriotic sentiment. * Adams and 
 Liberty,' written by Paine, of Boston, the son of another signer of the 
 declaration of independence, though now almost forgotten, enjoyed, like 
 * Hail, Columbia !' an immense popularity ; both songs being sung at 
 the theaters and elsewhere with rapturous encores." 
 
 An act was passed at this session " for the relief of sick and disabled 
 seamen." This law required the master or owners of all vessels of the 
 United States, arriving from a foreign port, to pay to the collector at 
 the rate of twenty cents a month for every seaman employed on board 
 such vessels ; which sum he was authorized to retain out of their wages. 
 The money thus collected was to be applied to the temporary relief of 
 sick and disabled seamon. 
 
 An act was also passed " for an amicable settlement of limits with the 
 state of Georgia, and authorizing the establishment of a government in 
 the Mississippi territory." Georgia, by virtue of the cession to her by 
 South Carolina, claimed the whole territory east of the Mississippi river, 
 and south of Tennessee. To the western portion of the same, the 
 United States opposed a counter claim founded upon the treaty of 1783, 
 by which Great Britain ceded it to tke United States, and upon the 
 subsequent treaty with Spain. 
 
 The act provided a joint commission on the part of the general 
 government and the state of Georgia, to adjust the conflicting claims to 
 the territory west of the Chattahoochie river. All lands which should 
 be ascertained to belong to the United States were to be disposed of, and 
 the proceeds thereof applied to the payment of the public debt, as in the 
 case of the territory north-west of the Ohio. And all the tract of 
 country bounded by the Chattahoochie on the east and the Mississippi 
 on the west ; and on the north by a line from the mouth of the Yazoo 
 east to the Chattahoochie, and on the south by the 31st degree of north 
 latitude, was to constitute one district to be called the Mississippi Terri- 
 tory, which might thereafter, at the discretion of congress, be divided 
 into two districts with separate territorial governments. The govern- 
 ment of the territory was to be the same as that established in the 
 north-western territory, except as to the restriction of slavery. The im- 
 
4i7Q THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 portation, however, of slaves into tte territory from beyond the limits of 
 the United States, was prohibited. The act contained a provision, that 
 the establishment of this government should not impair the rights of 
 Georgia or any person to the jurisdiction or the soil. Most of the 
 measures of the administration hitherto had been popular ; and but for 
 two certain acts passed at this session, ending in the summer of 1798, it 
 is not improbable that the federal party would have acquired a degree of 
 strength that would have been irresistible, and have secured its perma- 
 nent ascendency. The acts referred to are, " An act concerning aliens," 
 and " An act in addition to the act, entitled, ' An act for the punish- 
 ment of certain crimes agaipst the United States.' " No one would 
 suppose, from the mere titles of these acts, that they were the famed 
 " alien and sedition laws" which have given to the year 1798 such polit- 
 ical notoriety, and which contributed more, probably, than any other 
 cause, to the overthrow of the federal party in 1800. As many readers 
 are presumed to be unacquainted with the provisions of these laws which 
 have incurred so much popular odium, an abstract of them is here given. 
 
 Of the first mentioned of these two acts, the 1st section authorized 
 the president to order all such aliens as he should judge dangerous lO 
 the peace and safety of the United States, or should have reasonable 
 grounds to suspect were concerned in any treasonable or secret machina- 
 tions against the government thereof, to depart out of the country with 
 in a given time, to be expressed in the order. Any alien so ordered tc 
 depart who should, after the time limited for his departure, be found at 
 large without a license from the president to reside in the United States, 
 was liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years, and was never to 
 be admitted to become a citizen. On satisfactory proof being given by 
 an alien, that no injury or danger would arise from his residing here, the 
 president might grant him a license to. remain for such time and at such 
 place as he should designate. The president might also require a bond 
 with sureties for his good behavior. 
 
 Section 2, authorized the president, whenever he deemed it necessary 
 for the public safety, to remove out of the country all persons in prison 
 in pursuance of the act, and all who had been ordered to depart, and re- 
 mained without license. And on their return, they might be imprisoned 
 so long as, in the opinion of the president, the public safety might 
 require. 
 
 Section 3, required masters of vessels coming into ports of the United 
 States, to report all aliens on board, the country from which they came, 
 and the nation to which they owed allegiance, their occupation, a de- 
 scription of their persons, &c., under a penalty of $300. 
 
 Section 4, gave to the circuit and district courts of the United Statei 
 cognizance of offenses against the act. 
 
ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 171 
 
 Section 5, secured to aliens the right of disposing of their property. 
 
 Section 6, limited the act to the term of two years from its passage. 
 
 All courts of the United States and of the several states, having crim- 
 inal jurisdiction, were authorized, upon complaint against aliens or alien 
 enemies at large, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and con- 
 trary to the intent of the proclamation or other regulations established 
 by the president, to cause them to be apprehended and brought before 
 any such court, judge, or justice ; and after a full examination and hear- 
 ing, and for sufficient cause appearing, to order their removal, or to re- 
 quire sureties for their good behavior, or to restrain, imprison, or other- 
 wise secure them, until the order should be performed. Marshals of the 
 districts were to provide for their removal, and to execute the order for 
 their apprehension, under a warrant of the president, or of a judge or 
 justice. 
 
 The act relating to " the punishment of certain crimes against the 
 United States," or, as it is called, the " sedition law," provided that any 
 persona unlawfully combining or conspiring together, to oppose any meas- 
 ure of the government of the United States, or any of its laws, or to 
 intimidate or prevent any officer under that government from under- 
 taking or performing his duty ; and any persons, with such intent, coun- 
 seling or attempting to procure any insurrection, riot, or unlawful com- 
 bination, were to be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and punishable 
 by a fine not exceeding $5,000, and by imprisonment not less than six 
 months, nor exceeding five years ; and, at the discretion of the court, 
 they might also be held to find sureties for their good behavior. 
 
 But the provision deemed most objectionable, was the second section, 
 which declared that any person who should write, print, utter or pub- 
 lish, or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing, any false, scan- 
 dalous, or malicious writing against the government, congress, or the 
 president of the United States, with intent to defame them, or to bring 
 them into disrepute, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or 
 to excite any unlawful combinations for opposing or resisting any law 
 of the United States, or any act of the president done in pursuance of 
 any such law, or to resist or defeat any such law, or to aid or abet any 
 hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their 
 people or government, should be liable to be fined not exceeding $2,000, 
 and imprisoned not exceeding two years. 
 
 The act farther provided, that any person prosecuted for writing or 
 publishing such libel, might, in his defense, give in evidence the truth of 
 the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel ; and the jury 
 had the right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of 
 the court, as in other cases. This was an essentially mitigating provision 
 
172 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 
 
 of this obnoxious law. The English law of libel was at that time a part 
 of the common law of this country. The defendant in a libel suit was 
 not permitted to justify by proving the truth of the statement charged 
 as libelous. Hence the common expression : " The greater the truth, 
 the greater the libel." But this law allowed no conviction except in 
 cases in which the defendant failed to furnish evidence of the truth of 
 his statement. This provision, now incorporated into the laws or consti- 
 tutions of all the states, had then been adopted only in the states of 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Vermont, 
 
 The act was to continue in force until the 3d of March, 1801, and no 
 longer. 
 
 These laws were intended to counteract the schemes of the unprin- 
 cipled French directory, whose emissaries in this country abused the 
 freedom of the press by defaming the administration, and exciting the 
 opposition of the people to the government and laws of the union. They 
 did not, however, accord with the disposition and liberal views of 
 the American people. They were of doubtful expediency, even under 
 the circumstances that gave rise to them. Much less toleration would 
 they find at the present day. Yet when it is considered that these laws 
 had the concurrence of a majority of both houses of congress and the 
 executive, and were approved by Washington, Patrick Henry, and other 
 wise and good men, it is to be presumed that there were some cogent 
 reasons for their enactment. The seditious conduct of Genet alone fur- 
 nished a powerful inducement for the adoption of some measure of this 
 kind. But there were at that time many thousands of Frenchmen in 
 this country combined in organized associations, which were believed to 
 be dangerous to the peace of the United States ; and an equal or greater 
 number of British subjects whose residence in this country was deemed 
 unsafe at that particular juncture. 
 
 dustice to the many good and patriotic men who approved these laws, 
 requires us to add, that what were to be punished under the sedition act 
 as offenses, were already punishable offenses at common law, in state 
 courts ; and the federal courts were presumed to have common law juris- 
 diction of the same offenses. Besides, similar laws had been enacted in 
 some of the states, during the revolution, when unrestricted discussion 
 was not at all times deemed compatible with national safety. 
 
 These laws gave birth to the celebrated Virginia and Kentucky reso- 
 lutions of 1798 and 1799, and to the doctrine of nullification. Astute 
 politicians, as were the leaders of the opposition, readily saw that these 
 laws might be turned into effective weapons against the administration, 
 and the plan was adopted of obtaining the cooperation and influence of 
 the state legislatures. At the request of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, 
 
 ii 
 
ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 173 
 
 then a member of the Virginia legislature, introduced the reaolutiona 
 adopted the 21st of December, 1798. These resolutions declared, (1.) 
 That the constitution of the United States was a compact to which the 
 states were parties, granting limited powers of government. (2.) That 
 in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, 
 not granted by the compact, the states had the right, and were in duty 
 bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evils, and for main- 
 taining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liber- 
 ties pertaining to them. (3.) That the alien and sedition laws were 
 palpable and alarming infractions of the constitution. (4.) That the 
 state of Virginia, having by its convention, which ratified the federal 
 constitution, expressly declared, that, among other essential rights, the 
 liberty of conscience and the press could not be canceled, abridged, 
 restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States ; and from 
 its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of 
 sophistry and ambition, having with the other states recommended an 
 amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed 
 to the constitution ; it would mark a reproachful inconsistency and 
 criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most pal- 
 pable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the 
 establishment of a precedent which might be fatal to the other. (5.) 
 That the state of Virginia declared the alien and sedition laws uncon- 
 stitutional ; solemnly appealed to the like dispositions in the other 
 states, in confidence that they would concur with her in that declaration ; 
 and that the necessary and proper measures would be taken by each, for 
 cooperating with her, in maintaining unimpaired, the authorities, rights, 
 and liberties, reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (6.) 
 That the governor should be desired to transmit a copy of each of these 
 resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a 
 request that they should be communicated to the respective state legisla- 
 tures, and that a copy should be furnished to each of the senators and 
 representatives of Virginia in congress. 
 
 These resolutions, however, did not go to the same extent as those 
 drawn up by Mr. Jefferson himself, to be introduced by his friends into 
 the legislature of Kentucky, and which were passed in November, more 
 than one month earlier than those of Virginia. These resolutions de- 
 clared that the union was a compact between the states as states, instead 
 of the people of the several states^ as held and frequently expressed by 
 Madison since that time, by Jackson in his celebrated anti-nullification 
 proclamation of 1832, and almost all other statesmen of note. They 
 farther declared, " that, as in other cases of compact between parties 
 ^uving no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for 
 
174 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 itsdf^ as well of infractions^ as of the mode and measure of redress ;" 
 thus denying the common doctrine, which accords to the supreme court 
 the ultimate right to judge whether a law is constitutional or otherwise : 
 and, in conformity with these views of state rights, they declared the 
 alien and sedition acts to be " not law, but altogether void, and of no 
 force.'''' And they farther made the broad assertion, " that in cases of 
 an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general govern- 
 ment being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the 
 constitutional remedy ; but where powers are assumed which have not 
 been delegated, a nullification of the act is the right remedy : and that 
 every state has a natural right, in cases not within the compact, to nul- 
 lify of their own authority, all assumptions of power by others within 
 their limits." [Note D, Appendix.] 
 
 These resolutions also proposed a " committee of conference and cor- 
 respondence," to be appointed by each state legislature, to obtain the 
 concurrence of the co-states " in declaring these acts void and of no 
 force, and each to take measures of its own for providing that neither 
 these acts, nor any other of the general government, not plainly and in- 
 tentionally authorized by the constitution, shall be exercised within their 
 respective territories." The resolutions containing this last proposition 
 being thought to go too far, they were so modified as to require their 
 senators and representatives to lay the resolutions before congress, and 
 to use their best endeavors to procure a repeal of the obnoxious acts at 
 the next session ; and they also requested from other state legislatures 
 the expression of their opinion in regard to these laws, and their concur- 
 rence in declaring them void, and in requesting their repeal by congress. 
 
 A full discussion of the question of nullification, will be found in the 
 history of Jackson's administration, in subsequent chapters. 
 
 Neither the Virginia resolutions, though accompanied by an addresa 
 to the people in support of them, written by Mr. Madison, nor those of 
 Kentucky, met with a favorable response in any other state. By the 
 legislatures of the New England states, New York, and Delaware, they 
 were expressly disapproved. They served, however, in a great degree, 
 the purpose of their authors. 
 
 The legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky, at their next sessions, 
 replied to the answers of the state legislatures, and, in these replies, 
 reasserted the doctrines of their resolutions. The reply of the legisla- 
 ture of Virginia consisted of a very able report prepared by Mr. Madison, 
 concluding with the following resolution : " That the general assembly, 
 having carefully and respectfully attended to the proceedings of a number 
 of the states, in answer to the resolutions of December 21, 1798, and 
 having accurately and fully reexamined and reconsidered the latter, 
 
ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 175 
 
 find it to be their indispensable duty to adhere to the Bame, as founded 
 in truth, as consonant with the constitution, and as conducive to its pre- 
 servation ; and more especially to be their duty to renew, as they do 
 hereby renew, their protests against the alien and sedition acts, as pal- 
 pable and alarming infractions of the constitution." The report and 
 resolution were adopted in February, 1800. A few months thereafter. 
 (June 25,) the alien law expired by its own limitation, and the sedition 
 act on the 4th of March, 1801. 
 
 From an address on the death of Mr. Madison, written by John Quincy 
 Adams, in 1836, by request of the two houses of congress, we give the 
 following extracts, relating to the alien and sedition laws, and to the 
 resolutions whose history is sketched above : 
 
 " The agency of Mr. Jefferson in originating the measures of both the 
 state legislatures, was at the time profoundly secret. It has been made 
 known since his decease ; but, in estimating the weight of the objections 
 against the two laws on sound principles, as well of morals as of politics, 
 the fact as well as the manner of that agency is observable. The situa- 
 tion which he then held, and that to which he ascended by its operation, 
 are considerations not to be overlooked in fixing the deliberate judgment 
 of posterity upon the whole transaction. Mr. Madison's motives for the 
 part which he acted in the drama, are not liable to the same scrutiny ; 
 nor did his public station at the time, nor the principles which he asserted 
 in the management of the controversy, nor the measures which he pro- 
 posed, recommended and accomplished, subject his posthumous reputation 
 and character to the same animadversions. Standing here as the sincere 
 and faithful organ of the sentiments of my fellow-citizens to honor a 
 great and illustrious benefactor of his country, it would be as foreign 
 from the honest and deliberate judgment of my soul, as from the sense 
 of my duties on this occasion, to profess my assent to the reasoning of 
 his report, or my acquiescence in the application of its unquestionable 
 principles to the two acts of congressional legislation, which it arraigns. 
 That because the states of this union, as well as their people, are parties 
 to the constitutional compact of the federal government, therefore the state 
 legislatures have the right to judge of infractions of the constitution by the 
 organized government of the whole, and to declare acts of congress uncon- 
 stitutional, is afi abhorrent to the conclusions of my judgment, as to the 
 feelings of my heart : but holding the converse of those propositions with 
 a conviction as firm as an article of religious faith, I too clearly see to 
 admit of denial, that minds of the highest order of intellect, and hearts 
 of the purest integrity of purpose, have been brought to different con- 
 clusions. 
 " If Jefferson and Madison deemed the alien and sedition acts plain 
 
176 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and palpable infractions of the constitution, Washington and Patrick 
 Henry held them to be good and wholesome laws. These opinions were 
 perhaps all formed under excitements and prepossessions which detract 
 from the weight of the highest authority. The alien act was passed 
 under feelings of honest indignation at the audacity with which foreign 
 emissaries were practicing, within the bosom of the country, upon the 
 passions of the people against their own government. The sedition act 
 was intended as a curb upon the publication of malicious and incendiary 
 slander upon the president or the two houses of congress, or either of 
 them. But they were restrictive upon the personal liberty of foreign 
 emissaries, and upon the political licentiousness of the press. The alien 
 act produced its eifect by its mere enactment, in the departure from the 
 country of the most obnoxious foreigners, and the power conferred by it 
 upon the president was never exercised. The prosecutions under the 
 sedition act did but aggravate the evil which they were intended to re- 
 press. Without believing that either of those laws was an infraction of 
 the constitution, it may be admitted without disparagement to the 
 authority of Washington and Henry, or of the congress which passed 
 the acts, that they were not good and wholesome laws, inasmuch as they 
 were not suited to the temper of the people." 
 
 Among the persons prosecuted under the sedition act was Matthew 
 Lyon, a member of congress from the western part of Vermont. In a 
 letter published in a Vermont paper, he had used the following 
 language : " Whenever I shall, on the part of the executive, see every 
 consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for 
 power ; in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, 
 and selfish avarice ; when I shall behold men of merit daily turned out 
 of office, for no other cause but independency of sentiment ; when I 
 shall see men of firmness, years, abilities, and experience, discarded in 
 their applications for office, for fear they possess that independence, and 
 men of meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and 
 advocate opinions, the consequence of which they know but little of; 
 when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a state engine 
 to make men hate and persecute one another, I shall not be their humble 
 advocate." A secoDd count in the indictment charged him with making 
 use of a letter of Joel Barlow, then in France in some diplomatic 
 agency, written to a friend, then a member of congress, Abraham Bald- 
 win, of Georgia. Barlow was a devoted friend of France, and a bitter 
 opponent of the federal party ; and his letters to this country very 
 severely berated the administration for non-compliance with the wishes 
 of the French government. In this letter he indulged in strong cen- 
 stires of the speech of the president to congress, and said, ^ we wondered 
 
DiFFICULTIIS WITH FRANCE. 177 
 
 that the answer of both houses had not been an order to send him to a 
 mad-house : instead of this, the senate have echoed the speech with more 
 servility than ever George III. experienced from either house of parlia- 
 ment." A third count in the indictment was for publishing and aiding 
 in publishing the Barlow letter. 
 
 Lyon was convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for four months, 
 and to the payment of a fine of $1,000, a part of which was remitted in 
 consequence of his pecuniary embarrassments. A petition said to have 
 been signed by 3,000 republicans of Vermont was presented to the presi- 
 dent for his liberation, which the president refused, unless Lyon himself 
 should sign the petition. Disinclined to submission, he was compelled 
 to suffer durance for the full term. During the pendency of the suit, 
 he was reelected to congress. After his discharge from prison, he went 
 to Philadelphia, and served out the remainder of his first term in 
 congress. 
 
 Assurances were given to Lyon, that when the republicans should 
 obtain the ascendency in congress, he should be compensated for his suf- 
 ferings. But for various causes, no relief had been granted, when, in 
 1818, he again petitioned congress, being then a resident of Kentucky^ 
 and was again unsuccessful. In 1833, many years after his death, a law 
 was passed for refunding to his heirs the amount of the fine levied upou 
 him by the sedition law. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 DIFFICULTIES WITH FRANCE. TREATY NEGOTIATED. DIVISION OF TTDJ 
 
 FEDERALISTS. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
 
 The 5th congress commenced its 3d session on the 3d day of Decem- 
 ber, 1798. The president, in his annual speech to congress, said the in- 
 formation received from France since the close of the last session, would 
 be made the subject of a future communication ; from which it would 
 appear that the attempt to adjust the differences with that power had 
 failed. He proceeded : " You will at the same time perceive, that the 
 French government appears solicitous to impress the opinion, that it ia 
 averse to a rupture with this country, and that it has in a qualified man- 
 ner declared itself willing to receive a minister from the United Statea 
 for the purpose of restoring a good understanding. It is unfortunate 
 
 12 
 
178 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 for professions of this kind, that they should be expressed in terms 
 which may countenance the inadmissible pretension of a right to pre- 
 scribe the qualifications which a minister from the United States should 
 possess, and that, while France is asserting the existence of a disposition 
 on her part to conciliate with sincerity the differences which have arisen, 
 the sincerity of a like disposition on the part of the United States, of 
 which so many demonstrative proofs have been given, should even be in- 
 directly questioned. It is also worthy of observation, that the decree 
 of the directory alleged to be intended to restrain the depredations of 
 French cruisers on our commerce, has not given, and cannot give, any 
 relief. It enjoins them to conform to all the laws of France relative to 
 cruising and prizes, while these laws are themselves the sources of the 
 depredation of which we have so long, so justly, and so fruitlessly com- 
 plained. 
 
 " The law of France, enacted in January last, which subjects to cap- 
 ture and condemnation neutral vessels and their cargoes, if any portion 
 of the latter are of British fabric or produce, although the entire 
 property belong to neutrals, instead of being rescinded, has lately re- 
 ceived a confirmation by the failure of a proposition for its repeal. 
 While this law, which is an unequivocal act of war on the commerce of 
 the nations it attacks, continues in force, those nations can see in the 
 French government only a power regardless of their essential rights, of 
 their independence and sovereignty ; and if they possess the means, they 
 can reconcile nothing with their interest and honor but a firm resistance." 
 
 The president observed, farther, that we had no reason to regret the 
 adoption of defensive measures ; that there had been nothing in the 
 conduct of France to induce us to change or relax them ; and that " an 
 efficient preparation for war could alone insure peace." And in reference 
 to a new mission, he said : " To send another minister without more de- 
 terminate assurances that he would be received, would be an act of 
 humiliation to which the United States ought not to submit. It must 
 therefore be left with France, (if she is indeed desirous of accommoda- 
 tion,) to take the requisite steps." 
 
 To the speech of the president, both houses returned answers of ap- 
 proval, which were adopted without any material opposition. o 
 
 Although no war had been declared on the part of either government, 
 several engagements had taken place on the ocean, and a large amoui^t 
 of property of American citizens was captured by French cruisers. Ther« 
 was no occasion, however, of calling out the army. Induced, probably, 
 by the war measures which had been adopted by congress, France indi- 
 cated a willingness to relinquish her demand as a preliminary to nego- 
 tiation, and to treat on reasonable terms; and in February, 1799, the 
 
DIFFTCTTLTIES WITH FRANCE. 179 
 
 president again appointed, with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 three envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to the French 
 republic. The gentlemen selected were Oliver Ellsworth, (chief justice 
 of the United States,) Patrick Henry, and William Vans Murray, then 
 minister resident in the Netherlands. Mr. Henry, though approving the 
 measures of the administration, declined the appointment, assigning as 
 the only reason, " nothing short of absolute necessity." William R. 
 Davie, formerly governor of North Carolina, was subsequently appointed 
 in the place of Mr. Henry. 
 
 The president soon found himself in a serious difficulty. He had, as 
 has been observed, on communicating to congress, at the commencement 
 of the session, the unsuccessful termination of the negotiation, declared 
 that he would never send another minister to France without assurances 
 that he would be duly received and respected. The course pursued on 
 the French question had been approved by his own party and by a large 
 portion of his opponents. His friends, therefore, did not expect to see 
 BO ready a compliance, on his part, with the wishes of the French direc- 
 tory. The surprise was probably heightened by the fact, that congress 
 had just passed several bills in favor of additional measures of defense, 
 and one for continuing the non-intercourse act for a year. 
 
 Pichon, secretary of the French legation at the Hague, had been di- 
 rected to communicate to Mr. Murray, American minister at that place, 
 a willingness, on the part of the directory, to give a respectful reception 
 to a minister from our government. Intimations having been given that 
 Mr. Murray would be acceptable to the French government, that gentle- 
 man was nominated. Not regarding the mere intimations of that gov- 
 ernment of a disposition to renew the negotiation sufficient to justify the 
 appointment of a mission, the committee of the senate to which the nomi- 
 nation had been referred, attempted to dissuade the president from the 
 prosecution of his design ; and having intimated an intention to report 
 against the nomination, the president sent in the names of Ellsworth and 
 Henry, who were to be added to the mission, but were not to leave until 
 more direct assurances should be given by France that they would be 
 duly received. Nor was Mr. Murray to proceed to France until he 
 should have received such assurance. 
 
 Of the members of the cabinet, Messrs. Pickering, Wolcott and 
 M'Henry, secretaries of state, of the treasury, and of war, were known 
 by the president to be decidedly opposed to renewing the mission under 
 existing circumstances. The nominations were therefore made without 
 consulting hie cabinet or any of his friends. This slight put upon his 
 constitutional advisers produced a breach between himself and a mar 
 jority of his cabinet which was never repaired. Indeed, his course en-- 
 
ISO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tirely estranged a large number of his friends, who had for some time 
 been disaffected toward him ; among whom were Gen. Hamilton and 
 Gouverneur Morris, and other men of distinction and influence. They 
 professed to doubt the sincerity of the French government ; and they 
 considered it derogatory to the national honor to accept an offer to nego- 
 tiate, until the decrees against our commerce should be repealed. An- 
 other ground of objection, it has been suspected, was the apprehension 
 that the renewal of negotiations under existing circumstances and with- 
 out a direct proposal on the part of France to treat, would have an ad- 
 verse effect upon the popularity of the party. But the president was 
 averse to war. However cordially it might have been supported by his 
 party, it would have encountered the opposition of the leaders, and per- 
 haps of the mass of the party opposed to him. Besides, the large in- 
 crease of taxation which it would require, he apprehended, might not be 
 patiently borne. These were doubtless among the motives which in- 
 duced the adoption of a more pacific policy. 
 
 Murray having, according to instructions, informed the French gov- 
 ernment that the departure of Ellsworth and Davie would be delayed 
 until positive assurances should have been given through the French 
 minister of foreign affairs, that they would be duly received, Talleyrand 
 promptly returned an answer from the executive directory, conveying 
 " the frank and explicit assurance that it would receive the envoys of the 
 United States in the oflicial character with which they were invested ; 
 that they should enjoy all the prerogatives which are attached to it by 
 the law of nations, and that one or more ministers should be duly au- 
 thorized to treat with them." The very compliant and anxious minister 
 added his " sincere regret, that Mr. Murray's two colleagues awaited 
 this answer at so great a distance ! !" 
 
 On the receipt of these assurances, the president, against the wishes 
 of the majority of his cabinet, ordered the envoys to prepare for their 
 departure, and directed the secretary of state to make a draft of instruc- 
 tions to them. By these instructions, the envoys were to demand, as 
 indispensable requisites, compensation for all losses and damages sus- 
 tained by our citizens from illegal captures or condemnations of their 
 vessels and other property, to be settled by a board appointed for that 
 purpose; the guaranties to France by the treaties of 1778, of her West 
 India and other American possessions, and from which the United States 
 considered themselves released by the aggressions of France, were not to 
 be renewed ; no aid or loan was to be promised ; no engagement was to 
 be made, inconsistent with the obligations of any prior treaty ; and, as it 
 respected our treaty with Great Britian, stipulations of the 25th article 
 thereof must not be interfered with. By this article, the contracting 
 
DIFFICULTIES WITH FRANCE. 181 
 
 parties were to allow the ships of war or privateers of each other to carrj 
 whithersoever they pleased the ships and goods taken from their ene- 
 mies, and to enter each other's ports without being detained or seized. 
 Nor was shelter or refuge to be given in their ports to such as had made 
 prize upon the subjects or citizens of either party, unless forced by stress 
 of weather, or danger of the sea, to enter ; and then they were to depart 
 as soon as possible. Nor might either party permit the ships or goods 
 of the other to be taken within cannon shot of the coast. And by this 
 same article of the Jay treaty, Grreat Britain and the United States had 
 agreed to make while at peace, no treaties with other nations inconsistent 
 with this article and that preceding, which made it unlawful for the 
 privateers of the enemies of either party to arm and equip their ships or 
 sell their prizes in the ports of the other. The law of France requiring 
 the confiscation of neutral vessels having on board goods coming from 
 England or her possessions, must also be repealed. The envoys were 
 also instructed, if there should be, on the part of France, any unreason- 
 able delay in commencing the negotiation, to relinquish their mission, 
 demand their passports, and leave the country ; and, having once resolved 
 to terminate the mission, they were not to resume it, whatever fresh 
 overtures or assurances might be tendered. It was expected that they 
 would conclude the negotiation in time to embark for home by the 1st 
 of April, that, on their return, congress might be in session to take such 
 measures as should be required by the result of the mission. 
 
 It was now near the middle of September, when intelligence was re- 
 ceived of another revolution in France, caused by the reverses which had 
 befallen her armies, and which were such as to excite apprehensions for 
 the safety of the republic. The whole directory, with one exception, 
 had been changed ; and it was doubtful whether our envoys would be re- 
 ceived by the new directors. In this aspect of affairs, the cabinet unani- 
 mously advised the president to suspend the mission. After a brief con- 
 sideration, however, and again without any special consultation with his 
 cabinet, and in the exercise of that spirit of independence for which he 
 was distinguished, the president ordered the speedy embarkation of the 
 envoys. By this act, the president rendered the separation between 
 himself and the majority of his cabinet complete, and aggravated the 
 disaffection of many of his party into open and avowed opposition. 
 . Ill-advised as was the course of the president, considered as designed 
 to promote his personal advantage, it resulted in an amicable adjustment 
 of difficulties — an event which could hardly have been expected if he had 
 followed the counsels of his more belligerent friends. 
 
 Messrs. Ellsworth and Davie, the new envoys to France, had sailed 
 ' from Newport, Rhode Island, on the 3rd of November, 1799, by way of 
 
 ]£. 
 
182 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Lisbon, where they arrived the 27th, and were informed of the revolu- 
 tion at Paris, by which Napoleon was placed at the head of the French 
 government as first consul. Deeming it expedient to await further in- 
 formation before entering France, and being further detained by contrary 
 winds, they did not leave Lisbon until the 2l8t of December, when they 
 sailed for L'Orient ; but on account of a long succession of storms, and 
 the consequent impossibility of reaching that port, they put into Corunna, 
 on the 16th of January, 1800. On the next day they addressed a letter 
 to Talleyrand, who was continued minister of foreign affairs, express- 
 ing the hope that their letter of credence being addressed to the direc- 
 tory, would be no objection to their reception ; and that, if the govern- 
 ment should view the matter as they did, passports would be immediately 
 sent to them, and one to Mr. Murray at the Hague. Talleyrand said in 
 his answer, that the envoys had been " expected with impatience, and 
 would be received with warmth," notwithstanding the form of their 
 letters of credence ; and passports were accordingly sent. They reached 
 Paris the 2d of March, and found Mr, Murray, who had arrived the day 
 before. The envoys were duly received ; and three plenipotentiaries, Joseph 
 Bonaparte, Fleurieu, and Roederer, were appointed to negotiate with them. 
 The negotiation was commenced with due promptitude, and continued 
 until the 30th of September, when a treaty was concluded. A detailed 
 history of the negotiation can not here be given. There was great dif- 
 ficulty in agreeing upon the terms of a treaty. The French ministers 
 were unwilling to concede our claim for indemnity, or to consent to re- 
 linquish the old treaties. It will be recollected that, according to the 
 instructions to our ministers, the old treaties were not to be renewed. 
 They had been declared void by congress, having been dissolved by hei 
 aggressions upon our commerce ; and being so considered, our govern- 
 ment had, in article 25th of the treaty with Great Britain negotiated by 
 Mr. Jay, agreed, that the ships of war and privateers of both parties 
 should have permission to enter each other's ports with prizes without 
 being subject to seizure or detention. And no shelter or refuge was to 
 be given in their ports to such as had made prizes upon the citizens or 
 subjects of either of the parties. A revival of the old treaties with 
 France, would restore to her the priority of rights therein stipulated, in 
 contravention of our engagements with Great Britain, which, however, 
 might cease within two years after the close of the then existing war; 
 but would cease, in any event, at the expiration of twelve years after 
 the ratification of the treaty. Our ministers being bound to observe 
 our engagements with Great Britain, and the ministers of France being 
 unwilling to admit the nullity of the old treaty of 1778, which would 
 exclude French privateers and prizes from the ports of the United 
 States, an arrangement seemed impracticable. 
 
TREATY NEGOTIATED. 183 
 
 France, having no money, was unwilling to pay indemnities ; and if, 
 as maintained by the American ministers, the old treaties were not in 
 force, we had no lawful claim for indemnity. To have renewed the old 
 treaty would have compelled us, if called on, to furnish her succors in 
 time of war, or, if not furnished, our refusal would be made a pretext 
 for her to withhold the indemnities. The French ministers at length 
 proposed to stipulate for mutual indemnities, with a recognition on our 
 part of the force of the old treaties; or to treat anew on reciprocal 
 terras, without indemnities. As neither proposition could be accepted 
 consistently with their instructions, our ministers must either quit 
 France, leaving the United States in a serious difficulty, or else propose 
 a temporary arrangement, reserving for definitive adjustment those points 
 which could not then be settled. 
 
 To the adoption of some arrangement, there were several strong in- 
 ducements. Our position toward France was little less than a state of 
 war; while the successful operations of Bonaparte seemed to indicate a 
 general peace in Europe ; an event which would leave us alone in a con- 
 test with that power : Or, if the war should continue, an arrangement 
 was necessary in order to relieve our commerce from exposure to the 
 depredations of the French. Another object was to save a large amount 
 of captured property not yet condemned : there being more than forty 
 ships and cargoes, then pending for decision before the French council 
 of prizes. 
 
 A treaty was at length concluded the 30th of September, 1800. Ite 
 principal provisions were the following : The binding force of the old 
 treaties, and the mutual claims for indemnities, were reserved for future 
 negotiation. All public ships, and all property captured by either party 
 and not yet condemned, were to be restored. All government and indi- 
 vidual debts due were to be paid. The vessels of either party were to 
 enjoy in the ports of the other equal privileges with those of the most 
 favored nation. The provision of the old treaty that free ships should 
 make free goods, was retained. Provision was also made for the future 
 security of American commerce. 
 
 The article which allowed French privateers and prizes equal privi- 
 leges with those of the most favored nation, was inserted by the French 
 ministers after repeated declarations from our ministers that, agreeably 
 to the rule of construction settled by the law of nations, this stipulation 
 could have no ejffeet as against the British treaty, unless derived from 
 the former treaties, which, it was expressly agreed, were to be for the time 
 without operation. This article was deemed of less consequence, as it 
 was presumed the United States would soon be able to refuse the priva- 
 teers and prizes of any nation an asylum beyond what the righta of 
 humanity required 
 
184 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Apprehending, however, that the government of Great Britain might 
 regard this provision as contravening the stipulation in our treaty with 
 that power, allowing no other nation the same privileges, Mr. King, our 
 minister at London, presented the matter to that government, and was 
 told by lord Grenville that they saw in it no cause of complaint. 
 
 Congress met this year, (November 17, 1800,) at Washington, whither 
 the seat of government had been removed during the preceding summer. 
 Early in December, Mr. Davie returned with the new treaty, which was 
 a few days afterward, (December 15,) laid before the genate. It met the 
 decided disapprobation of the federal senators opposed to Mr. Adams 
 and the new mission, because it contained no provision for the payment 
 of indemnities, and for the renunciation of the old treaties ; and the 
 result of the opposition was the adoption of an article limiting the term 
 of the convention to eight years, as a substitute for that which referred 
 the question of indemnity and the old treaties to future negotiation. 
 The president, though he considered the alteration as being for the worse, 
 ratified it, and appointed James A. Bayard, of Delaware, as minister, to 
 carry the treaty with the amendment to France for ratification by that 
 government. Mr. Bayard declining the appointment, and the presiden- 
 tial term of Mr. Adams being near its close, he left the matter to his 
 successor. 
 
 The event showed the mistake of the senate. When the amended 
 treaty was submitted to Bonaparte, he added a proviso, that the expung- 
 ing of the article relating to indemnity and old treaties, should be con- 
 sidered as a relinquishment of claims for indemnity. With this addi- 
 tional amendment it was ratified by our government. Thus did France 
 succeed in obtaining what she had proposed to our ministers — a new 
 treaty without indemnities. 
 
 The press appears to have been quite as much relied on as an instru- 
 ment of party warfare during these early political struggles as it is at 
 the present day. And, judging from the specimens which the history 
 of that period has furnished us of the character of the political press, as 
 well as of that of political parties, we may conclude that it has under- 
 gone no change for the worse. Several papers, during the two first 
 administrations, were conducted by foreigners, who, whatever may have 
 been the merit of their political opinions, were very far from doing honor 
 to the editorial profession. And some of American birth could scarcely 
 boast of a higher standing. Freneau's National Gazette had " died out," 
 and the Aurora, for several years its coadjutor in the democratic cause, 
 was now the accredited organ of the opposition in Philadelphia; Benjamin 
 Franklin Bache, its former editor, grandson of Benjamin Franklin, had 
 fallen a victim to the yellow fever which visited that city in 1797; and 
 
POLITICAL WRITERS. 185 
 
 had been, succeeded, as editor, by James Duane, father of William J, 
 Duane, Gen. Jackson's disobedient secretary of the treasury, in 1834. 
 He was born in this country of Irish parents, and went, when young, to 
 his friends in Ireland, where he learned the printer's trade. He subse- 
 quently established an English newspaper in Calcutta, (India.) Having 
 transcended the narrow bounds prescribed by British laws in those days 
 to the liberty of the press in that quarter, his establishment was seized, 
 and he was compelled to return to England, whence he emigrated to this 
 country. His hatred to Great Britain and British laws fitted him for 
 the editorship of an opposition paper. Fenno, of the United States 
 Gazette, had also died of the same disease, and about the same time as 
 Bache, and his paper passed into the hands of his son. 
 
 One of the political writers of that day who attained to considerable 
 notoriety, was Thomas Calleuder, who had left Scotland to avoid prose- 
 cution for the publication of a libelous pamphlet. He is reputed as hav- 
 ing been a man of intemperate and other immoral habits. His writings 
 in this country appeared for a time in pamphlets and magazines, of which 
 were the " American Annual Register," and " The prospect before us." 
 He published also a paper at Richmond, called " The Examiner." He 
 is represented to have been a powerful, though unscrupulous assailant 
 of the administration, and was probably an efiective auxiliary in effecting 
 its overthrow. By certain statements in the last mentioned of the above 
 named publications, he subjected himself to a prosecution under the sedi- 
 tion law, for libel against the president, for which he was sentenced to 
 imprisonment for nine months, and to the payment of a fine of $200 : 
 and he was required also to give securities for his good behavior for 
 two years. By the aid of his friends, the fine had been paid : and the 
 term of his imprisonment had expired almost simultaneously with Mr. 
 Jefferson's coming into office, who hastened to grant him a pardon, which^ 
 it was held, entitled him to a remission of the fine ; and the president 
 accordingly ordered it to be remitted. Strange as it may seem, this man 
 was two years thereafter found associated with the federalists in attacks 
 upon his benefactor, Mr. Jefferson, who had rejected his application for 
 the office of postmaster at Richmond, and whom Callender now publicly 
 charged with having assisted him in the publication of the paper in 
 which the libels for which he had been prosecuted were published. In 
 proof of the charge he published letters from Mr. Jefferson, which dis- 
 closed the fact of his having, by the contribution of money and other- 
 wise, aided the publication of the " Prospect before us." 
 
 As a set-off to these foreign writers in support of the opposition, the 
 federalists had in their service the celebrated William Cobbett, an Eng- 
 lishman, who came to this country in 1792, and who, after having, under 
 
186 THE AMEBIC AN STATESMAN. 
 
 the formidable name of Peter Porcupine, written several pamphlets in 
 favor of the late treaty with Great Britain, was now sending out his 
 pointed missiles at the democrats through " Porcupine's Gazette," a 
 daily paper in Philadelphia, established by himself. He was a most 
 caustic and effective writer ; but his influence was much impaired by his 
 enthusiastic regard for his native country and its institutions, which 
 often brought him into conflict with federal editors. 
 
 Commensurate with Cobbett's love for Great Britain, was his hatred 
 to France. His strictures upon the conduct of the directory were very 
 severe, and scarcely less so upon that of the king of Spain and his min- 
 ister in this country, who were charged with subserviency to France j 
 the former, as Cobbett said, being " governed like a dependent by the 
 nod of the five despots at Paris, the other by the directions of the French 
 agents in America. Because the iufidel tyrants thought proper to rob 
 and insult this country and its government, and we have thought proper, 
 I am sorry to add, to submit to it, the obsequious imitative Don must 
 attempt the same, in order to participate in the guilt and lessen the 
 infamy of his masters." Yrujo, the Spanish minister, hoping to main- 
 tain an action against Cobbett for libel, had the matter laid before 
 the grand jury of the circuit court of the United States ; and the latter 
 was bound over to the next term for trial. The case, however, was 
 never tried in this court. Yrujo, thinking a successful prosecution more 
 probable in the courts of the state of Pennsylvania, whose chief-justice, 
 M'Kean, was a devoted friend of France, and particularly of the Spanish 
 minister, concluded to resort to these tribunals. A warrant was issued 
 by M'Kean against Cobbett for libels on the king of Spain and his min- 
 ister ; and at the next criminal sessions, the case was brought before the 
 grand jury to wliom M'Kean gave an elaborate and able charge ; but no 
 indictment was found. Other attempts were made by this judge to pro- 
 cure the conviction of Cobbett for libel, which did not succeed. These 
 occurrences took place in 1797. 
 
 During this year, the yellow-fever prevailed in Philadelphia; and 
 Cobbett attacked the opinions of Dr. Rush respecting the origin of this 
 disease, and ridiculed his method of treating it. A suit for libel was 
 commenced against Cobbett for damages. The trial came on in Decem- 
 ber, 1799: and a judgment was obtained for $5,000, This, and other 
 prosecutions, (no other, however, resulting in a conviction of libel,) were 
 the cause of his return to England. 
 
 In March, 1799, a few days after the adjournment of congress, resist- 
 ance was made in Pennsylvania to the law levying a direct tax upon 
 houses and lands. It was confined, however, to the counties of Northum* 
 berland, Bucks, and Montgomery. The measurement of the housea, 
 
THE SIXTH CONGRESS. 187 
 
 which waa required by the law in rating the assessment, was violently 
 opposed. A large number of rioters were arrested ; but they were 
 rescued by a party of armed horsemen, headed by a man named Fries. 
 The president issued a proclamation enjoining submission to the laws ; 
 and made a requisition upon the governor of Pennsylviania for a military 
 force to enforce them. Fries and most of his party were arrested and 
 taken to Philadelphia. Fries was convicted of treason ; but one of the 
 jurors having, as was afterward ascertained, previously expressed an 
 opinion as to the deserts of the prisoner, a new trial was granted. Others 
 of the party were convicted of misdemeanor. Fries was tried again the 
 next year, and again found guilty, with two others, of the same offense ; 
 all of whom were pardoned by the president, to the great displeasure of 
 many of the federalists, who attributed this act of clemency to motives 
 of personal advantage. 
 
 Tfce 6th congress commenced its 1st session December 2, 1799. The 
 house had obtained a decided majority in favor of the administration ; 
 and Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, was elected speaker, over 
 Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, by a vote of 44 to 38. The third 
 annual address of the president was delivered the next day. The pros- 
 perous state of the country, notwithstanding the interruptions to our 
 commerce occasioned by the belligerent state of a great part of the world; 
 the return of health, industry, and trade, to those cities which had lately " 
 been afflicted with disease ; and the civil and religious advantages 
 secured and continued under our happy frame of government, were men- 
 tioned as subjects demanding the gratitude of the whole American people. 
 The president called the attention of congress to the judiciary system, 
 which, he said, needed amendment " to give due effect to the civil admin- 
 istration of the government, and to insure a just execution of the laws." 
 
 In relation to the French question, the president said : " When indi- 
 cations were made on the part of the French republic of a disposition to 
 accommodate the existing differences between the two countries, I felt it 
 my duty to prepare for meeting their advances, by a nomination of min- 
 isters upon certain conditions which the honor of the country dictated, 
 and which its moderation had given a right to prescribe. The assu- 
 rances which were required of the French government previous to the 
 departure of our envoys, have been given through their minister of for- 
 eign relations, and I have directed them to proceed on their mission to 
 Paris." [The history of the mission and treaty has been given.] 
 
 The two houses, in their answers to the president's speech, expressed 
 their approbation of his course toward France, although it was not eaSy 
 to prepare an answer which would give satisfaction to the president, and 
 receive the concurrence of those members who were opposed to the new 
 mission to that country. 
 
188 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The business of the session had scarcely been commenced, when the 
 melancholy intelligence was received of the death of Gen. Washington, 
 which had occurred on the 14 th of December, 1799. The announcement 
 was made in the house by John Marshall, of Virginia. Appropriate 
 demonstrations of respect were adopted by both houses. Probably the 
 death of no other individual in the United States ever produced so deep 
 a sensation in the public mind. 
 
 Among the acts passed at this session were, an act making farther 
 appropriations for the military establishment ; an act to continue the 
 non-intercourse with France ; and an act to continue in force the act for 
 the defense of merchant vessels against French depredations; an act 
 laying additional duties on sugar, molasses, and wines ; an act for the 
 preservation of peace with the Indian tribes ; a bankrupt law ; and an 
 act providing for taking the second census. 
 
 An act was also passod at this session " to divide the territory of the 
 United States, north-west of the Ohio, into two separate governments." 
 All that part of this territory lying westward of a line beginning at the 
 Ohio, opposite the mouth of the Kentucky river, and running thence to 
 fort Recovery, and thence north to the Canada line, was to constitute a 
 separate territory, called the Indiana territory, with a government simi- 
 lar to that then existing over the whole north-western territory. 
 
 To facilitate the sale and settlement of the western lands, which had 
 been exceedingly slow, owing to the defective method of sale, for the 
 purpose of increasing the revenue, a change in the system was made at 
 this session, and four land offices were to be established within the terri- 
 tory. Gen. Wm. H. Harrison appeared at this session as the first dele- 
 gate from the north-western territory ; and to his efforts, chiefly, has 
 been ascribed the adoption of a system under which that country was 
 afterward so rapidly settled. 
 
 The disaffection which had for some time existed in the federal party, 
 was coming to a crisis. The president intending to spend the summer 
 at his residence in Massachusetts, and being indisposed to leave the 
 executive business in the hands of cabinet officers, a majority of whom 
 were no longer his friends, he determined to make a change in some of 
 the departments — a change delayed only from motives of political ex- 
 pediency. Nothing but the dreaded effects of a cabinet explosion upon 
 the party, could have prevented either their dismissal by the president, 
 or their voluntary resignation. Just before the close of the session, in 
 May, 1800, Mr. Adams requested the secretaries of state and of war 
 (Pickering and M'Henry) to resign, which the latter promptly did ; but 
 which the former, preferring a direct dismissal, refused to do. John 
 Marshall of Virginia was appointed secretary of state in the place of 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 189 
 
 Mr. Pickering, and Samuel Dexter, of Massachusetts, in the place of 
 Mr. M'Henry. 
 
 Within a few months a presidential election was to take place ; and 
 ihe great object of the federal opponents of Mr. Adams was to contrive 
 a plan to prevent his reelection without defeating the party ; in other 
 words, to eflfect the election of some other federalist. In order to suc- 
 ceed, their purpose must be concealed from the mass of the party. 
 
 It will be recollected that the original mode of electing president and 
 vice-president still existed, by which the presidential electors were re- 
 quired to vote for two persons without designating the office to which 
 each was to be elected, and by which the one having the higliest number 
 of votes was to be president, the one having the next highest was to be 
 vice-president. John Adams and Charles C. Pinckney were the federal 
 candidates. The plan of Mr. Adams' federal opponents was to try, by 
 secret exertions, to secure the largest number of votes for Mr. Pinckney. 
 Mr. Adams knowing their scheme, and conceiving their opposition to 
 him to have arisen from their partialities for England, and his own desire 
 to avoid a war with France, he stigmatized them as a British faction. They 
 were by some suspected of actually wishing for a war, believing it would 
 be a popular measure, and insure the success of the party at the next 
 presidential election. 
 
 This charge by Mr. Adams and his friends against these federal 
 leaders, provoked their resentment, and incited them to a more deter- 
 mined opposition. So highly inflamed were the feelings of Hamilton, 
 that, against the remonstrances of some of his friends, he wrote and 
 printed a pamphlet, repelling the imputations of subserviency to Great 
 Britain, noticing the defects in the character of Mr. Adams which unfit- 
 ted him for the station he occupied, and maintaining the superior fitness 
 of Mr. Pinckney for that office. The issuing of this pamphlet at this 
 time, was not a wise measure. It was intended only for private circula- 
 tion among the leading federalists ; but as might have been expected, it 
 soon passed its prescribed limits, and portions of it appeared in demo- 
 cratic newspapers. It was, however, apparently written in a spirit of 
 candor, and was not discreditable to its author ; and, as between the ac- 
 cuser and the accused, its publication was justifiable. 
 
 The prospects of Mr. Adams' reelection were not flattering. He had 
 been elected in 1796, by 71 votes against 68 for Mr. Jefiierson, and there 
 ^ere early indications of another close ''ontest with the chances rather 
 against him than in his favor. The alien and sedition laws had been 
 doing their work, wielded, as they were, by the skillful leaders of the 
 opposition. True, his conduct toward France had been mild and concili- 
 atory ; and her insults and injuries had been borne until her most ardent 
 
190 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 friends conld not but justify the change of policy which it had been 
 deemed necessary to arlopt. His defensive measures were on the wholo 
 popular ; but then they required an increase of taxation, which, though 
 for the wisest and best of purposes, is always regarded by many as a 
 greater evil than an unconstitutional law or a national wrong. Hia 
 efforts to maintain friendly relations with France, and his precautionary 
 measures of national defense when threatened by war, however they may 
 have checked the virulence of the opposition, yet failed to gain for him 
 many active supporters from that party, while his ready compliance with 
 the wishes of France, as we have seen, seriously affected his standing 
 with his own. Hence, the result of the election in November took no 
 one by surprise. 
 
 The 2nd session of the 6th congress, which, as has been stated, was 
 held at the new seat of government, terminated the 3d of March. 1801. 
 At this session was passed " an act to provide for the more convenient 
 organization of the courts of the United States ;" an act which, from the 
 circumstances connected with and following it, obtained not a little 
 celebrity. Under the act previously existing, the United States were 
 divided into thirteen judicial districts, which composed three circuits. 
 In each of these thirteen districts, two courts were to be held annually 
 by two justices of the supreme court, (then six in number,) with the 
 judge of the district. The great extent of these circuits, and the diffi- 
 culties of traveling at that early day, caused great delays in the admin- 
 istration of justice ; and the subject of a remedy had been repeatedly 
 urged upon the attention of congress. 
 
 By the new act, the number of districts was increased to twenty-three, 
 and the number of circuits to six, with three circuit judges in each. 
 The act was approved February 13, 1801 ; thus giving to the president 
 less than three weeks before the expiration of his term of office, the ap- 
 pointment of a large number of judges, attorneys, marshals, &c. Fill- 
 ing the new offices mainly or altogether with federalists, loud complaints 
 were made by the opposition, who denounced both the law and the presi- 
 dent by whom it had been conceived, as was alleged, for the express pur- 
 l>09e of making place for his federal friends. The opposition having ob- 
 tained majorities in the next congress, the law was repealed at its first 
 session, and of course the new judges sent to private life. 
 
 An act was passed near the close of the session, providing for a naval 
 peace establishment. Apprehensions of a war with France having sub- 
 sided, an act was passed at the close of the session, authorizing the 
 president to sell all the vessels of the navy, except thirteen frigates 
 which were named ; six of which were to be kept in constant service 
 and the residue to be laid up in convenient ports. 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 191 
 
 Upon the 6th congress, at the present session, and almost simulta- 
 neously with the passage of the judiciary act, devolved the election of 
 president. In the electoral colleges, Thomas JeflFerson and Aaron Burr, 
 the republican candidates, had each received 73 votes. The two federal 
 candidates had received, John Adams, 65, and Charles C. Pinckney, 
 64 ; one vote having been given to John Jay. The votes for Jefferson 
 and Burr being equal, the house of representatives, voting by states, 
 must determine the election. 
 
 There being now sixteen states in the union, the vote of nine states 
 was necessary to a choice, which, after a tedious balloting, was at length 
 obtained by Mr. Jefferson, on the 36th ballot. Although both were re- 
 publicans, Mr. Burr being from a northern state, (New York) and the 
 supposition that he would, if elected, give less strength to his party than 
 Mr. Jefferson, the former was the least exceptionable to the federal 
 members generally, whose intention it was early known to be, to vote for 
 him, though against the remonstrances, it is said, of Hamilton, who, in 
 a letter to an eastern friend, gave the following striking delineation of 
 his character : 
 
 '' I trust New England, at least, will not fall into the snare. There 
 is no doubt that, upon every prudent and virtuous calculation, Jefferson 
 is to be preferred. He is by far not so dangerous a man, and he has 
 pretensions to character. As to Burr, there is nothing in his favor. His 
 private character is not defended by his most partial friends. He ia 
 bankrupt beyond redemption, except by the plunder of his country. 
 His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggran- 
 dizement. If he can, he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure 
 himself permanent power, and with it wealth, 
 
 " Let it not be imagined that Burr can be won to federal views. It is 
 a vain hope. Stronger ties and stronger inducements will impel him in 
 a contrary direction. His ambition will not be content with those 
 objects which virtuous men of either party will allot to it ; and his situ- 
 ation and his habits will oblige him to have recourse to corrupt ex- 
 pedients, from which he will be restrained by no moral scruples. To ac- 
 complish his ends, he must lean upon unprincipled men, and will continue 
 to adhere to the myrmidons who have hitherto surrounded him. To these 
 he wiU no doubt add able rogues of the federal party ; but he will 
 employ the rogues of all parties to overrule the good men of all parties, 
 and to promote projects which wise men of every description will disap- 
 prove. These things are to be inferred with moral certainty from the 
 character of the man. Every step of his career proves that he haa 
 formed himself on the model of Catiline ; and he is too cold-blooded 
 and determined a conspirator ever to change his plan." 
 
192 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The balloting coiitmued about a week ; Jefferson receiving the votes 
 of eight states : New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North 
 Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Burr received the votes 
 of six states : New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Cennecti- 
 cut, Delaware, and South Carolina. Vermont and Mai-yland were equally 
 divided. Had all the federal members voted for Burr, he would have 
 had a plurality of the states. The division of Maryland was caused by 
 one of the federal representatives voting for Jefferson in conformity with 
 the wishes of his constituents ; and the single member from Georgia, a 
 federalist, (his colleague having died,) did the same; as did also one of 
 the North Carolina members ; but for which, this state would have been 
 divided ; which would have given Burr eight states, Jefferson six, and 
 leaving Vermont and North Carolina without a vote. By the absence 
 of Morris, of Vermont, a federalist, and by Craik and Baer, of Mary- 
 land, also federalists, casting blank ballots, the 36th ballot gave Jeffer- 
 son ten states. 
 
 It wag this election which led to the change in the mode of electing 
 president and vice-president, by the adoption of the 12th article of 
 amendments. 
 
 Connected with the history of this election, are certain statements 
 which involve the honor and veracity of certain distinguished gentlemen. 
 The design was charged upon the federalists of standing out and pre- 
 , venting an election, and of passing an act to vest the executive authority 
 in some high ofl&cer of the government. Mr. Jefferson, in a letter of the 
 15th of February, wrote to Mr. Monroe as follows : " Four days of bal- 
 loting have produced not a single change of a vote. Yet it is confident- 
 ly believed that to-morrow there is to be a coalition. I know of no 
 foundation for this belief. If they could have been permitted to pass a 
 law for putting the government into the hands of an officer, they would 
 certainly have prevented an election. But we thought it best to declare 
 openly and firmly, one and all, that the day such an act passed, the mid 
 die states would arm, and that no such usurpation, even for a single day, 
 should be submitted to. This first shook them ; and they were com- 
 pletely alarmed at the resource for which we declared, to wit, a conven- 
 tion to reorganize the government and to amend it. The very word con- 
 vention gives them the horrors, as, in the present democratical spirit of 
 America, they fear they should lose some of the favorite morsels of the 
 constitution. Many attempts have been made to obtain terms and pro- 
 mises from me. I have declared to them unequivocally, that I would 
 not receive the government on capitulation ; that I would not go into it 
 with my hands tied." 
 
 Among the persons implicated in this charge, was James A. Bayard. 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 193 
 
 of Delaware, afterward senator in congress, and one of tlie commissioners 
 who negotiated the treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1814. Mr. 
 Bayard, who is universally conceded to have maintained through life a 
 character unblemished and above suspicion, in exculpation of himself, 
 made a deposition, April 3, 1806, of which the following are extracts: 
 
 "Messrs. Baer and Craik, members of the house of representatives 
 from Maryland, and Greneral Morris, a member of the house from Ver- 
 mont, and myself, having the power to determine the votes of the states, 
 from similarity of views and opinions, during the pendency of the elec- 
 tion, made an agreement to vote together. We foresaw that a crisis 
 was approaching which might probably force us to separate in our votes 
 from the party with whom we usually aCted. We were determined to 
 make a president, and the period of Mr. Adams' administration was 
 rapidly approaching. 
 
 " In determining to recede from the opposition to Mr. Jefferson, it 
 occurred to us, that, probably, instead of being obliged to surrender at 
 discretion, we might obtain terms of capitulation. The gentlemen whose 
 names I have mentioned, authorized me to declare their concurrence with 
 me upon the best terms that could be procured. The vote of either of 
 us was sufficient to decide the choice. With a view to the end mentioned, 
 I applied to Mr. John Nicholas, a member of the house from Virginia, 
 who was a particular friend of Mr. Jefferson. I stated to Mr. Nicholas 
 that if certain points of the future administration could be understood 
 and arranged with Mr. Jefferson, I was authorized to say that three 
 states would withdraw from an opposition to his election. He asked me 
 what those points were ; I answered, First, sir, the support of the public 
 credit ; secondly, the maintenance of the naval system ; and lastly, that 
 subordinate public officers employed only in the execution of details, 
 established by law, shall not be removed from office on the ground of 
 their political character, nor without complaint against their conduct. I 
 explained myself, that I considered it not only reasonable, but necessary, 
 that offices of high discretion and confidence should be filled by men of 
 Mr. Jefferson's choice. I exemplified, by mentioning, on the one hand, 
 the offices of the secretaries of state, treasury, foreign ministers, &c. ; 
 and on the other, the collectors of ports, &c. Mr. Nicholas answered 
 me, that he considered the points very reasonable, that he was satis- 
 fied that they corresponded with the views and intentions of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, and he knew him well. That he was acquainted with most of the 
 gentlemen who would probably be about him and enjoy his confidence, 
 in case he became president, and that if I would be satisfied with his as- 
 surance, he could solemnly declare it as his opinion, that Mr. Jefferson, 
 in his administration, would not depart from the points I proposed. I 
 13 
 
194 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 replied to Mr, Nicholas, that I had not the least doubt of the sincerity 
 of his declaration, and that his opinion was perfectly correct, but that I 
 wanted an engagement, and that if the points could in any form be un- 
 derstood as conceded by Mr. Jefferson, the election should be ended; 
 and proposed to him to consult Mr. Jefferson. This he declined, and 
 said he could do no more than give me the assurance of his own opinion 
 as to the sentiments and designs of Mr. Jefferson and his friends. I 
 told him that was not sufficient, that we should not surrender without 
 better terms. Upon this we separated ; and I shortly after met with 
 General Smith, to whom I unfolded myself in the same manner that I 
 had done to Mr. Nicholas. In explaining myself to him in relation to 
 the nature of the offices alluded to, I mentioned the offices of George 
 Latimer, collector of the port of Philadelphia, and Allen M'Lane, col- 
 lector of Wilmington. General Smith gave me the same assurances as to 
 the observance by Mr. Jefferson of the points which I had stated, which 
 Mr. Nicholas had done. I told him I should not be satisfied, nor agree 
 to yield, till I had the assurance of Mr. Jefferson himself ; but that if he 
 would consult Mr. Jefferson, and bring the assurance from him, the 
 election would be ended. The general made no difficulty in consulting 
 Mr. Jefferson and proposed giving me his answer the next morning. 
 The next day, upon our meeting, General Smith informed me that he 
 had seen Mr. Jefferson, and stated to him the points mentioned, and was 
 authorized by him to say, that they corresponded with his views and 
 intentions, and that we might confide in him accordingly. The opposi- 
 tion of Vermont, Maryland, and Delaware, was immediately withdrawn, 
 and Mr. Jefferson was made president by the votes of ten states." 
 
 In the "great debate" in the senate, Januaiy, 1830, Mr. Hayne 
 brought into the senate the 4th volume of Jefferson's memoirs for the 
 purpose of reference. Certain other senators called the attention of Mr. 
 Clayton, of Delaware, to the following passage which they had discovered 
 in the volume: — "February the 12th, 1801. — Edward Livingston tells 
 me that Bayard applied to-day, or last night, to Gen. Samuel Smith, and 
 represented to him the expediency of coming over to the states who vote 
 for Burr ; that there was nothing in the way of appointment which he 
 might not command, and particularly mentioned the secretaryship of 
 the navy. Smith asked him if he was authorized to make the offer. 
 He said he was authorized. Smith told this to Livingston, and to W. 
 C. Nicholas, who confirms it to me," &c. 
 
 Messrs. Livingston and Smith being at this time (1830) both members 
 of the senate, Mr. Clayton, in order to rescue the character of his de- 
 ceased predecessor from unjust reproach, called upon the senators from 
 Louisiana and Maryland to disprove the above statement ; both of whom 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. I95 
 
 declared that they had no recollection of such a transaction. In addi- 
 tion to this testimony, the sons of the late Mr. Bayard published a letter 
 from George Baer, one of the federal members from Maryland, in 1801 
 addressed to Richard H. Bayard, under date of April 19, 1830, in which 
 Mr. Baer said :-" Prevdous to and pending the election, rumors were 
 mdustnously circulated, and letters written to different parts of the 
 country, charging the federalists with the design to prevent the election 
 of a president, and to usurp the legislative power. I was privy to all the 
 arrangements made, and attended all the meetings of the federal party 
 when consulting on the course to be pursued in relation to the election, 
 and I pledge my most solemn asseveration that no such measure was for 
 a moment contemplated by that party; that no such proposition was 
 ever made ; and that if it had ever been, it would not only have been 
 discouraged, but instantly put down, by those gentlemen who possessed 
 the power, and were pledged to each other to elect a president before the 
 close of the session. 
 
 "Although nearly thirty years have elapsed since that eventful period 
 my recollection is vivid, as to the principal circumstances, which, from 
 the part I was called upon to act, were deeply graven on my memory 
 It was soon ascertained that there were six individuals, the vote of any 
 one of whom, could at any moment decide the election. These were 
 your father, the late James A. Bayard, who held the vote of the state of 
 Delaware, General Morris, of Vermont, who held the divided vote of 
 that state, and Mr. Craik, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Thomas, and myself, who 
 held the divided vote of Maryland. Your father, Mr. Craik, and my- 
 self, having compared ideas upon the subject, and finding that we enter- 
 taiiied the same views and opinions, resolved to act together, and accord- 
 ingly entered into a solemn and mutual pledge, that we would, in the 
 first instance, yield to the wishes of the great majority of the party with 
 whom we acted, and vote for Mr. Burr, but that no consideration should 
 induce us to protract the contest beyond a reasonable period for the pur 
 pose of ascertaining whether he could be elected. We determined that 
 a president should be chosen, but were willing thus far to defer to the 
 opmions of our political friends, whose preference of Mr. Burr was 
 founded upon a belief that he was less hostUe to federal men and federal 
 measures, than Mr. Jefferson. General Morris and Mr. Dennis concur- 
 red m this arrangement." 
 
196 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 MR. Jefferson's inauguration. — appointments. — naturalization. — 
 
 PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA, BOUNDARY TREATY WITH ENGLAND. 
 
 The inauguration of Mr. Jefferson took place on the 4tli of March, 
 1801, with the appropriate ceremonies usual on similar occasions. The 
 inaugural address, in its language and sentiments, was regarded as un- 
 exceptionable ; and in respect to parties, its tone was pacific and con- 
 ciliatory. The following paragraphs constitute the greater part of the 
 address. 
 
 " During the contests of opinion through which we have passed, the 
 animation of discussion and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect 
 which might impose on strangers unused to think freely, and to speak, 
 and to write what they think ; but this being now decided by the voice 
 of the nation, announced according to the rules of the constitution, all 
 will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite 
 in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this 
 sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to 
 prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable ; that the minority 
 possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate ': 
 which would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one 
 heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony 
 and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary ! 
 things. And let us reflect, that, having banished from our land that re- 
 ligious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we ,c 
 have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as des- : 
 potic as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. Dur- i; 
 ing the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agoniang 
 spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long ' 
 lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should 
 reach even this distant and peaceful shore ; that this should be more felt 
 and feared by some, and less by others ; that this should divide opinions ; 
 as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difEer- 
 ence of principle. "VVe have called by different names brethren of the i 
 same principle. We are all repiiblicans — we are all federalists. If 
 there be any among us who would wish totlissolve this union or to change 
 its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the 
 safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left 
 
MR. Jefferson's inauguration". ' 197 
 
 free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a re- 
 publican government cannot be strong, that this government is not strong 
 enough. But would the honest patriot, in the fuU tide of successful ex- 
 periment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, 
 on the theoretic and visionary fear that this government, the world's best 
 hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. 
 I believe this, on the' contrary, the strongest government on earth. I 
 believe it is the only one, where every man, at the call of the laws, would 
 fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public 
 order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can 
 not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted 
 with the government of others ? Or have we found angels in the forms 
 of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. 
 
 "Let us, then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal 
 and republican principles, our attachment to our union and representa- 
 tive government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from 
 the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe ; too high-minded 
 to endure the degradations of the other; possessing a chosen country, 
 with room enough for our descendants to the hundredth and thousandth 
 generation ; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our 
 own faculties, to the acquisitions of our industry, to honor and confidence 
 from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions 
 and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, 
 indeed, and practised in various forms, yet all of them including honesty, 
 truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and 
 adoring an ovemiling Pro\ idence, which by all its dispensations proves 
 that it delights in the happiness of man here, and his greater happiness 
 hereafter ; with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a 
 happy and prosperous people ? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens, a 
 wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one 
 another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pur- 
 ' suits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth 
 of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, 
 ' and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. 
 
 "About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which com- 
 i prehend every thing dear and valuable to you, it is proper that you 
 j should understand what I deem the essential piinciples of our govem- 
 1 ment, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration, 
 j 1 will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, 
 |l stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and 
 j exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or 
 I political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship, with all nations— 
 
198 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 entangling alliances with none ; the support of the state governments in 
 all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic 
 concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies ; the 
 preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, 
 as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad ; a jeal- 
 ous care of the right of election by the people — a mild and safe correc- 
 tive of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peace- 
 able remedies are unprovided ; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of 
 the majority — the vital principle of republics, from which there is no 
 appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despot- 
 ism ; a well-disciplined militia — our best reliance in peace, and for the 
 first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them ; the supremacy 
 of the ci\dl over the military authority ; economy in the public expense, 
 that labor may be lightly burdened ; the honest payment of our debts 
 and sacred preservation of the public faith ; encouragement of agricul- 
 ture and of commerce, as its handmaid ; the diffusion of information and 
 the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason ; freedom of 
 religion ; freedom of the press ; freedom of person under the protec- 
 tion of the habeas corpus ; and trial by juries impartially selected — 
 these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, 
 and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The 
 wisdom of our sages, and the blood of our heroes, have been devoted to 
 their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith — the 
 text of civil instruction — the touchstone by which to try the services of 
 those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error 
 or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which 
 alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." : 
 
 Mr. Jefferson selected for his cabinet officers, James Madison, secre- 
 tary of state ; Henry Dearborn, of Massachusetts, secretary of war, and 
 Levi Lincoln, of Massachusetts, attorney-general. Samuel Dexter, of 
 Massachusetts, secretary of the treasury, and Benjamin Stoddart, of 
 Maryland, secretary of the navy, both of whom had been appointed by 
 Mr. Adams, were continued in office ; as also Joseph Habersham, of 
 Georgia, postmaster-general; until January, 1802, when Albert Gallatin, 
 of Pennsylvania, was appointed secretary of the treasury ; Robert Smith, 
 of Maryland, secretary of the navy ; and Gideon Granger, of Connecti- 
 cut, postmaster-general. Mr. Habersham had held this office since his 
 appointment by president Washington, February 25, 1795. The post- 
 master-general was first made a cabinet officer by president Jackson. 
 
 The newspaper which was selected as the official organ of the new 
 administration, was the National Litelligencer, which had been estab- 
 lished in the new city a few months before the election, by Benjamin 
 
APPOINTMENTS. 199 
 
 Harrison Smitli of Philadelphia, for some time publisher of a republi- 
 can paper in that city. The Intelligencer is the paper now published 
 by Gales and Seaton, into whose hands it came a few years after its com- 
 mencement. An opposition paper, the Washington Federalist, was 
 established at or near the same time as the Intelligencer. 
 
 The tenor of the inaugural address, and the assurances given to Mr. 
 Bayard, had allayed the apprehensions of the opposition in relation to a 
 general removal of public officers subject to executive appointment. A 
 larger number of removals, however, were made than the federalists 
 deemed consistent with the professions and pledges of Mr. Jefferson. 
 A case which obtained a notoriety beyond any other, was that of the dis- 
 placement of Elizur Goodrich, collector of the port of New Haven, and 
 the appointment of Samuel Bishop, nearly seventy-eight years of age, 
 whose eye-sight was much impaired, and whose qualifications for the 
 office were considered far inferior to those of his predecessor. The mer- 
 chants of New Haven sent a remonstrance to the president, in which 
 they declared the superiority of Mr. Goodrich's qualifications, and re- 
 minded the president of the sentiments expressed in his inaugural 
 address. In his reply Mr. Jefferson thus vindicate^ his course : 
 
 " Declarations by myself, in favor of political tolerance, exhortations 
 to harmony and affection in social intercourse, and respect for the equal 
 right of the minority, have, on certain occasions, been quoted and mis- 
 construed into assurances that the tenure of offices was not to be dis- 
 turbed. But could candor apply such a construction ? When it is 
 considered that, during the late administration, those Avho were not of a 
 particular sect of politics were excluded from all office ; when, by a 
 steady pursuit of this measure, nearly the whole offices of the United 
 States were monopolized by that sect ; when the public sentiment at 
 length declared itself, and burst open the doors of honor and confidence 
 to those whose opinions they approved ; was it to be imagined that this 
 monopoly of office was to be continued in the hands of the minority ? 
 Does it violate their equal rights to assert some rights in the majority 
 also ? Is it political intolerance to claim a proportionate share in the 
 direction of the public affairs? If a due participation of office is a 
 matter of right ; how are vacancies to be obtained ? Those by death are 
 few, by resignation none. Can any other mode than that of removal be 
 proposed ? This is a painful office ; but it is made my duty, and I meet 
 it as such. I proceed in the operation with deliberation and inquiry, 
 that it may injure the best men least, and effect the purposes of justice 
 and public utility with the least private distress ; that it may be thrown 
 as much as possible on delinquency, on oppression, on intolerance, on 
 anti-revolutionary adherence to our enemies. 
 
200 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 "I lament sincerely that unessential differences of opinion should ever 
 have been deemed sufficient to interdict half the society from the rights 
 and the blessings of self-government, to proscribe them as unworthy of 
 every trust. It would have been to me a circumstance of great relief, 
 had I found a moderate participation of office in the hands of the major- 
 ity. I would gladly have left to time and accident to raise them to their 
 just share. But their total exclusion calls for prompter corrections. I 
 shall correct the procedure ; but that done, return with joy to that state 
 of things when the only questions concerning a candidate shall be. Is he 
 honest ? Is he capable ? Is he faithful to the constitution ? " 
 
 To the general sentiments contained in this vindication, there would 
 seem to be little ground of objection, even on the part of the federalists. 
 The most that was or might be said with any force, by way of rejoinder, 
 was, that Mr. Adams had made no removals of consequence, and none 
 from party considerations, most of the incumbents having been appointed 
 by Gen. Washington, against whose administration no organized opposi- 
 tion was formed, and before the republican party could be fairly said to 
 have had existence. Great, however, as was the clamor of the opposi- 
 tion, the number of Removals from important offices during his whole 
 administration, has been given as less than forty, which, although nearly 
 equal to all others made to the close of John Quincy Adams's adminis- 
 tration, bears no comparison to the extent to which proscription for 
 opinion's sake has since been carried. 
 
 Great objection was made to appointments which Mr. Adams made 
 during, and after the ballotings in the house for president. Filling 
 offices so near the close of his term of office, Mr. Jefferson considered as 
 an infiingement of his prerogative, and as being void. The commissions 
 of several of them had been executed, but not having been delivered, Mr. 
 Jefferson suppressed them, and made new appointments. The judges 
 appointed in conformity with the provisions of the new judiciary act 
 holding their offices dming good behavior, and not being removable, the 
 act, as has already been stated, was repealed at the next session of con- 
 gress, rather from the motive, as the federalists suspected, of nullifying 
 Mr. Adams's " midnight appointments," as they were termed, than for 
 the alleged reason that an additional number of judges was unnecessary. 
 
 In a letter to Mr. Giles, of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson wrote, March 23 : 
 " Some principles have been the subject of conversation, but not of 
 determination ; e. g., aU appointments to civil offices during pleasure, 
 made after the event of the election was certainly known to Mr. Adams, 
 are considered as nullities. I do not view the persons appointed as even 
 candidates for the office, but make others without noticing or notifying 
 them. 2. Officers who have been guUty of official misconduct are sub- 
 
APPOINTMENTS. MiT 201 
 
 jecta of removal. 3. Good men to whom tliere is no objection but dif- 
 ference of political principle, practiced on only as far as the right of a pri- 
 vate citizen will justify, are not proper subjects of removal, except in the 
 cases of attorneys and marshals. The courts being so decidedly federal 
 and iiTemovable, it is believed that republican attorneys and marshals, 
 being the doors of entry into the courts, are indispensably necessary as 
 a shield to the republican part of our fellow-citizens, which, I believe, is 
 the main body of the people. These principles are yet to be considered 
 of, and I sketch them to you in confidence." 
 
 To Mr. Gerry he wrote, March 28 : " Mr. Adams's last appointments, 
 when he knew he was naming aids and counsellors for me, and not for 
 himself, I set aside, as far as depends on me. Officers who have been 
 guilty of gross abuses of office, such as marshals packing juries, <fec., I 
 shall now remove, as my predecessors ought in justice to have done. 
 The instances will be few, and governed by strict rule, not party passion. 
 The right of opinion shall suffer no invasion from me. Those who have 
 acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me 
 in opinion." 
 
 In a letter to Gideon Granger, May 3, he wrote : " The clergy who 
 have missed their union with the state, the Anglemen, who have missed 
 their union with England, and the political adventurers, who have lost 
 the chance of swindling and plunder in the waste of public money, wUl 
 never cease to bawl, on the breaking up of their sanctuary. But among 
 the people the schism is healed, and with tender treatment the wound 
 wUl not reopen. The quondam leaders have been astounded with the 
 suddenness of the desertion ; and their silence and appearance of 
 acquiescence have proceeded, not from a thought of joining us, but the 
 uncertainty what ground to take. The very first acts of the administra- 
 tion, the nominations, have accordingly furnished something to yelp on ; 
 and all our subsequent acts will furnish them fresh matter, because there 
 is nothing against which human ingenuity will not be able to find some- 
 thing to say." 
 
 To Levi Lincoln, July 11, 1801: "The consolidation of our fellow- 
 citizens in general, is the great object we ought to keep in view ; and 
 that being once obtained, while we associate with us in affairs, to a 
 certain degree, the federal sect of republicans, we must strip of all the 
 means of influence the Essex junto, and their associate monocrats in 
 every part of the Union. The former differ from us only in the shades 
 of power to be given to the executive, being, with us, attached to repub- 
 lican government. The latter wish to sap the. republic by fraud, if 
 they cannot destroy it by force, and to erect an English monarchy in its 
 place. We are proceeding gradually in the regeneration of offices, and 
 
202 THE AMERICAN' STATESMAN. 
 
 introducing republicans to some share in them. I do not know that it 
 "will be pushed further than was settled before you went away, except as 
 to Essex men. I must ask you to make out a list of those in office in 
 yours and the neighboring states, and to furnish me with it." [Ap- 
 pendix, Note C] 
 
 The 7th congress assembled at Washington, December 7, 1801. 
 Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, a republican, was elected speaker 
 of the house of representatives. In the senate, Abraham Baldwin, of 
 Georgia, for many years a member of the house, was elected president 
 jyro tern ; the majorities in both houses being republican. 
 
 Instead of making his first communication to congress by personal ad- 
 dress as has been the practice, he adopted that by message, as used on 
 subsequent occasions through the session. The reasons for this course, 
 assigned in a letter to both houses, were, " the convenience of the legis- 
 lature, the economy of their time, and their relief from the embarrass- 
 ment of immediate answers on subjects not yet fully before them." 
 
 The president announced to congress " on the grounds of reasonable 
 certainty, that the wars and troubles which had for so many years afflict- 
 ed our sister nations, had at length come to an end, and that the commu- 
 nications of peace and commerce were once more opening among them." 
 Peace and friendship generally prevailed among the Indian tribes. He 
 stated briefly the difficulty with the bey of Tripoli. Dissatisfied with 
 the sum paid him in purchase of the late treaty, he had demanded more 
 without any shadow of right, and threatened war in case of a refusal. 
 The president had sent out a small squadron of frigates to the Mediter- 
 ranean to protect our commerce ; and the danger had been dispelled. 
 One of the Tripolitan cruisers had been captured by an American 
 schooner. 
 
 A prominent object of recommendation was a reduction of the public 
 expenditures. Offices and officers he thought had been unnecessarily 
 multiplied ; and he had already begun to reduce those dependent on ex- 
 ecutive discretion. The expenses of diplomatic agency had also been 
 diminished. But the great mass of offices were created by law, and the 
 law-making power alone could abolish them. The mihtary establishment 
 was too large for a state of peace. Other topics were noticed, among 
 which was an alteration of the naturalization law. 
 
 An act was passed, at this session for the apportionment of representa- 
 tives according to the second census. The ratio of 33,000 was readopted. 
 Also an act for the protection of our commerce and seamen against the 
 Tripolitan cruisers ; and act fixing the military peace establishment, by 
 which the army was much reduced, and a military academy established 
 at West Point; an act regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes 
 
PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 203 
 
 and to preserve peace on the frontiers ; an act for tlie repeal of internal 
 duties on stills and domestic distilled spirits, refined sugars, licenses to 
 retailers, sales at auction, carriages, stamped paper, &c. ; an act appro- 
 priating annually $7,300,000 to the sinking fund for the payment of the 
 public debt. The state of the treasury, however, did not admit of the 
 appropriation ; consequently the act was inoperative. 
 
 An act was also passed concerning naturalization. By the first act 
 passed on this subject, in 1790, an alien might be admitted as a citizen, 
 at any time after a two years' residence, on application to the proper 
 court of any state in which he had resided for one year. By the act of 
 1795, a residence of five years was required, and the application was to 
 be made three years before admission. In 1798, the year of the passage 
 of the alien and sedition laws, a naturalization act was passed, requiring 
 a residence of fourteen years, the application to be made five years before 
 admission. The act passed this year, (1802) restored the term of resi- 
 dence to five years, and that of the previous application to three years. 
 
 An act to enable the people of the eastern division of the north-west- 
 em territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the 
 admission of such state (Ohio) into the union, was passed. 
 
 Near the close of Mr. Adams's administration, an adjustment was 
 made with Great Britain of the claims of her citizens upon citizens of 
 the United States, for debts contracted prior to the revolution, and 
 which had been assumed by our government in Jay's treaty. The 
 amount agreed upon, was $2,644,000 ; to be pqid in three annual instal- 
 ments. An act was passed at this session making the necessary appro- 
 priations for the payment of these British debts. 
 
 The great measure of Mr. Jefferson's administration was the purchase 
 of Louisiana. The reacquisition of this territory from Spain was an 
 object much desired by Napoleon. It being rumored in England and 
 France, that, by a secret treaty, Spain had ceded Louisiana and the 
 Floridas to France, Mr. King, our minister at London, in a letter 
 dated March 29, 1801, informed our government of the rumor, and ex- 
 , pressed the opinion that such treaty had been actually executed, and his 
 apprehension " that this cession was intended to have, and might actually 
 produce, effects injurious to the union and consequent happiness of the 
 people of the United States." This apprehension was founded upon the 
 known opinion of certain influential persons in France, " that nature had 
 marked a line of separation between the people of the United States liv- 
 ing upon the two sides of the range of mountains which divides their ter- 
 ritory." This acquisition of Louisiana would give to France the com- 
 mand of the mouth of the Mississippi, and consequently the control of 
 the trade of the western states ; and it was suspected as being possibly a 
 part of her design to effect a union ultimately with these states. 
 
204 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 It is minecessary to say, that the United States were anxious to pre- 
 vent this apprehended transfer of the temtory in question ; and our 
 ministers in France and Spain, Robert R. Livingston and Charles 
 Pinckney, were instructed, if the cession had not been made, to use their 
 endeavors to defeat the project ; and Mr. Pinckney was particularly re- 
 quested (May 11, 1802,) if Spain should retain New Orleans and the 
 Floridas, to endeavor "to obtain the arrangement by which the terri- 
 tory on the east side of the Mississippi, including New Orleans, might 
 be ceded to the United States, and the Mississippi made a common 
 boundary, with a common use of its navigation for them and Spain." 
 But notwithstanding the denial of the fact on the part of the French 
 government to Mr. Livingston, and persisted in for a year, the cession 
 had been made as early as October, 1800. 
 
 By the treaty between the United States and Spain, of October 27, 
 1795, bur western boundary was fixed in the middle of the Mississippi 
 down to the 31st degree of north latitude; and the na^^gation of the 
 whole breadth of the river from its source to the ocean, was to be free 
 to the subjects and citizens of both countries ; and in consequence of 
 these stipulations, the citizens of the United States were to be permitted 
 for three years, to use the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit and 
 exportation for their merchandise ; which privilege was to be thereafter 
 continued, if not prejudicial to Spain ; and if not continued there, " an 
 equivalent establishment " was to be assigned for this purpose at some 
 other place on the bank of the Mississippi. But, notwithstanding these 
 plain stipulations, the use of the port of New Orleans was suddenly 
 interrupted by the intendant of the province of Louisiana at New Or- 
 leans, on the pretext that, " with the publication of the ratification of 
 the treaty of Amiens, and the reestablishment of the communication be- 
 tween the English and Spanish subjects, the inconvenience [of the privi- 
 lege granted by the treaty] had ceased ; " adding, that the " toleration 
 could be no longer consented to without an express order from the king." 
 
 Information of this interruption of trade was communicated to con- 
 gress by the president the 30th of December, 1802. On the 7th of 
 January, 1803, the house of representatives adopted a resolution, in 
 which they declared, that, while " willing to ascribe this breach of com- 
 pact to the unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals," they held 
 it; to be their duty " to express their unalterable detennination to main- 
 tain the boundaries and the rights of navigation and commerce through 
 the river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties." This affair 
 was made the subject of communication to both Mr. Pinckney and to 
 Mr. Livingston. 
 
 The empty declaration, by congress, of a determination to maintain 
 
PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 20S 
 
 the rights of our citizens, was not satisfactory to the western people, who 
 expected some prompt, direct, and effective measure of redress. In re- 
 sponse to their continued complaints, resolutions were introduced into 
 the senate by Mr. Ross, an opposition senator from Pennsylvania, au- 
 thorizing the president to take possession of New Orleans, and providing 
 a force of 50,000 men ; and an appropriation of $5,000,000. This pro- 
 position failed ; but a law was passed, authorizing the president, when- 
 ever he should judge it expedient, to require the executives of such states 
 as he should think proper, to hold in readiness a detachment of militia 
 not exceeding 80,000. An appropriation of $1,500,000 was made for 
 subsisting the troops, purchasing military stores, and defraying other 
 necessary expenses : and $25,000 was appropriated for erecting arsenals 
 on the western waters, and for furnishing them with arms and ammuni- 
 tion. Prior, however, to the passage of this act, a letter was received 
 from Gov. Claiborne, of the Mississippi territory, inclosing one from the 
 governor of Louisiana, saying that the suspension of deposits by the in- 
 tendant was without orders from the Spanish government, and that the 
 measure did not accord with his judgment. The matter Avould be com- 
 municated to the governor of Havana, who had some kind of superinten- 
 dence over the authorities at New Orleans. 
 
 Mr. Livingston, writing to the secretary of state, April 24, 1802, said 
 he had not yet received answers to his inquiries in relation to the 
 nimored cession, — what its boundaries were, what were the intentions of 
 France respecting it, and when they were to take possession ; and it was 
 still uncertain whether the Floridas were included in the cession. He 
 was, however, himself confident that such was the fact, and that the gov- 
 ernment was fitting out an armament to take possession ; the number of 
 troops to be from five to seven thousand, and to sail for New Orleans, 
 unless the state of affairs in St. Domingo should change their destina- 
 tion. The anticipation of the occupation, by France, of the acquired 
 territory, caused the deepest solicitude on the part of our government, 
 and a determination to effect, if possible, a reversal of the cession. Mr. 
 Livingston endeavored to con\dnce the French government that it would 
 not be advantageous to France to take possession of Louisiana. The 
 cession of the territory to her, however, might be turned to her advan- 
 tage, if she would avail herself of it in the only way which sound policy 
 dictated. (He spoke of Louisiana proper, without including the Flori- 
 das.) The way in which to secure this advantage was : having acquired 
 the right to navigate the Mississippi^ and a free trade, she could secure 
 a vent for a vast variety of her commodities in the western states, by 
 proper arrangements with the United States. It would be necessary to 
 afford them cheaper than those they received from Great Britain. This 
 
206 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 she could do by interesting tlie American mercliant in tlieir sale, and by 
 engaging the government of the iJnited States to give them a preference. 
 These objects might be attained by ceding New Orleans to the United 
 States, reserving to herself the right of entry without the payment of 
 higher duties than were exacted from vessels of the United States, and 
 the right to navigate the Mississippi. This would enable France to 
 carry her fabrics into all the western territory. She would command 
 the respect without exciting the fear of the two nations whose friendship 
 was most important to her commerce, and to the preservation of her 
 islands : and all this without the expense of maintaining colonial estab- 
 lishments. But should France retain New Orleans, and endeavor to 
 colonize Louisiana, she would render herself an object of jealousy to 
 Spain, the United States, and Great Britain, who would discourage her 
 commerce, and compel her to make expensive establishments for the 
 security of her rights. 
 
 The object of our government seems to have been to purchase New 
 Orleans and the Floridas ; for, although the latter was not included in 
 the cession, it was suggested by Mr. Livingston, that France could ac- 
 quire it by an exchange with Spain, returning her Louisiana, retaining 
 New Orleans, and then give the latter and Florida for our debt. In a 
 letter to Mr. Madison of December 20, 1802, Mr. Livingston, although 
 not sanguine of success, had such encouragement as to think it advisable 
 to ask for instructions " how to act in case favorable circumstances should 
 arise." The armament for Louisiana, he said, had not yet sailed. 
 
 Before this letter was received, the president, contemplating the ces- 
 sion of Louisiana to France, in connection with the affair at New Or- 
 leans, determined to take measures most likely, not only to reestablish 
 our present rights, but to effect their enlargement and security. The 
 importance of the crisis, he thought, demanded the experiment of an ex- 
 traordinary mission ; and he appointed Mr. Monroe, as an associate of 
 Mr. Livingston, and also of Mr. Pinckney, if it should be necessary, in 
 treating with the Spanish government. The instructions were to pro- 
 cure, if possible, a cession of New Orleans and the Floridas. Informa- 
 tion of this appointment was communicated by Madison to Mr. Living- 
 ston under date of the 18th of January, 1803. 
 
 On the 24th, Mr. Livingston wrote, informing our government of the 
 appointment of General Bernadotte, brother-in-law of Joseph Bonaparte, 
 as minister to the United States. This letter spoke discouragingly ; and 
 an accompanying dispatch appeared to assume that Florida also was 
 ceded to France. But on the 3rd of March, he wrote that it was still in 
 the hands of Spain. 
 
 A direct negotiation had been commenced before the arrival of Mr. 
 
PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 207 
 
 Monroe, and was successfully terminated about a month afterward, with 
 Marbois, minister of the treasury, whom the first consul preferred to 
 Talleyrand, for this business. From the voluminous correspondence on 
 this subject, it may be inferred, that, among the considerations which 
 facilitated the negotiation, were these : First, Apprehensions that Great 
 Britain would take possession of that territory, and transfer it to the 
 United States ; it being generally known that that government was averse 
 to its occupation by France. A confirmation of this fact had recently 
 been given by the London papers, in which was a proposition for raising 
 fifty thousand men to take New Orleans. Second, The apprehension 
 that the United States themselves would take possession ; information 
 having been received of the passage of the resolution by congress to 
 maintain the rights guaranteed by the treaty with Spain, and of the in- 
 troduction of the more recent resolutions of Mr. Ross in the senate, pro- 
 posing to raise a force to take New Orleans. Third, A pressing want 
 of money on the part of Napoleon. 
 
 The first definite proposition appears to have come from the first con- 
 sul, through Marbois, which was, that the United States should give one 
 hundred millions of francs, pay their own claims, and take the whole 
 country. To which Mr. Livingston replied, "that the United States 
 were anxious to preserve peace with France ; that, for that reason, they 
 wished to remove them to the west side of the Mississippi ; that we 
 would be perfectly satisfied with New Orleans and the Floridas, and had 
 no disposition to extend across the river ; that, of course, we would not 
 give any great sum for the purchase. Mr. L., being pressed to name a 
 sum they would give, told Marbois, that they had no authority to go to 
 a sum that bore any proportion to Avhat he had mentioned ; but that as 
 he had himself considered the demand too high, he would oblige them by 
 telling what he thought would be reasonable. He replied, that if they 
 would name sixty millions, and pay the American claims, about twenty 
 millions more, he would communicate the ofEer to the first consul. Mr. 
 L. told him " that it was vain to ask any thing that was so greatly be- 
 yond our means ; that true policy would dictate to the first consul not 
 to press such a demand ; that he must know that it must render the pre- 
 sent government (of the United States) unpopular, and have a tendency 
 at the next election, to throw the power into the hands of men who were 
 most hostile to a connection with France ; and that this would probably 
 happen in the midst of a war." Marbois feared the consul would not 
 relax. Mr. L. asked him to press upon the consul the argument that 
 the country was not worth the price asked, together with the danger of 
 seeing the country pass into the hands of Great Britain. He told him 
 that he had seen the ardor of the Americans to take it by force, and the 
 
208 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 difficulty with whicli they were restrained by the prudence of the presi- 
 dent ; that he must easily see how much the hands of the war party 
 w^ould be strengthened, when they learned that France was on the eve 
 of a rupture with England. In the same interview, Marbois was asked 
 whether, in case of a purchase, France would stipulate never to possess 
 the Floridas, and that she would aid us to procure them ; to which he 
 replied in the affirmative. 
 
 Although the ministers had no instructions to purchase Louisiana, the 
 thing not having been contemplated — perhaps never before thought of — 
 but the offer to sell having been made by Bonaparte, and the great value 
 of the acquisition to the United States being considered, our ministers 
 were induced to assume the responsibility of transcending their author- 
 ity. The conference sketched above, took place on the 13th of April, 
 and on the 30th, the treaty was signed by the parties to the negotiation. 
 
 Among the stipulations of the treaty was one conceding to the vessels 
 of France and Spain coming directly from any part of their respective 
 dominions, loaded only with the products of the same, the right, for 
 twelve years, to enter the ports of the ceded territory on the same terms 
 as vessels of the United States coming directly from the same countries. 
 During this time, no other nation was to enjoy the same privileges ; and 
 thereafter, France was to enjoy the footing of the most favored nations. 
 The sum to be paid was 60,000,000 francs, and the French debt which 
 was not to exceed 20,000,000 ; the precise amount not having been ascer- 
 tained. An investigation of the claims was provided for in the treaty. 
 The French debt having been subsequently determined to be $3,750,000 
 the Avhole purchase amounted to $15,000,000, The treaty consisted of 
 three separate parts ; the first being properly the treaty of cession. This 
 was followed by two conventions, the first of which contained the stipu- 
 lation for the payment of the 60,000,000 francs in six per cent, stock, 
 interest to be paid half yearly ; the principal to be paid in annual in- 
 stalments of not less than three millions of dollars, to commence fifteen 
 years after the exchange of ratifications. The other convention stipulated 
 the payment of the claims of American citizens against France, and 
 established the mode of determining them. 
 
 Thus was obtained, in consequence of an unexpected offer of Bona- 
 parte, and contrary to the instructions of our government and to the 
 constitution, an acquisition to the United States of incalculable value. 
 Mr. Jefferson admitted this purchase and " annexation " to be unauthor- 
 ized, and proposed an ex post facto amendment of the constitution, to 
 give sanction to the measure, but which was never attempted, 
 
 Mr. Monroe, soon after his departure from the United States, was 
 appointed (April 18, 1803,) minister to Great Britain, whither he pro- 
 
PURCHASE OF LOUISIAITA. 
 
 209 
 
 ceeded after the conclusion of the treaty at Paris, to take the place of 
 Mr King, who wished to return, having represented the United States 
 at London seven years. 
 
 As the exchange of ratifications was to be made within six months from 
 the date of the treaty, it became necessary for the president to convene 
 congress before the regular day of its meeting, in order to submit the 
 treaty to the senate for approval. Congress was accordingly assembled 
 on the 17th of October; and on the 20th it was ratified by that body 
 ten days before the expiration of the six months. On the 31st, an act 
 was passed for taking possession of the territory, and for its temporary 
 government ; on the 10th of November, an act was passed for creating 
 a stock to the amount of $11,250,000, to be paid to France ; and an act 
 providmg for the payment of the claims of our citizens 
 
 By the treaty of 1800, between France and Spain, it was agreed that, 
 m case of the cession of the Louisiana territory by France, Spain was 
 to be preferred. The necessary haste in concluding the treaty did not 
 admit of a previous consultation with the Spanish government. Dis- 
 pleased with this violation of a treaty engagement on the part of France 
 that government withheld its assent to the late cession to the United 
 otates, for nearly a year. 
 
 Before the close of the session, an act was passed dividing Louisiana 
 into two territories. All that portion, lying south of the Mississippi 
 temtory, and of an east and west line from the river, at the 33d de- 
 gree of north latitude, to the western boundary of •the territory was to 
 constitute the territory of Orleans; and the residue was to be called the 
 district of Louisiana. There being within this district but few inhabi- 
 tants and these chiefly residing along the river in villages of which the 
 principal was St. Louis, the district, for the purpose of government, was 
 placed under the jurisdiction of Indiana, then comprising all the original 
 north-western territory, except the state of Ohio which had been recently 
 formed. (1802.) ^ 
 
 In that part of the act relating to the government of the territory of 
 Orleans was a provision prohibiting the bringing of slaves into it from 
 beyond the hmits of the United States, or from any of the states such as 
 had been imported since the 1st of May, 1798, under a penalty of three 
 hundred dollars; and the slaves were to be free. The introduction of 
 this provision into the law is said to have been the result of a memorial 
 ot an abohtion convention, praying congress to prohibit the farther im- 
 portation of slaves into the purchased territory. At the same session 
 a committee of the house, acting upon an unfavorable report made at the 
 preceding session on a memorial from a convention of the people of 
 Indiana asking for a suspension of the anti-slavery article of the ordinance 
 14 
 
210 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of 1787, reported in favor of such suspension for ten years ! Slaves "bom 
 ■within the United States only were to be admitted ; and their descendants 
 were to be free, males at twenty-five, and females at twenty-one years of 
 age. No action was taken on the report. A similar application to con- • 
 gi-ess from the same territory three years afterward, also failed, after 
 having again received a favorable report. 
 
 An act was also passed, further to protect our commerce against the 
 Barbary powers ; the expense, of equipping and manning the necessary 
 vessels to be provided for by increasing the duties on imports two and 
 a half per cent., and if imported in foreign vessels, ten per cent. ; the 
 money thus raised to be called the " Mediterranean fund." 
 
 At this session, by the constitutional majority of two-thirds, the 
 change in the election of president and vice-president was proposed to 
 the several states ; which, having been ratified by the requisite number i 
 of states, became a part [the 12th article of amendment] of the constitu-. 
 tion. Of the sixteen states, all but Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 
 Delaware, were in favor of the amendment ; the ratification by three- 
 fourths being necessary. 
 
 Apprehensions were entertained of serious diflSculties with Spain. A ' 
 convention had been concluded with that government in August, 1802, 
 for the adjustment of claims for spoliations upon our commerce, and for ' 
 depredations of French craisers which had been harbored in the ports • 
 of Spain, where the prizes had been condemned. By the terms of the 
 treaty, the claims we^ to be adjusted by a joint board of commissioners 
 appointed by both governments. But the ratification had been refused ' 
 by Spain, her displeasure having been excited by our acquisition of 
 Louisiana, and the establishment of a port of entry within what she 
 claimed to be the boundary of her Florida possessions. On being ' 
 assured that there was no intention to take forcible possession of the '' 
 territory, but that our claims in that quarter would be reseiTed for ' 
 future discussion, her assent to the cession of Louisiana was given. The • 
 treaty for the settlement of claims, however, the king of Spain refused to ' 
 ratify until the 9th of July, 1818, nearly sixteen years after it was con- 
 cluded and signed at Madrid by Mr. Charles Pinckney and Pedro ' 
 Cevallos. It was proclaimed by president Monroe, December 22, 1818. 
 
 The question as to the time boundaries of Louisiana was long in dis-' 
 pute. As held by France prior to 1763, the territory extended west to 
 the Rio Bravo, or Rio del Norte, (now commonly called Rio Grande,) 
 and east of the Mississippi to the river Perdido, which separated it from 
 the Spanish province of Florida. The eastern part was transferred to 
 Great Britain, and with some additional territory ceded by Spain, called 
 West Florida. Therefore as Spain received it from France, it was 
 
BOUNDARY TREATY WITH ENGLAND, 211 
 
 bounded on the east by the Mississippi river and lakes Pontchartrain 
 and Borgne. In 1783, the Floridas were restored to Spain. Now, did 
 Spain, by this restoration, acquire the western portion of Florida to the 
 Mississippi, which she did not originally receive from France ; but which 
 belonged to France before the cession of 1763? In other words, did 
 the United States receive the original Louisiana as owned by France ; 
 or Louisiana as received from France by Spain? The temtory con- 
 veyed was described in the treaty, as " the colony or province of Louis- 
 iana, with the same extent as it now has in the hands of Spain, and that 
 it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the 
 treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states." 
 This language would of course admit different constructions. Mr. Liv- 
 ingston considered the cession as including all originally owned by 
 France, except what Spain might have ceded to other nations by subse 
 quent treaties. 
 
 A formal delivery of the temtory was made on the 20th of December, 
 1803, in the city of New Orleans, by the French commissioner, Laussaut, 
 to Gov. Claibourne, of the Mississippi territory, and Gen. James Wilkin- 
 son, who received the ceded territory on the part of the United States. 
 Nothing oflBcial passed on that occasion concerning the boundaries ; but 
 Laussaut confidentially signified, that the territory did not include any 
 part of West Florida, but that it extended westwardly to the del Norte. 
 Orders were accordingly obtained from the Spanish authorities for the de- 
 livery of all the posts on the west side of the river and on the island of New 
 Orleans. No orders were given to our commissioners to demand those 
 in West Florida ; first, because it was presumed, that the demand would 
 be rejected by the Spanish authority at New Orleans, and that the 
 French commissioner would not support it; secondly, because, if 
 opposed by him, our title would be weakened, and in either of the cases, 
 we should be prematurely compelled to choose between an overt submis- 
 sion to the refusal and a resort to force ; thirdly, because mere silence 
 would be no bar to a plea, at any time, that a delivery of a part, partic- 
 ularly of the seat of government, was a virtual delivery of the whole ; 
 whilst, in the mean time, we could ascertain the views, and claim the 
 intei-position of the French government, and avail ourselves of any favor- 
 able circumstances for effecting an amicable adjustment with the govern- 
 ment of Spain. 
 
 In May, 1803, Mr. King, our minister at London, concluded a treaty 
 adjusting the boundary line between the two nations. On the 24th of 
 October it was laid before the senate. Although the president, in his 
 j' message communicating the treaty, had expressed his approval of it, in 
 the ratification the 5th article was excepted; and the treaty, thus 
 
212 THE AMERICAN STATESMAIf. 
 
 amended, was sent back to the British government for concurrence. In 
 the letter accompanying the treaty from Mr. Madison, secretary of state, 
 to Mr. Monroe, who had succeeded Mr. King, the reason alleged for ex- 
 cepting the 5th article was, that as it was of a later date than the last 
 convention with France, ceding Louisiana to the United States, the line 
 to be run in pursuance of the 5th article might be found or alleged to 
 abridge the northern extent of that territory. Expunging this articl-e 
 would leave the boundary where it was when Louisiana was in posses- 
 sion of France, and subject to future friendly negotiation. And con- 
 sidering the remoteness of the time when a line would become necessary, 
 the postponement was deemed to be of little consequence. Great Brit- 
 ain did not consent to the proposed amendment ; and the boundary line 
 continued in dispute for more than thirty years. 
 
 CHAPTER XY. 
 
 ME. Jefferson's re-election. — relations with france and Eng- 
 land. TREATY WITH THE LATTER REJECTED. AFFAIR OF THE 
 
 CHESAPEAKE. SLAVE TRADE ABOLISHED. 
 
 Near the close of the session of 1804, a caucus of the republican 
 members was held for the nomination of candidates for president and 
 vice-president. Mr. JefEerson was nominated for reelection. Mr. Burr, 
 not being generally acceptable to the party, was dropped, and George 
 Clinton, of New York, was selected as the candidate for vice-president. 
 The federal candidates were Charles C. Pinckney and Rufus King. 
 JefEerson and Clinton were elected almost unanimously, having received 
 each L62 of the electoral votes to 14 given for their opponents ; the lat- 
 -ter having received only the votes of Connecticut, (9,) of Delaware, (3,) 
 and 2 of the 11 votes of Maryland. 
 
 Mr. JefEerson differed essentially from his predecessors in his views of 
 the means of national defense. They had encouraged an effective fortifi- 
 cation of our harbors, and the maintenance of an efficient navy. Mr. 
 Jefferson supposed an adequate defense could be provided at a far less 
 expense. At the session of 1803, an act was passed, authorizing the 
 president to procure the building of fifteen small vessels called " gun- 
 ;boats," for which $50,000 were appropriated. The treaty with France 
 having removed the occasion for any additional armament, the money 
 
NATIONAL DEFENSE " GUN-BOATS." 213 
 
 was not then expended. Confident, however, of the efiiciency of these 
 vessels, he contemplated the gradual extension of this system as a sub- 
 stitute for that which was then in operation. In his annual message of 
 November, 1804, he informed congress that the building of the boats 
 under the act of 1803, was in a course of execution, and recommended 
 to congress to provide for their increase from year to year. His plan, 
 elsewhere expressed, was to build about two hundred and fifty of these 
 boats, twenty-five every year, for ten years. 
 
 The advantages of this species of vessels enumerated in the message, 
 were, " their utility toward supporting within our waters the authority 
 of the laws ; the promptness with which they will be manned by the sea- 
 men and militia of the place the moment they are wanting ; the facility 
 of their assembling from different parts of the coast to any point where 
 they are required in greater force than ordinary ; the economy of their 
 maintenance and preservation from decay when not in actual service ; 
 and the competence of our finances to this defensive provision without 
 any new burthen." The intended mode of " preservation from decay " 
 was to haul them up under sheds, whence they could be readily launched 
 when wanted. The expense of these two hundred and fifty boats he esti- 
 mated at only about one million of dollars. Congress, however, not 
 suJSBciently confident of the success of the plan, appropriated only 
 $60,000 for the building of not exceeding twenty-five boats. In April, 
 1806, fifty more were authorized; and in December, 1807, not exceeding 
 one hundred and eighty-eight. This system of cheap marine, however, 
 having been found inefficient, became very unpopular, anjj. scarcely sur- 
 vived the period of his administration. Indeed, two years before its 
 close, congress, against his own recommendation, refused to make an ap- 
 propriation for this object. 
 
 As a substitute for the usual expensive fortifications, the president 
 proposed heavy cannon, mounted on carriages, to be conveyed to any 
 places on the coast or banks of our navigable waters where they might 
 be wanted to resist the approach of an enemy. 
 
 Among the acts passed at the second session of the 8th congress, 
 (1804-5,) the last of Mr. Jefferson's first term, was an act to divide the 
 Indiana territory into two separate governments. By this act, the ter- 
 ritory of Michigan was formed, and provision made for its temporary 
 government. 
 
 The inhabitants of Orleans territory, being dissatisfied with their gov- 
 emraent, petitioned congress for the privilege of forming a state govern- 
 ment. An act was passed, authorizing the president to establish within 
 the territory a government similar to that of the Mississippi territory. 
 There was to be a legislature like that provided by the ordinance of con- 
 
214 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 gress of 1787 ; an assembly elected by the people, and a legislative 
 council. [See Ordinance of 1787.] And tlie inhabitants, when they 
 should number 60,000, might form a state constitution and be admitted 
 into the union. 
 
 The district of Louisiana, formerly under the jurisdiction of Indiana, 
 was formed into a separate district with a government of its own, and 
 called the territory of Louisiana ; the governor to be appointed by the 
 president, and the legislative power to be vested in the governor and 
 judges, with power also to establish courts. 
 
 On the 4th of March, 1805, Mr. Jefferson was inaugurated the second 
 time as president of the United States. In his inaugural address, he 
 alluded, in general terms, to the policy of his administration towards 
 foreign nations. " Justice had been done them on all occasions ; and 
 mutual interests and intercourse on fair and equal terms had been 
 cherished." Respecting his domestic policy he said : " The suppression 
 of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us 
 to discontinue our internal taxes. These, covering our land with officers, 
 and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that pro- 
 cess of domiciliary vexation, which, once entered, is scarcely to be re- 
 strained from reaching successively every article of produce and property 
 * * * The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, 
 is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to do- 
 mestic comforts ; being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and 
 incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be 
 the pleasure ^d the pride of an American to ask. What farmer, what 
 mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer in the United States? 
 These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the 
 government, to fulfill contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the 
 native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to ap- 
 ply such a surplus to our public debts, as places at a short day their final 
 redemption, and that redemption once effected, the revenue thereby 
 liberated may, by a just repartition among the states, and a cori'espond- 
 ing amendment of the constitution, be applied, in time of peace, to rivers, 
 canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects 
 within each state. In time of war . . . aided by other resources reserved 
 for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses of the year, 
 without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burdening 
 them with the debts of the past." 
 
 In reference to the acquisition of Louisiana he said, it " has been dis- 
 approved by some, from a candid apprehension that the enlargement of 
 our territory would endanger its union. But who can limit the extent 
 to which the federative principle may operate effectively ? The larger 
 
Jefferson's second inauguration, 215 
 
 our association, the less will it be slialcen by local passions ; and, in any 
 view, is it not better tbat the opposite bank of the Mississippi should be 
 settled by our own brethren and children, than by strangers of another 
 family ? With which shall we be most likely to live in harmony and 
 friendly intercourse ? " 
 
 His philanthropic regard for the Indians is thus expressed : " Endow 
 ed with the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an ardent love ot 
 liberty and independence, and occupying a country which left them no 
 desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of overflowing population from 
 other regions directed itself on these shores ; without power to divert, or 
 habits to contend against, they have been overwhelmed by the current, 
 or driven before it ; now reduced within limits too narrow for the hunt- 
 er's state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the domes- 
 tic arts ; to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable them 
 to maintain their place in existence, and to prepare them for that state 
 in society, which to bodily comforts adds the improvement of the mind 
 and morals. We have therefore liberally furnished them with the im- 
 plements of husbandry and household use; we placed among them 
 instructors in the arts of first necessity ; and they are covered with the 
 segis of the law. against aggressors from among ourselves." But there 
 were " powerful obstacles to encounter ; " among which was " the influ- 
 ence of crafty individuals among them who now felt themselves some- 
 thing, and feared to become nothing in any other order of things. * * 
 They too have their anti-philosophers who find an interest in keeping 
 things in their present state, who dread reformation, and exert all their 
 faculties to maintain the ascendency of habit over the duty of improving 
 our reason and obeying its mandates." 
 
 He spoke of the abuses of the press in opposing his administration. 
 " They might have been corrected by the wholesome punishments re- 
 served and provided by the laws of the several states against falsehood 
 and defamation ; but public duties more urgent press on the time of 
 public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their 
 punishment in the public indignation." The experunent had been suc- 
 cessfully tried, " whether a government, conducting itself in the true 
 spirit of its constitution, with zeal and purity, and doing no act which it 
 would be unwilling the whole world should witness, can be written down 
 by falsehood and defamation." He approved the enforcing of state laws 
 against false and defamatory publications as conducive to public fliorals 
 and public tranquillity ; but " the experiment is noted, to prove that, 
 since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opin- 
 ions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs no 
 other legal restraint." 
 
216 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 He congratulated tlie country on " the union of sentiment now mani- 
 fested so generally, as arguing harmony and happiness to our future 
 course." Others would rally to the same point ; " facts were piercing 
 through the veil drawn over them ; " and the " doubting would at length 
 think and act with the mass of their fellow-citizens." 
 
 The 9th congTess commenced its 1st session the 2d of December, 1805. 
 The message of the president was chiefly devoted to our foreign relations, 
 which it represented as being in an unfavorable condition. He said : — 
 " Our coasts have been infested and . our harbors watched by private 
 armed vessels, some of them without commissions, some with illegal 
 commissions, others with those of legal form, but committing piratical 
 acts beyond the authority of their commissions. They have captured in 
 the very entrance of our harbors, as well as in the high seas, not only 
 the vessels of our friends coming to trade with us, but our own also." 
 Allusion was herein made to the French and Spanish cruisers who infest- 
 ed our southern coast, annoying our commerce with the West Indies. 
 
 He referred also to the unsettled difficulties with Spain. She still 
 refused to ratify the treaty which provided compertsation for spoliations 
 during the former European war; and had renewed the same practice 
 since the renewal of that war. On the Mobile, our commerce was ob- 
 structed by arbitrary duties and vexatious searches; and she had re- 
 jected propositions for adjusting amicably the boundaries of Louisiana. 
 Inroads had been made into the territories of Orleans and the Missis- 
 sippi, and our citizens plundered in the very ports which had been de- 
 livered up by Spain ; and he had found it necessary to order troops to 
 the frontier to protect our citizens and repel future aggressions. Other 
 details would be the subject of another communication. 
 
 The message also noticed the conduct of Great Britain. " The same 
 system of hovering on our coasts and harbors under color of seeking ene- 
 mies has been also carried on by public armed ships, to the great annoy- 
 ance and oppression of our commerce. New principles, too, have been 
 interpolated into the law of nations, founded neither in justice nor the 
 usage or acknowledgment of nations. According to these, a belligerent 
 takes to himself a commerce with its own enemy which it denies to a 
 neutral, on the ground of its aiding that enemy in the war. But reason 
 revolts at such an inconsistency, and the neutral having equal right with 
 the belligerent to decide the question, the interest of our constituents 
 and the duty of maintaining the authority of reason, the only umpire be- 
 tween just nations, impose on us the obligation of providing an effectual 
 and determined opposition to a doctrine so injurious to the rights of 
 peaceable nations." 
 
 In the new European war, France, Holland, and Spain were allied 
 
RELATIONS WITH FRANCE AND ENGLAND. 217 
 
 against Great Britain. The exposure to capture of tlie merchant vessels 
 of the belligerent nations, had caused their withdrawal from the ocean : 
 and the United States and other neutral maritime nations were enjoying 
 an immensely profitable carrying trade, not only with the colonies of the 
 belligerents, but with their mother countries, and on principles recog- 
 nized by Great Britain herself. It was an established rule of national 
 law, that the goods of a neutral^ consisting of articles not contraband 
 of war, in neutral vessels, employed in a direct trade between a neutral 
 and a belligerent country, are protected, except in ports invested or 
 blockaded. In conformity to this principle, a direct trade was carried 
 on with the enemies of Great Britain and their colonies, and chiefly by 
 American vessels ; and many of the goods imported by our merchants 
 from those colonies, were reexported to their parent countries. Not 
 well pleased to see American merchants so rapidly amassing fortunes, 
 and her enemies receiving by American vessels the productions of their 
 own colonies, without the hazard which would attend the transportation 
 in their own vessels, Great Britain ordered the capture of our vessels, 
 alleging that the trade was unlawful, on the principle, that a trade from 
 a colony to its parent country, not being i^ermitted to other nations in 
 a time of peace, can not be made lawful in a time of war ; that is to 
 say, because these countries, in time of peace, monopolize the trade with 
 their colonies, the United States might not avail themselves of the ad- 
 vantages of a participation in this trade tendered to them in time of 
 war. It was alleged, also that the voyage was unbroken by the landing 
 of the goods in a port of the United States, and paying duties there, 
 and, therefore, that the cargo was subject to condemnation, even under 
 the British regulation of 1V98, which so far relaxed the general principle 
 as to allow a direct trade between a belligerent colony and a neutral 
 country carrying on such a trade. 
 
 These were the " new principles " which the president said " had been 
 interpolated into the law of nations." The general principle, that a 
 neutral nation is disallowed, in time of war, a trade not allowed in time 
 of peace, was of modern date, assumed by Great Britain for her own 
 special interest, and maintained by no other nation. It was contrary 
 also to the practice of Great Britain herself. She had invariably re- 
 laxed her navigation laws in time of war, so as to admit neutrals to 
 trade where they were not allowed to trade in time of peace, particu- 
 iarly with her colonies. She had, by law and by orders in council, 
 authorized her own subjects to trade directly with her enemies. And it 
 was alleged that American vessels and cargoes, after having been con- 
 demned by British courts under pretense of unlawful commerce, were 
 sent, on British account, to the enemies of Great Britain ! 
 
218 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 These depredations upon American commerce produced great excite- 
 ment and alarm among the merchants in commercial places. Memorials 
 from merchants in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, and 
 other places were sent to the president and to congress, on the subject, 
 praying for the interposition of the government. The number of captures 
 was large, and had been made principally by the British, a few by the 
 French and Spanish privateers. Of the vessels captured which had 
 been insured in the Philadelphia insurance oflSces alone, there were 
 more than seventy. The Philadelphia memorial pointed out the in- 
 consistency of Great Britain. In 1801, it was held by her ministry 
 and her courts, " that the produce of the colonies of the enemy 
 may be imported by a neutral into his own country, and be reexported 
 thence, even to the mother country of such colony ; " and, " that landing 
 the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country, breaks the con- 
 tinuity of the voyage, and is such an importation as legalizes the trade, 
 although the goods be reshipped in the same vessel, and on account of 
 the same neutral proprietors, and forwarded for sale to the mother 
 country." Now, in 1805, it is decided that the landing and paying 
 duties, does not break the continuity of the voyage. 
 
 On the 11 th of January, 1806, the president communicated the me- 
 morials to congress, with a message in which he stated, that the right of 
 a neutral to carry on commercial intercourse with every part of the 
 dominions of a belligerent permitted by the laws of the country, (except 
 blockaded ports and contraband of war,) had been recognized by Great 
 Britain in the actual payment of damages awarded to the United States 
 for the infraction of that right, in which award her own commissioners 
 had concurred. He also noticed the impressment of our seamen by 
 Great Britain. 
 
 In answer to a resolution of the senate, Mr. Madison, secretary of 
 state, communicated a statement of the various principles interpolated 
 into the law of nations by Great Britain and France. Among those in- 
 troduced by the latter, was a decree, that every privateer, of which two- 
 thirds of the crew should not be either natives of England, or subjects 
 of a power the enemy of France, should be considered as pirates ; and 
 another, that every foreigner found on board the vessels of war, or of 
 commerce of the enemy, was to be treated as a prisoner of war, and 
 could have no right to the protection of the diplomatic and commercial 
 agents of his nation. Other unjustifiable innovations on the law of na- 
 tions were found in a decree issued from St, Domingo against our trade 
 with the revolted blacks of that island. The secretary mentioned, as an 
 unjustifiable measure, the mode of search practiced by British ships, and 
 by the cruisers of France and Spain. Instead of remaining at a proper 
 
RELATIONS WITH FRANCE AND ENGLAND, 219 
 
 distance from the vessel to be searched, and sending their own boat with 
 a few men for the pui-pose, they compelled the vessel to send her papers 
 in her own boat, and sometimes with great danger from the condition of 
 the boat and the state of the weather. A report from the secretary of 
 state, March 5, 1806, stated the number of American seamen impressed 
 or detained by British ships of war or privateers whose names had been 
 reported to the department since the statement made at the last session, 
 to be 913, and the aggregate number since the commencement of the 
 present war in Europe, 22*73. An act was passed at this session, (Feb. 
 13,1806,) appropriating two millions oi dollars "for defraying any ex- 
 traordinary expenses attending the intercourse between the United 
 States and foreign nations." The passage of this act was the occasion 
 of much excited feeling in the house, and of a temporary defection of a 
 portion of the democratic members. On the 6th of December, a confi- 
 dential message on the subject of our difficulties with Spain, was sent to 
 the house, submitting the question as to the employment of force in re- 
 pelling her aggressions in Louisiana: The message, with the accompany- 
 ing papers, having been read with closed doors, was referred to a select 
 committee, of which John Randolph was chairman; and who was in- 
 formed by the president and Messrs. Madison and Gallatin, that really, 
 instead of troops, money was wanted for the president, to be used in ne- 
 gotiation for the purchase of Florida, or at least the western part of it. 
 Randolph was told, also, says Hildreth, that, as things now stood, 
 France would not allow Spain to adjust her differences with us ; that she 
 wanted money, and that we must give it to her, or have a Spanish and 
 French war. The reason for not asking openly for the money, has been 
 supposed to be, that the president did not wish to subject the adminis- 
 tration to the charge of inconsistency, by placing in the hands of the 
 executive large sums of money for unknown objects, a practice which 
 they had expressly condemned ; but preferred that the appropriation 
 should appear to have been made by congress without solicitation. 
 
 Mr. Randolph was much displeased at the attempt to raise the money 
 in this covert manner ; and the efforts of Mr. Bidwell, of Massa- 
 chusetts, who endeavored, at the instance of the president, to get the 
 appropriation incorporated into the report were unsuccessful. The 
 committee reported on the 3d of January, 1806, that the refusal of 
 Spain to ratify the treaty of 1802, and to adjust the boundaries of 
 Louisiana ; her taxing of our commerce on the Mobile ; and her viola- 
 tions of our territory, afforded just cause of war : but the committee, 
 rather than recommend any measure that would interrupt the prosperity 
 of the country, reported a resolution in favor of raising a sufficient num- 
 ber of troops to protect the southern tenitory against Spanish aggression. 
 
220 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Bidwell then submitted a resolution proposing an appropriation 
 for the purpose of defraying any extraordinary expenses that might be 
 incurred in foreign intercourse. The resolution of the committee was 
 rejected, owing perhaps to the fact that, during the debate, one of the 
 president's friends inadvertently disclosed his " secret wishes " to the 
 house ; and Mr. Bidwell's resolution for appropriating $2,000,000 was 
 adopted. The act making the appropriation authorized the president to 
 borrow the money at six per cent., and pledged for its reimbursement 
 the extra duty of two and a half per cent., mentioned in a preceding 
 chapter as constituting the Mediterranean fund, which, peace having 
 been made with Tripoli, was not wanted for the purpose intended. A 
 resolution was adopted, however, declaring that " an exchange of teni- 
 tory between the United States and Spain, would be the most advantageous 
 mode of settling the existing differences about their respective bound- 
 aries." 
 
 On this question, and from this time, Mr. Randolph and a few other 
 republican members cooperated with the federalists, with Avhom he sub- 
 sequently (1812) voted against the declaration of war. His opposition 
 to the administration has been by some attributed to the refusal of Mr. 
 Jefferson to appoint him to a foreign mission for which his friends had 
 made application, though without his own solicitation. 
 
 To appease the government of France, whose complaints had assumed 
 a somewhat menacing aspect, an act was passed to suspend all commer- 
 cial intercourse with the revolting blacks of St. Domingo. All persons 
 residing in the United States were forbidden to trade with any person 
 in any part of that island not in possession or under the acknowledged 
 government of France, on pain of forfeiture of the vessel and cargo. 
 
 To retaliate the impressment of our seamen and the infringement of 
 our neutral rights, on the part of Great Britain, an act was passed, pro- 
 hibiting the importation, from any of her ports, or of the ports of her 
 colonies, any goods manufactured of leather, silk, hemp, tin, or brass ; low 
 priced woolen cloths, window glass and glass ware, silver and plated 
 ware, paper of every description, nails and spikes, hats, ready-made 
 clothing, millinery, playing cards, beer, ale, porter, pictures and prints. 
 
 An act was passed, authorizing the president, if he should deem it 
 necessary, to call on the executives of the states for 100,000 militia, to 
 be kept in readiness for immediate service ; and an act appropriating not 
 exceeding $150,000 for fortifying forts and harbors, and not exceeding 
 $250,000 for building the fifty gun-boats before mentioned. 
 
 At this session was passed the act authorizing the construction of the 
 Cumberland road ; a work which has been the subject of more frequent 
 discussions and appropriations than almost any other public improve- 
 
TREATY WITH ENGLAND REJECTED. 221 
 
 ment ever projected in this country. The road was to be made from 
 Cumberland in Maryland, to tbe state of Ohio. It has since been con- 
 tinued westward through several states. 
 
 To carry out the intention of the act appropriating the money for the 
 purchase of Florida, the president appointed General Armstrong, of New 
 York, and Mr. Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, as joint commissioners with 
 those of Spain, to settle our difficulties with that country. They met at 
 Paris. It was hoped that the influence of the French government might 
 aid in effecting the desired consummation. The negotiation, however, 
 was unsuccessful. Mr. Bowdoin was at the time minister to Spain. Mr. 
 Charles Pinckney having desired to be recalled, Mr. Bowdoin had been 
 appointed to succeed him. 
 
 It will be recollected, that the first ten articles of the treaty negoti- 
 ated by Mr. Jay, in 1794, were permanent, and that the articles regu- 
 lating commercial intercourse were to continue in force two years after 
 the conclusion of the then existing European war, but in no case longer 
 than ten years. This part of the treaty having expired in 1804, the 
 British government proposed to extend the period of its continuance. 
 The benefits ascribed to this treaty, had induced a large portion of the 
 people to suppose that an offer to renew it would have been accepted. 
 But it was declined. Among the objections to the treaty at the time of 
 its ratification, were its supposed unfavorable operation upon the inter- 
 ests of France, and the absence of any stipulation against the impress- 
 ment of our seamen. The latter objection, in particular, was urged 
 against its renewal. A provision against impressment was certainly very 
 desirable, and it was probably hoped by the administration, that the 
 British government would eventually be induced to consent to such pro- 
 vision. 
 
 On the 12th of May 1806, William Pinkney, of Maryland, was asso- 
 ciated with Monroe, as envoy plenipotentiary to Great Britain. Another 
 attempt was made to effect a satisfactory arrangement on the subject of 
 impressment. But the British government was still unwilling to relin- 
 quish its claim to take from our vessels such seamen as appeared to be 
 British subjects. 
 
 On the 31st of December, a treaty was concluded with British com- 
 missioners. A large proportion of the provisions of this treaty was 
 tdken from that of 1794. It was also silent on the subject of impress- 
 ment. In their letter accompanying the treaty, our ministers said, that, 
 although the British government did not feel at liberty to relinquish the 
 claim to search our merchant vessels for British seamen, satisfactory 
 assurance had been given them, that the practice would be essentially 
 if not completely abandoned ; and that by the policy adopted by that 
 
222 THB AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 government, the United States were made as secure against tlie exercise 
 of the right claimed as if it had been relinquished by treaty. On the 
 2d of March, the president received from Mr. Erskine, the British min- 
 ister at Washington, a copy of the treaty ; -but considering it liable to 
 several serious objections, the most important of which seemed to be that 
 it contained no stipulation against impressment, he did not even submit 
 it to the senate. 
 
 The rejection of the treaty, by which our commercial intercourse with 
 Great Britain was left without regulation, caxised much dissatisfaction 
 with the commercial community. And the refusal of the president to 
 submit it to the senate, was condemned by the fede;'iil party. It was 
 admitted to be objectionable in several particulars ; but the negotiators 
 on the part of the United States being political friends of the president, 
 and having been also opposed to the treaty of 1V94, it was presumed 
 that a better treaty could not be obtained ; and it was preferable to no 
 treaty at all. Or, had it been laid before the senate, some valuable 
 modification of it might perhaps have been efiected. 
 
 The course of the president was approved by the republican party. 
 As the advice of the senate was not binding on the executive, he ought 
 not to yield to it when, in his judgment, a measure was clearly prejudi- 
 cial to the public interest. It had been said that he ought to have sub- 
 mitted it with propositions for its modification. But if he was convinced 
 that the treaty was all that could be obtained from the British govern- 
 ment, and that its adoption was impolitic, the withholding of it could 
 not be justly considered a violation of duty. 
 
 A renewal of the negotiation, with a view to certain alterations of the 
 rejected treaty, was proposed by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney to Mr. Can- 
 ning, successor to Mr. Fox, who had died since the conclusion of the treaty. 
 But the proposal to negotiate on the basis of that treaty was declined. 
 Mr. Monroe conceiving any acceptable arrangement with the British 
 government to be hopeless, returned near the close of the year 1807. 
 
 Displeased at the manner in which the treaty had been received, Mr- 
 Monroe, in a letter to Mr. Madison, dated February 23, 1808, vindicated 
 the course of himself and his associate, and the treaty they had negoti- 
 ated. He considered the informal assurance alluded to, and the accom- 
 panying explanations, as placing the United States on ground both 
 honorable and advantageous. " The British paper," continues Mr. 
 Monroe, " states that the king was not prepared to disclaim or derogate 
 from a right on which the security of the British navy might essentially 
 depend, especially in a conjuncture when he was engaged in wars which 
 enforced the necessity of the most vigilant attention to the preservation 
 and supply of his naval force ; that he had directed his commissioners to 
 
AFFAIK OF THE CHESAPEAKE. 223 
 
 give to the commissioners of the United States the most positive assu- 
 rances that instructions had been given, and should be repeated and 
 enforced, to observe the gi-eatest caution in the impressing of British 
 seamen, to preserve the citizens of the United States from molestation 
 or injury ; and that prompt redress should be afforded on any represen- 
 tation of injury sustaLaed by them." He said, " the negotiation on the 
 subject of impressment was to be postponed for a limited time and for 
 a special object only, and to be renewed as soon as that object was 
 accomplished ; and, in the interim, that the practice of impressment was 
 to correspond essentially with the views and interests of the United 
 States." 
 
 The opinion that the ratification of the treaty would have been the 
 better policy, has always been extensively entertained. By leaving the 
 question of impressment open for future negotiation, nothing could have 
 been lost, while by the rejection of the treaty much was hazarded. It 
 was construed by the government of Great Britain into an indisposition 
 on the part of the president, to preserve a friendly intercourse with that 
 nation. It left the relations between the two countries in a loose and 
 irritating condition, and was considered as one of a train of causes that 
 resulted in the war of 1812. 
 
 On the 22d of Jime, 1807, a British squadron of four vessels lay at 
 anchor near the capes of Virginia. As the United States frigate Chesa- 
 peake passed the squadron, the British frigate Leopard put off and went 
 to sea before the Chesapeake. When the latter came up, she was hailed 
 by Captain Humphreys of the Leopard, who said he had a dispatch to 
 deliver from the British commander-in-chief, meaning Admiral Berkeley 
 of the American station. The dispatch proved to be an order to take 
 from the Chesapeake certain men alleged to be deserters from a British 
 frigate. Commodore Barrow refused permission to search his vessel, 
 stating that he had forbidden his officers to enlist British subjects, and 
 that he did not believe any were on board. Whereupon the Chesapeake 
 received a broadside from the Leopard. Apprehending no danger, and 
 being unprepared for action, the Chesapeake immediately struck her flag, 
 having three men killed and eighteen wounded. A boat was then sent 
 with an officer and four men, from the Leopard, to the Chesapeake. Com- 
 modore Barrow considering the vessel a prize to the Leopard, the officers 
 tendered their swords to Captain Humphreys, but he declined receiving 
 them, saying he only wished to execute the order of the admiral ; and 
 having taken off four men, left the vessel, which returned to Hampton 
 Koads. A formal demand had been made upon our government by Mr. 
 Ersldne, the British minister at Washington, for the surrender of these 
 men. Three of them, as was made to appear after their capture, were 
 Americans, who had been in the British sei-vice. 
 
224 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Tliis outrage produced great excitement throughout the United States, 
 and was universally condemned. It is an established principle, that a 
 national vessel shall be considered as pai-t of the territory of the nation, 
 and equally inviolable ; wherefore the orders of Berkeley could under no 
 circumstances have been justifiable. 
 
 On the 2d of July, president Jefferson issued a proclamation requiring 
 all British armed vessels then within the harbors or waters of the United 
 States, to depart without delay, and interdicting the entrance of such 
 vessels. 
 
 A statement of the affair having been made by Mr. Monroe to Mr. 
 Canning, the latter declared, that, if the facts should prove to be as 
 stated, the act would be disowned by his government. Regarding the 
 proclamation as itself an act of retaliation, and as taking the reparation 
 into the hands of the American government, he inquired whether this 
 government would withdraw the proclamation on the knowledge of his 
 majesty's disavowal of the act which had occasioned its publication. 
 Mr. Monroe having remarked, in his note to Mr. Canning, that it would 
 be " improper to mingle with this more serious cause of complaint, other 
 examples of indignity and outrage to -which the United States have been 
 exposed from the British squadron." Mr. Canning also expressed the 
 wish of his government to adjust the case of the Leopard independently 
 of the question of impressment with which it had been unnecessarily con- 
 nected. And te said it was the intention of that government, if Mr. 
 Monroe was not authorized to treat of it separately, to lose no time in 
 sending a minister to America fully empowered to bring this unfortunate 
 dispute to a conclusion. Mr. Rose was afterward sent to this country 
 for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. Rose, on the 26th of January, 1808, stated to Mr. Madison, that 
 he was instructed not to enter upon any negotiation for the adjustment 
 of the Chesapeake affair, while the proclamation continued in f oi'ce ; and 
 in relation to his not having been commanded to enter into the discus- 
 sion of the other causes of complaint, he said, " it was because it had 
 been deemed improper to mingle them with the present matter ; an 
 opinion originally and distinctly expressed by Mr. Monroe, and assented 
 to by Mr. Canning." 
 
 Mr. Madison, in his reply, on the 5th of March, remarked : " It has 
 been sufficiently shown that the proclamation, as appears on the face of 
 it, was produced by a train of occuiTences terminating in the attack on 
 the American frigate, and not by this last alone. To a demand, there- 
 fore, that the proclamation be revoked, it would be perfectly fair to op- 
 pose a demand, that redress be first given for the numerous irregularities 
 which preceded the aggression on the American frigate, as well as for 
 
SLAVE TRADE ABOLISHED. 225 
 
 this particular aggression." And he argued, that even if the proclama- 
 tion had been founded upon this single aggression, the discontinuance of 
 the proclamation could not be justly claimed, because, as the seamen in 
 question were still retained, the aggression had not yet been discontinued. 
 
 Mr. Rose, having no authority to enter upon a negotiation on the con- 
 ditions required by our government, informed Mr. Madison that his 
 mission was terminated. This affair continued unadjusted for more than 
 four years after its occurrence; when Mr. Foster, then minister at 
 Washington, in behalf of his government, disavowed the act of Berkeley, 
 (who had been recalled soon after the aggression,) and offered to restore 
 the seamen and to make suitable pecuniary provision for the sufferers, 
 including the families of the seamen killed and wounded in the action. 
 Thus was this difficulty at length amicably settled. Its effects, however, 
 upon other questions at issue between the two countries, were not wholly 
 removed. 
 
 It was soon after the outrage upon the Chesapeake, that the United 
 States became a party in the triangular warfare of commercial restric- 
 tions which preceded the war of 1812, and constituted one of the prin- 
 cipal causes of that war. A connected history of our difficulties with 
 England and France will be given in succeeding chapters. 
 
 In his message at the commencement of the session of 1806 and 1807, 
 Mr. Jefferson suggested to congress the interposition of its authority for 
 the abolition of the slave trade, which, by the constitution, might be 
 terminated at the end of the year 1807. x4.n act was accordingly passed 
 at this session, to take effect at the earliest possible day. It prohibited 
 the importation after the 1st of January, 1808, of all persons of color 
 with intent to hold or dispose of them as slaves, or to be held to service or 
 labor. Any person concerned in fitting out a vessel for the slave trade, 
 was made liable to a fine of $20,000 ; or aiding or abetting therein, for 
 the purpose above mentioned, was subject to a penalty of $20,000 ; 
 and the vessel was forfeited. And the taking on board of any vessel, in 
 a foreign country, any colored person with intent to sell him within the 
 United States, was declared a high misdemeanor, punishable by imprison- 
 ment not more than ten, nor less than five years, and by fine not exceed- 
 ing $10,000, nor less than $1,000. And any person knowingly pur- 
 chasing or selling a colored person imported contrary to this act, was 
 liable to a fine of $800. The president was authorized to man and em- 
 ploy armed vessels to cniise on the coast of the United States, and to 
 direct the commanders of armed vessels to take and bring into port any 
 vessel having on board colored persons intended to be sold as slaves ; the 
 vessels if found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, 
 were liable to forfeiture ; and it authorized the president to man and, 
 15 
 
226 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 employ cruisers to seize and bring into port any vessel violating this 
 act ; such vessel to be forfeited, and her commander to be liable to fine 
 not exceeding .$10,000, and imprisoned not more than four nor less than 
 two years. Coasting vessels of not less than forty tons burthen were 
 permitted to transport slaves, under certain regulations, from state to 
 state ; and vessels of less burthen than forty tons might, without being 
 subject to the same penalties, transport slaves on rivers and inland bays 
 of the sea. 
 
 As usual on questions relating to slavery, there was a warm debate on 
 this occasion. To the prohibition of the importation of slaves, there was 
 no opposition. But certain details of the measure were the subjects of 
 much controversy. It was proposed that the persons unlawfully brought 
 into the country should be forfeited to the United States, and sold for 
 life, for the public benefit. Another proposition was to make them free. 
 And another to apprentice them for a term of years. A majority were 
 unwilling that the general government should be subjected to reproach 
 by the sale of human beings, and also that they should all be made free, 
 as some states had forbidden emancipation: it was therefore finally 
 agreed, that the several states should provide for the disposal of them. 
 
 CHAPTER XYL 
 
 THE COMMERCIAL WARFARE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND THE 
 
 UNITED STATES. BRITISH ORDERS IN COUNCIL*, FRENCH, BERLIN AND 
 
 MILAN DECREES ; THE EMBARGO, AC. ; DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. 
 
 The war of 1812 may be traced to remote causes — to those of a date 
 anterior even to that of the earliest transactions with which we com- 
 mence the following sketch. 
 
 In August, 1804, Great Britain declared the French ports, from Os- 
 tend to the Seine, in a state of blockade. On the 16th of May, 1806, 
 the British secretary of state, Mr. Fox, notified our minister at London, 
 Mr. Monroe, that measures had been directed to be taken for the block- 
 ade of all the coasts, rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to the river 
 Brest, both inclusive. This order, however, did not apply to neutral 
 vessels laden with goods not the property of his majesty's enemies, and 
 not contraband of war, provided they had not been laden at an enemy's 
 port, nor were bound to an enemy's port. Such vessels were " not pre- 
 
COMMERCIAL WARFARE. 227 
 
 vented from approacliing the said coasts, rivers, and ports, except those 
 from Ostend to the river Seine, which were to be considered as con- 
 tinued in a state of rigorous blockade." 
 
 The next day. May 17, Mr. Monroe communicated to Mr. Madison, 
 secretary of state, the note of Mr. Fox ; and in the letter accompanying 
 it, Mr. Monroe remarked, in relation to the supposed effects of this 
 measure upon the trade of the United States, as follows : " The note is 
 couched in terras of restraint, and professes to extend the blockade 
 further than was heretofore done ; nevertheless it takes it from many 
 ports already blockaded, indeed from all east of Ostend and west of the 
 Seine, except in articles contraband of war and enemies' property, which 
 are seizable without blockade. And in like form of exception, consider- 
 "ing every enemy as one power, it admits the trade of neutrals, within 
 the same limit, to bo free, in the productions of enemies' colonies, in 
 every but the direct route between the colony and the parent country. 
 * * * It can not be doubted that the note was drawn by the government 
 in reference to the question ; and if intended by the cabinet as a founda- 
 tion on which Mr. Fox is authorized to form a treaty, and obtained by 
 him for the purpose, it must be viewed in a very favorable light. It 
 seems clearly to put an end to further seizures, on the principle which 
 has been heretofore in contestation." And on the 20th of May, Mr. 
 Monroe wrote again : " From what I could collect, I have been 
 strengthened in the opinion which I communicated to you in my last, 
 that Mr. Fox's note of the 16th was drawn with a view to a principal 
 question with the United States, I mean that of the trade with enemies' 
 colonies. It embraces, it is true, other objects, particularly the com- 
 merce with Russia, and the north generally, whose ports it opens to 
 neutral powers, under whose flag British manufactures will find a market 
 there. In this particular, especially, the measure promises to be highly 
 satisfactory to the commercial interest, and it may be the primary object 
 of the government." 
 
 This order was followed, on the part of Napoleon, by the Berlin 
 decree ; so called from its having been issued from the city of Berlin, 
 the capital of Prussia, into which city he entered on his successful march 
 through that kingdom. This decree, dated the 21st of November, 1806, 
 declared the British islands in a state of blockade ; and " all commerce 
 and correspondence with them was prohibited." " All property whatso- 
 ever, belonging to a subject of England, and all merchandise belonging 
 to England, or coming from its manufactories, or colonies, was declared 
 lawful prize." Napoleon had been successful with his armies, having 
 conquered a large portion of Europe ;' but his power on the seas had 
 been much broken by the superior force of the British navy. Hence the 
 
228 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 adoption of his continental system, as it was called, by which he intend* 
 ed to stop all trade between Great Britain and the continent. In the 
 face of existing treaties between Fran.ce and the United States, our min- 
 ister at Paris was informed that the decree was applicable to American 
 commerce. 
 
 This act of the French government was succeeded by the British 
 orders in council, of January 7, 1807,- which were superseded by, or 
 merged ift, other orders issued the 1 1th of November following. By 
 these orders, all ports and places belonging to France and her allies, 
 from which the British flag was excluded, and all the colonies of his 
 Britannic majesty's enemies, were declared to be in a state of blockade. 
 All trade in the produce or manufactures of these countries or colonies 
 was prohibited ; and all vessels trading to or from them, and all mer- 
 cliandise on board, were made subject to capture and condemnation; 
 with an exception only in favor of the direct trade between neutral 
 countries and the colonies of his majesty's enemies. 
 
 This measure, so detrimental to neutral commerce, was followed, on 
 the 17th of December, 1807, by another still more sweeping on the part 
 of France, called the Milan decree, by which the British islands were 
 declared in a state of blockade, by sea and land ; and every ship, of 
 whatever nation, or whatever the nature of its cargo, that should sail 
 from the ports of England or her colonies, or of countries occupied by 
 English troops, and proceeding to England or to her colonies, or to 
 countries occupied by the English, to be good prize. And every ship, of 
 whatever nation, which had submit' -<{ to search by an English ship, or 
 had made a voyage to England, or paid any tax to that government, was 
 declared denationalized, and lawful prize. 
 
 These measures were most disastrous to American commerce, and 
 wholly unauthorized by the law of nations. To be lawful, a blockade 
 must be maintained by a force stationed at an enemy's ports, sufficient to 
 make it dangerous for vessels to enter. That so extensive a blockade 
 was or could be maintained by an adequate force was not even pretended 
 by either party. It is true, the government of Great Britain asserted 
 that the limited blockade of 1806 had been duly supported; but the 
 pretension has never been generally conceded. Yet, under these orders 
 and decrees, or mere "paper blockades," as they were called, an im- 
 mense number of American vessels, with their cargoes, were captured 
 by the privateers and cruisers of the two belligerents, and condemned as 
 prize. 
 
 On the 22d of December, 1807, and before intelligence of the Milan 
 decree had been received, congress, in pursuance of a recommendation of 
 the president, passed the famous embargo law, by which all vessels with- 
 
FRENCH BERLIN AND MILAN DECREES. 229 
 
 in the jurisdiction of the United States bound to a foreign port, were 
 prohibited from leaving their ports ; except foreign vessels either in bal- 
 last, or with the goods on board when notified of the act ; and foreign 
 armed vessels having public commissions for any foreign power. And 
 all coasting vessels were required, before their departure, to give bonds 
 to land their cargoes at some port in the United States. The following 
 is the message of the president containing the recommendation of the 
 measure. It was dated the 18th of December, 1807: 
 
 " The communications now made, showing the great and increasing 
 dangers with which our vessels, our seamen, and merchandise, are 
 threatened on the high seas and elsewhere, from the belligerent powers 
 of Europe, and it being of the greatest importance to keep in safety 
 these essential resources, I deem it my duty to recommend the subject 
 to the consideration of congress, who will doubtless perceive all the ad- 
 vantages which may be expected from an inhibition of the departure of 
 our vessels from the ports of the United States. 
 
 "Their wisdom will also see the necessity of making every precaution 
 for whatever events may grow out of the present crisis." 
 
 Accompanying this message, were four documents, the " communica- 
 tions " to which the message referred. One of these documents was an 
 extract of a letter from the French grand judge, minister of justice, to 
 the imperial attorney-general for the council of prizes, dated September 
 18, 1807, containing Napoleon's construction of the Berlin decree; 
 which was, that French " vessels of war might seize on board neutral 
 vessels either English property, or '. in all merchandise proceeding from 
 the English manufactories or territory," Another document, dated Oc- 
 tober 16, 1807, and taken from a Lol Ion newspaper, purported to be a 
 proclamation by the king of Great Britain, for recalling and prohibiting 
 British seamen from service on board of ships of war belonging to any 
 foreign state at enmity with that nation ; declaring that all his majesty's 
 subjects who should voluntarily continue in, or thereafter enter, such 
 service, would be guilty of high treason. Only these two papers were 
 published as having accompanied the message. 
 
 The other two papers were, a letter from Mr. Armstrong, our minis- 
 ter at Paris, dated September 24, 1807, to the minister of foreign rela- 
 tions, asking whether the Berlin decree was " intended, in any degree, 
 to infract the obligations of the treaty subsisting between the United 
 States and the French empire," and Champagny's answer of the 7th of 
 October, confirming Napoleon's construction of that decree ; to which he 
 added, that the decree of blockade had been issued eleven months ; that 
 the principal powers of Europe, so far from protesting against its pro- 
 visions, had adopted them. They had perceived thai, to render it effec- 
 
230 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tual, it must be complete ; and it had " seemed easy to reconcile the 
 measure with the observance of treaties, especially at a time when the 
 infractions by England, of the rights of all maritime powers, render their 
 interests common, and tend to unite them in support of the same cause." 
 These two letters, though communicated with the message to congTess, 
 were, it is said, returned at the president's request, for the reason, as he 
 alleged, that it was improper to publish them. What rendered their 
 publication improper, is left to conjecture. They were, however, some • 
 months afterward, with a mass of other documents, laid before congress, 
 without any intimation for what purpose. The political opponents of 
 the president discovered in none of these documents any new facts 
 " showing great and increasing dangers " calling for special legislation, 
 much less an embargo. The British proclamation was presumed to have 
 been intended merely to secure her own seamen. They therefore looked 
 for the motive to the measure in a desire to appease France. Having at 
 that time few vessels afloat, she would receive little injury from the em- 
 bargo, while Great Britain, having command of the ocean, would be the 
 principal sufferer. The letter of Champagny clearly showed the inten- 
 tion of forcing the United States into an acquiescence, if not an active 
 cooperation in the general war upon British commerce ; and but a few 
 weeks elapsed before the capture and condemnation of goods commenced, 
 on the ground that they were the productions of Great Britain. 
 
 The federalists seem to have suspected, that the object of the partial 
 suppression of Champagny's letter, was to prevent the idea that the em- 
 bargo was intended to aid Bonaparte in crippling the commerce of Great 
 Britain ; Spain and Holland having already been brought, according to 
 that letter, " to unite " with him " in support of the same, cause." The 
 suspicion of the president's subser\dency to France, was subsequently 
 strengthened by letters from our ministers in France and England, pub- 
 lished a pamphlet, entitled, " Further Suppressed Documents," which 
 made its appearance about that time. One of these letters was from 
 Mr. Armstrong to Mr. Madison, dated February 22, 1808. The follow- 
 ing is an extract : 
 
 " I have come to the knowledge of two facts which I think suflSciently 
 show the decided character of the emperor's policy with regard to us. 
 These are, fii-st, that in a council of administration held a few days past, 
 when it was proposed to modify the decrees of November, 1807, and 
 December, 1807, (though the proposition was supported by the whole 
 weight of the council,) he became highly indignant, and declared that 
 these decrees should suffer no change, and that the Americans should be 
 compelled to take the positive character of either allies or enemies ; 2d, 
 that on the 27th of January last, twelve days after Mr. Champagny'a 
 
SUPPRESSED DOCUMENTS. 231 
 
 written assurances that these decrees should work no change in the pro- 
 perty sequestered, until our discussions with England were brought to a 
 close, and seven days before he reported to me verbally these very as- 
 surances, the emperor had, by a special decision, confiscated two of our 
 ships and their cargoes, (the Julius Henry and the Juniata,) for want 
 merely of a document not required by any law or usage of the com- 
 merce in which they had been engaged. This act was taken, as I am in- 
 formed, on a general report of sequestered cases amounting to one hun- 
 dred and sixty, and which, at present prices, will yield upwards of one 
 hundred millions of francs, a sum whose magnitude alone renders hope- 
 less all attempts at saving it. Danes, Portuguese, and Americans, will 
 be the principal suSerers. If I am right in supposing that the emperor 
 has definitively taken his ground, I can not be wrong in concluding that 
 you will immediately take yoursy 
 
 Another letter, said to have been suppressed, was from Mr. Pinkney, 
 who, aftf^r he had received a copy of the president's message recommend- 
 ing the embargo, and of the act passed in pursuance of it, wrote to Mr. 
 Madison from London, January 26, 1808, that he had given to the 
 British government the explanations of this measure, as Mr. Madison 
 had suggested, and that " Mr. Canning had received the explanations 
 with great apparent satisfaction, and had expressed his most friendly 
 disposition towards our country." And on his having made complaint 
 to Mr. Canning, that, as an effect of the orders in council, " American 
 vessels coming into British ports under warning, could not obtain any 
 document to enable them to return to the United States, without hazard, 
 in the event of its being found imprudent, either to deposit their cargoes, 
 or to resume their original voyages ; Mr. Canning took a note of what 
 he had said, and assured him that whatever was necessary to give the 
 facility in question, would be done without delay ; adding, that it was 
 their sincere wish to show, in every thing connected with the orders in 
 council, which only necessity had compelled them to adopt, their anxiety 
 to accommodate them, as far as was consistent with their object, to the 
 feelings and interest of the American government and people." 
 
 The suppression of these documents was attributed to the fear that 
 the people, seeing the contrast between the two documents, would disap- 
 prove the course of the government toward the two countries. Certain 
 federalists, since the death of Mr. Jefferson and the publication of his 
 writings, have referred to a letter from him to Robert L. Livingston, 
 dated October 15, 1808, for a farther confirmation of the opinion, that 
 the embargo was designed to benefit France and injure Great Britain. 
 He says : " The explanation of his principles, given you by the French 
 emperor, in conversation, is correct, as far as it goes. He does not wish 
 
232 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 US to go to war witli England, knowing we have no ships to carry on 
 that war. To submit to pay England the tribute on our commerce 
 which she demands, by her orders in council, would be to aid her in the 
 war against him, and would give him just ground to declai-e war with us. 
 He concludes, therefore, as every rational man must, that the embargo, 
 the only remaining alternative, was a wise measure." He says in the 
 same letter: "Had the emperor said that he condemned our vessels 
 going voluntarily into his ports in breach of his municipal laws, we might 
 have admitted it as rigorously legal, though not friendly. But his con- 
 demnation of vessels taken on the high seas by his privateers, and car- 
 ried involuntarily into his ports^ is justifiable by no law, is piracy, and 
 this is the wrong we complain of against him." Tliis conduct of France 
 being as bad as that of Great Britain possibly could be, the federalists 
 thought her equally deserving of retaliatory legislation. 
 
 The efEect of the embargo was more or less severe upon the three 
 countries. Through the British newspapers and other channels of in- 
 formation, the loss of the American market to English manufactm-ers, 
 was represented as being most sensibly felt ; and many laborers were 
 consequently thrown out of employment. It would seem, however, that 
 the extreme severity of the measure was not permanent in that country. 
 Cotton was imported from Brazil, Egypt, and the East Indies, and grain 
 from the Baltic, though at a great disadvantage. The revolt in Spain, 
 caused by the attempt of Bonaparte to put one of his own family upon 
 the throne of that kingdom, opened for the British a market in that 
 country and in her South American colonies. Mv. Armstrong, in a let- 
 ter of the 30th of August, 1808, also pubHshed in the " Suppressed 
 Documents," says : " We have somewhat overrated the means of coei'cion 
 of the two great belligerents to a course of justice. * * * Here it 
 (the embargo) is not felt, and in England, (in the midst of the more in- 
 teresting scenes of the day,) it is forgotten." 
 
 In the United States, commerce was almost annihilated ; and mur- 
 murs of dissatisfaction prevailed throughout the country. In the New 
 England states especially, where capital was invested chiefly in commer- 
 cial enterprise, the loudest complaints were made during the whole 
 period of its continuance. Not being permitted to expoi't, agTiculturaJ 
 labor was poorly rewarded ; and manufactures were obtained, if obtained 
 at all, at very high prices. Such was the height to which the disaffec- 
 tion at length arose in the eastern states, as to cause apprehensions that, 
 if the embargo should be persisted in, it would meet with violent resist'- 
 ance ; and those states would withdraw from the union. 
 
 To paitigate the rigor of this restrictive policy, congress, on the 1st of 
 March, 1809, passed an act, since called the non-intercourse law, by 
 
DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSION. 233 
 
 which the embargo law was repealed, and all intercourse with Great 
 Britain and France prohibited. But the act provided, that, if either 
 nation should so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to 
 violate the neutral commerce of the United States — which fact the presi- 
 dent should declare by proclamation — the trade suspended by this act 
 and the embargo should be renewed with that nation. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson's term of office having expired, Mr. Madison was inau- 
 gurated as president on the 4th of March, 1809. He appointed Robert 
 Smith, of Maryland, secretary of state ; William Eustis, of Massachu- 
 setts, secretary of war ; Paul Hamilton, of South Carolina, secretary of 
 the navy ; Albert Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, was continued secretary of 
 the treasury ; and Cesar A. Rodney, of Delaware, was continued attorney- 
 • general. 
 
 In April, Mr. Erskine, the British minister at Washington, repre- 
 sented that he was authorized by his government to say, that, if the 
 United States would renew intercourse with Great Britain, the orders in 
 council, so far as they affected the United States, would be repealed. 
 Accordingly, the president issued a proclamation on the 19th of April, 
 announcing that the commerce between the two countries would be 
 renewed the lOtli of June, on which day the British orders were to be 
 withdrawn. The last congress having, in consequence of the critical 
 state of public affairs, passed an act convening the new congress on the 
 22d of May, the latter met on the day appointed. In the message of 
 the president, communicated on the 23d, the first subject to which he 
 called their attention was, the " revision of our commercial laws, proper 
 to adapt them to the arrangement which has taken place with Great 
 Britain." The necessary laws were accordingly passed. 
 
 Intelligence, however, was soon after received, that the British gov- 
 ernment had disavowed the act of their minister as unauthorized ; who 
 admitted that he had exceeded the letter of his instructions : but he had 
 been induced to do so from a conviction that he should be acting in con- 
 formity with his majesty's wishes. The president, therefore, on the 3d 
 of August, issued another proclamation, declaring that the orders in 
 council had not been withdrawn, and that, consequently, the acts which 
 had been suspended were to be considered as in force. For having thus 
 violated the instructions of his government, Mr. Erskine was recalled. 
 
 Mr. Francis James Jackson, successor to Mr. Erskine, arrived at 
 Washington the ensuing autumn ; and a correspondence with the secre- 
 tary of state was soon commenced. This correspondence related to the 
 question whether our government in negotiating with Mr. Erskine, had 
 knowledge of the extent of his instructions — whether it did not know 
 that he was not invested with full power to adjust the difference be- 
 
234 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tween the two nations. Mr. Erskine liad been instructed to submit 
 three conditions as the groundwork of an arrangement between them ; 
 and if these conditions should be oflBcially recognized by the American 
 government, " his majesty would lose no time in sending a minister fully 
 empowered to consign them to a formal and regular treaty ; " and it ap- 
 peared from Mr. Erskine's correspondence that the three conditions had 
 been submitted, although the instructions in extenso had not been com- 
 municated. They had, however, been read at length by Mr. Canning to 
 Mr. Pinkney in London, and they had been made the basis of the offi- 
 cial correspondence between Mr. Erskine and the secretary of state ; from 
 which, the British minister contended, our government must or might 
 have known the nature and extent of the instructions. And his persist- 
 ence in maintaining this point, after an explicit declaration by the secre-t 
 tary, that our government had not such knowledge, and that with such 
 knowledge the arrangement would not have been made, was regarded as 
 a reflection upon the government ; and Mr. Jackson was informed that 
 no farther communication would be received from him. He immediately 
 (November, 1809,) retired to New York, where he resided until, in pur- 
 suance of the request of the president, he was recalled. No successor to 
 Mr. Jackson was appointed until early in the year 1811. 
 
 In retaliation of the non-intercourse act, the Rambouillet decree was 
 issued by Napoleon on the 23d of March, 1810. This decree, more 
 sweeping in its operation on American property than any that had pre- 
 ceded it, extended back to the 20th of May, 1809. Every American 
 vessel and cargo, which had since that time entered, or should thereafter 
 enter into any ports of France or her colonies, or of any country occupied 
 by the French, was liable to be seized and sold. The aggressions of France 
 were thus noticed by Mr. Monroe in an official dispatch : " The influ- 
 ence of France has been exerted to the injury of the United States, in 
 all the countries to which her power has extended. In Spain, Hol- 
 land, and Naples, it has been most sensibly felt. In each of these 
 countries the vessels and cargoes of American merchants have been seized 
 and confiscated, under various decrees, founded in different pretexts, none 
 of which had e\'en the semblance of right to support them." 
 
 The non-intercourse law having expired, congress, on the 1st of May, 
 1810, passed a new act, of a similar nature, which provided that, if 
 either Great Britain or France should, before the 3d day of March, 1811, 
 so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to violate our 
 neutral commerce, anc! if the other nation should not, within three 
 months thereafter, do the same, then the act interdicting commercial 
 intercourse, should be revived against the nation refusing to revoke. 
 
 On the 5th of August, 1810, the French minister of foreign affaire 
 
DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. 236 
 
 the duke of Cadore, informed our minister at Paris, Gen. Armstrong, 
 that " the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and would cease to 
 have effect after the 1st of November following;" stating, as the reason 
 for the revocation, that " the congress of the United States had retraced 
 its steps, and had engaged to oppose the belligerent (Great Britain) 
 which refused to acknowledge the rights of neutrals." He stated also 
 as conditions of the repeal of the decrees, " that the English shall revoke 
 their orders in council, and renounce the new principles of blockade 
 which they have wished to establish ; or that the United States shall 
 cause their rights to be respected by the English." 
 
 Regarding this note of the French minister as sufficient evidence of 
 the repeal of thef decrees, the president, on the 2d of November, issued 
 a proclamation declaring the restrictions imposed by the act of the 1st 
 of May to be removed as respected France and her dependencies. And 
 on the 2d of March, 1811, congress passed an act, declaring these restric- 
 tions to be in force against Great Britain. It had been expected that 
 the British government would revoke its orders in case the decrees 
 should be repealed. This, however, it refused to do. This refusal was 
 the occasion of a long controversy between the two g(^vernment8, com- 
 menced at London and continued and concluded at Washington. The 
 prominent features of the controversy, as presented by the correspond- 
 ence between lord Wellesley and Mr. Pinkney, will appear from the 
 following paragraphs : 
 
 The British government did not consider the notification of the repeal 
 of the French decrees to be such as to justify the repealing of the orders 
 in council. The repeal of the decrees was not absolute, but conditional 
 — to take effect the 1st of l^ovemb^x, provided Great Britain, before 
 that time, should revoke her orders, and renounce the principles of 
 blockade which France alleged to be new. The American government, 
 it was intimated, had united with France in requiring of Great Britain 
 a renunciation of these new principles. To what principles allusion is 
 here made, appears from the Berlin decree, which states that Great Brit- 
 ain " extends the right of blockade to commercial unfortified towns, and 
 to ports, harbors, and mouths of rivers, which, according to the principles 
 and practice of all civilized nations, is only applicable io fortified places." 
 Great Britain, on the contrary, asserted that the principles of blockade con- 
 demned by France were ancient, and established by the laws of maritime 
 war acknowledged by all civilized nations. Notwithstanding, if France 
 had conditioned the repeal of her decrees on the revocation of the British 
 orders alone, that condition would have been fulfilled. 
 
 The American government disclaimed having demanded the renuncia- 
 tion of the principles of blockade condemned by France. It had simply 
 
236 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 urged, that ports not actually blockaded by a present, adequate, stationary 
 force, should not be shut against neutral trade in articles not contraband 
 of war. The blockade of 1806 had not been thus maintained; and its 
 annulment was therefore indispensable to the renewal of intercourse. It 
 was also insisted by the American minister, that the French decrees were 
 repealed, and no longer in operation ; and that, as the foundation of the 
 orders in council was gone, they ought to be repealed. 
 
 This subject was afterwards discussed at Washington by Mr. Foster 
 and Monroe. The correspondence was opened by Mr. Foster on the 3d 
 of July, 1811, of whose letter the following is an abstract: 
 
 The decree of Berlin was an act of war, by which France prohibited 
 all nations from trade or intercourse with Great Britain under peril of 
 confiscation of their ships and merchandise, although she had not the 
 means of imposing an actual blockade. The professed object of the 
 decree was the destruction of all British commerce, through means en- 
 tirely unsanctioned by the law of nations. Great Britain would have 
 been justified in retaliating upon the enemy by a similar interdiction 
 of all commerce with France, and with such other countries as might 
 cooperate with her in her system of commercial hostility against Great 
 Britain. The latter, however, instead of prohibiting the trade of 
 neutrals with France, had prohibited such trade only as should not be 
 carried on through Great Britain. This injury to neutral commerce had 
 been foreseen and regretted ; but it arose from the aggression of France, 
 which had compelled Great Britain to retaliate in her own defense. The 
 object of the orders in council was merely to counteract an atlouipt to 
 crush British trade. Having rested the justification of her orders upon 
 the existence of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, she had always declared 
 her readiness to repeal those orders, whenever Franco should have re- 
 pealed her decrees, and restored neutral commerce to the condition in 
 which it stood before the promulgation of tiiose decrees. France had as- 
 serted that the decree of Berlin was a measure of just retaliation for the 
 previous aggression of Great Britain by her system of blockade, which 
 France declared to be a violation of the law of nations, because it had 
 been applied to unforiijied towns and connnercial ports, to harbors, and 
 mouths of rivers ; wiicreas the rights of blockade, she maintained, were 
 lunited to for iiesses really invested by a sufficient force. She had also 
 asserted th.'-l Great Britain had declared places in a state of blockade 
 which the whole British force would be insufficient to blockade. Great 
 BritiLun denied that the law of nations sanctioned the rule laid down by 
 Frauce, that no places but fortresses could be lawfully blockaded by sea. 
 
 It was admitted by Great Britain, that no blockade was justifiable or 
 valid unless supported by an adequate force destined to maintain it, and 
 
DIPLOMATIC DISCTTSSIONS. 237 
 
 to expose to hazard all vessels attempting to evade its operation. The 
 blockade of May, 1806, had not been notified by Mr. Fox, until he had 
 satisfied himself that the board of admiralty had the means and would 
 employ them, of watching the whole coast from Brest to the Elbe, and 
 of enforcing the blockade. And it had been supported, both in inten- 
 tion and fact, until the time when the orders in council were issued. 
 France had declared a blockade of all the ports and coasts of Great 
 Britain and her dependencies, without assigning, or being able to assign 
 any force to support it. America appeared to concur with France in 
 asserting that Great Britain had been the original aggressor on neutral 
 rights, and that the aggi-ession consisted in the blockade of 1806; the 
 objection to which rested on the supposition that it had not been duly 
 maintained. But it appeared from the facts of the case, that neither 
 under the objections urged by France, nor under those stated by the 
 American government, could that blockade be deemed contrary to the 
 law of nations. The orders in council were therefore founded on a just 
 principle of defensive retaliation against the violation of the law of 
 nations by France in the Berlin decree; and the blockade of May, 1806, 
 was now included in the more extensive operation of the orders in 
 council. The orders in council would not be continued after the 
 effectual repeal of the decrees; nor would the blockade of 1806 con- 
 tinue after the repeal of the orders in council, unless sustained by a 
 suflBcient naval force. 
 
 The British minister insisted that the decrees had never been repealed. 
 The French minister's note to Mr. Armstrong, dated the 5th of August, 
 1810, was called a "deceitful declaration." Its language was ambigu- 
 ous. It had, however, been recently explained by the emperor himself, 
 in a speech to certain deputies from Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck, in 
 which he declared that "the Berlin and Milan decrees should be the 
 public code of France, as long as England maintained her orders in 
 council of 1806 and 1807." Certain official documents were also re- 
 ferred to as evidence that the decrees were yet in force. It had been 
 said that the only two American ships taken under the Berlin and Milan 
 decrees since the 1st of November, had been restored. They might have 
 been restored for some other reason than that assigned ; for, ha^dng been 
 captured in plain contravention of the supposed revocation, why were 
 they not restored immediately, instead of being detained in French ports, 
 and subjected to so much difficulty in obtaining a release ? The fears of 
 the French navy, however, had prevented many cases of the kind on the 
 ocean under the decrees of Berlin and Milan ; but the most obnoxious 
 and destructive parts of those decrees were exercised with full violence, 
 not only in the ports of France, bat in those of all other countries to 
 which France thought she could commit injustice with impunity. 
 
238 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 To the letters of Mr. Foster, Mr. Monroe replied on tlie 23d of July. 
 The United States, he said, were little disposed to enter into the ques- 
 tion concerning the priority of aggression by the two belligerents, as the 
 aggression of neither could be justified by the prior aggression of the 
 other. But as this had been made a plea in support of the orders in 
 council, it might be remarked, that the blockade had not been maintained 
 with the requisite strictness until it was comprised in and superseded by 
 the orders of November of the following year, nor even until the French 
 decree of the same year. But the orders in council went even beyond 
 the plea, in extending their operation against the trade of the United 
 States with nations which had not adopted the French decrees. The 
 modification of the orders permitting neutrals to trade with the continent 
 through Great Britain, was not viewed in a favorable light. The politi- 
 cal pretension set up by it was incompatible with the sovereignty and in- 
 dependence of other states ; and as a commercial regulation, it was de- 
 structive to neutral commerce. As an enemy, Great Britain could not 
 trade with France ; nor did France permit a neutral to come into her 
 ports from Great Bxitain. Forcing our trade through Great Britain, 
 had therefore the effect of depriving us of the market of her enemy for 
 our productions, and of compelling their sale in Great Britain, where, 
 by a surcharge of the market, their value was nearly destroyed. 
 
 The United States had observed the impartiality due to both parties 
 as belligerents. They had borne, with equal indulgence, injuries from 
 both. The offers presented to them by the late acts of our government, 
 were made equally to both. The embargo and non-intercourse acts were 
 peaceful measures. So also was the non-importation act ; and the dis- 
 tinction which it now made between the belligerents, resulted from the 
 compliance of one with the offer made to both, and which was still open 
 to the compliance of the other. It had been stated that Great Britain 
 would proceed pari passu with France in the revocation of her edicts. 
 Our government maintained that France had revoked her decrees. Of 
 this, the announcement of Champagny, the duke of Cadore, to Mr. Arm- 
 strong, was sufficient evidence. Two American vessels had been detained 
 in French ports ; but they had not been condemned. Both these vessels 
 proceeded from a British port, and had on board some articles which 
 were prohibited by the laws of France, or were such as could be admit- 
 ted by the government alone. This appeared to be the only cause of the 
 detention. If the detention of the vessels was owing to their passing 
 from a British to a French port, or to the nature of their cargoes, it 
 afforded no cause of complaint to Great Britain. The right of complaint 
 belonged to the United States, whose neutral rights had been violated. 
 
 In the speech of the emperor to the deputies of the free cities of Ham- 
 
DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSIONS. 239 
 
 burg, Bremen, and Lubeck, there was nothing to disprove the repeal of 
 the decrees. He declared that the blockade of the British islands should 
 cease when the British blockades should cease ; and that the French 
 blockade should cease in favor of those nations in whose favor Great 
 Britain should revoke hers, or who should support their rights against 
 her pretension, as France admitted the United States would do by en- 
 forcing the non-importation act. Every communication received from 
 the French government was in accordance with the actual repeal of the 
 Berlin and Milan decrees, in relation to the neutral commerce of the 
 United States. But the best evidence of their ceasing to operate, was 
 the want of evidence that they did operate. 
 
 It was unreasonable for Great Britain to require that the commerce 
 of the continent should be restored to the state in which it stood prior 
 to the date of the Berlin and Milan decrees, before she would revoke her 
 orders in council. The laws of war governed the relations of Great 
 Britain and France. The vessels of either taken by the other, were lia- 
 ble to confiscation. But even if no war existed, the United States could 
 not open the continent to the commerce of Great Britain. They could 
 not maintain such a claim in their own favor, though neutral ; and how 
 could Great Britain demand that they should obtain the favor for her, 
 being an enemy ? Every nation not restrained by treaty, has a right to 
 regulate its trade with other nations as it may deem most conducive to 
 its own interests. 
 
 It will be recollected that Mr. Monroe, in 1806, then minister at Lon- 
 don, represented the blockade against France as favorable to our com- 
 mercial interests. Mr. Foster, in one of his letters to Mr. Monroe, ex- 
 pressed his surprise that our government should now require the revoca- 
 tion of this order of blockade as a condition of the renewal of intercourse, 
 the motive to which is insinuated in the following extract : " It was clearly 
 proved that the blockade of May, 1806, was maintained by an adequate 
 naval force, and therefore was a blockade founded on just and legitimate 
 principles ; and I have not heard that it was considered in a contrary 
 light when notified as such to you by secretary Fox, nor until it suited 
 the views of France to endeavor to have it considered otherwise. Why 
 America took up the view the French government chose to give of it 
 and could see in it grounds for the French decrees, was always matter 
 of astonishment in England." 
 
 To which Mr. Monroe replied : " A controversy had taken place be- 
 tween our governments on a different topic, which was still depending. 
 The British government had interfered with the trade between France 
 and her allies in the produce of their colonies. The just claim of the 
 United States was then a subject of negotiation ; and your government, 
 
240 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 professing its willingness to make, a satisfactory arrangement of it, issued 
 the order wliicli allowed the trade without making any concession as to 
 the principle, reserving, that for adjustment by treaty. It was in this 
 lio-ht that I viewed, and in this sense that I represented that order to 
 my government ; and in no other did I make any comment on it." 
 
 Much importance seems to have been given to the question of the re- 
 vocation of the French decrees. In addition to the facts already men- 
 tioned as evidence that they were still in force, another was, that Ameri- 
 can vessels engaged in the trade with France, were required to have 
 licenses from the French consuls in the United States. If the decrees 
 had been to any extent repealed, so far, at least, no licenses should be 
 necessary ; a license being given to allow what, but for that license, 
 would be prohibited. Besides, no instrument by which the repeal had 
 been effected, had yet appeared. If there were fair dealing in the trans- 
 action, no reason could be given for not producing it. It ought to be 
 produced to show to what extent the decrees had been really repealed. 
 
 To this it was replied, that seizures might have been made upon other 
 grounds than those which had been mentioned. Great Britain claimed 
 the right to seize for other causes, and all nations admit it in cases of 
 contraband of war. If, by the law of nations, one belligerent has a right 
 to seize neutral property, in any case, the other belligerent has the 
 same right. Another cause might be found in the well known prac- 
 tice in England of furnishing the officers of her vessels with counterfeit 
 papers, purporting to be American, under which British vessels had ac- 
 quired the benefits of neutrality. It had impaired the credit due to 
 American documents, and ceased to afford adequate protection to our 
 vessels. Against this practice our minister at London had made a 
 formal representation, with an offer of the necessary information to de- 
 tect and suppress it ; but the communication was entirely disregarded. 
 
 The granting of licenses by the French government in certain in- 
 stances, proved only that the trade with France in other instances was 
 under restraint. The object of the Berlin and Milan decrees was not 
 to prohibit the trade between the United States and France, but the 
 trade of the United States with Great Britain, which was a violation of 
 our neutral rights, and to prohibit the trade of Great Britain with the 
 continent, with which the United States had nothing to do. If the ob- 
 ject of these decrees had been to prohibit trade between the United States 
 and France, Great Britain would have had no cause of complaint. And 
 if the idea of retaliation on the part of Great Britain by her measures 
 had been applicable, it would have been by prohibiting our trade with 
 herself. To prohibit it with France, would not have been retaliation 
 (like for like) but a cooperation. 
 
DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSION. 241 
 
 Could that be really a revocation which depended upon certain condi- 
 tions? It will be recollected, that it was to take effect the 1st of No- 
 vember, 1810, "it being understood, that, in consequence of this declara- 
 tion, the English shall revoke their orders in council, and renounce the 
 new principles of blockade which they have attempted to establish ; or 
 that the United States shall cause their rights to be respected by the 
 English ; " that is to say, they must cause Great Britain to relinquish 
 her blockades. The French government could scarcely have believed 
 that these conditions would have been fulfilled. Doubts of a bona fide 
 repeal were strengthened by the terms upon which the trade was opened. 
 Our vessels were required to obtain licenses from French consuls in the 
 United States, with which they might proceed to French ports with 
 American produce ; for which, however, they must take in exchange 
 silks, wines, and other articles of French manufacture — two-thirds of the 
 value of the cargo to consist of silks. 
 
 These restrictions upon our trade were the subject of bitter complaint 
 and strong remonstrance by our government. Jonathan Russell, our 
 charge des affaires, at Paris, (in the place of Mr. Armstrong, return- 
 ed,) in a letter to the secretary of state, said : " The tendency of this re- 
 striction, added to the dangers of a vigilant blockade, and to the exac- 
 tions of an excessive tariff, was to annihilate all commercial intercourse 
 between the two countries." In the same light was the subject viewed 
 by Mr. Monroe, secretary of state. In a letter of the 26th of July, 
 1811, to Mr. Barlow, then minister at Paris, he says : " The president 
 expects that the commerce of the United States will be placed, in the 
 ports of France, on such a footing as to afford to it a fair market. An 
 arrangement to this effect was looked for immediately after the revoca- 
 tion of the decrees ; but it appears from the documents in this depart- 
 ment, that that was not the case ; on the contrary, that our commerce 
 has been subjected to the greatest discouragement, or rather to the most 
 oppressive restraints ; that the vessels which carried coffee, sugar, &c., 
 &c., though sailing directly from the United States to a French port, 
 were held in a state of sequestration, on the principle that the trade was 
 prohibited, and that the importation of those articles was not only un- 
 lawful but ci'iminal ; that even those vessels which carried the unques- 
 tionable productions of the United States were exposed to great and ex- 
 pensive delays, to tedious investigations in unusual forms, and to exorbi- 
 tant duties. In short, that the ordinary usages of commerce between 
 friendly nations were abandoned." 
 
 Our merchants, Mr. Monroe said, had considered themselves invited 
 to the ports of France by the repeal of the decrees ; and the vexations 
 and losses to which they had been unexpectedly subjected, were not only 
 16 
 
242 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 unjust to them, but disrespectful to our government. If the ports of 
 France and her allies were not opened to our commerce, on fair condi- 
 tions, the revocation of the British orders would be of no avail. He 
 complained also of the injustice of compelling our merchants to bring in 
 return for their cargoes an equal amount in the produce or manufactures 
 of that countiy, whUe French merchants enjoyed the Uberty of selling 
 their cargoes here for cash, and taking in return what they pleased. The 
 system of carrying on the trade by licenses granted by French agents, 
 ought to be annulled, and Mr. Barlow was instructed to tell the French 
 government that the United States could not submit to it ; and that if 
 the consuls did not discontinue it, the president might find it necessary 
 to revoke their exequaturs. 
 
 Mr, Monroe also reprehended the " unjustifiable aggression on the 
 rights of the United States " by the French decrees, especially the Ram- 
 bouillet decree, of March, 1810, which "made a sweep of all American 
 property within the reach of the French power. * * * In Spain, 
 Holland, and Naples, it has been most sensibly felt. In each of those 
 countries, the vessels and cargoes of American merchants were seized 
 and confiscated under various decrees founded in different pretexts, none 
 of which had even the semblance of right to support them." And he 
 mentions as the most atrocious of all the reprehensible acts of that gov- 
 ernment and its subjects, the burning of the vessels of our citizens at sea. 
 
 The annoyances to our commerce mentioned in the first of these ex- 
 tracts from Mr. Monroe's letter, were by many deemed inconsistent with 
 a sincere revocation of the decrees ; and, in connection with the fact that 
 the repeal was never formally announced, were regarded by many as con- 
 clusive evidence that it was a mere pretense. In \'iew of the outrages 
 recited in the latter of these extracts, and which had been perpetrated 
 long prior to the pretended repeal of the decrees, and for which no 
 promise of compensation had been made, the inquiry naturally arises, 
 whether the proclamation of president Madison, immediately suspending 
 the non-intercourse law in regard to France, was not premature. It 
 was the more mild and conciliatory policy pursued toward that country 
 than toward Great Britain, and the greater apparent readiness to com- 
 ply with her wishes, that furnished the principal ground of opposition to 
 the administration during this long controversy. Insisting on the re- 
 linquishment of the British blockade, which was regarded as " highly 
 satisfactory " before such relinquishment was made by Bonaparte a con- 
 dition of the revocation of his decrees, and demanding the unconditional 
 removal of this blockade as an obligation imposed by the conditional and 
 doubtful repeal of those decrees, gave occasion for nine-tenths of the op- 
 position. 
 
smith's expose. 243 
 
 A review of tte entire history of this commercial warfare, justifies the 
 conclusion, that neither Great Britain nor France avowed her real de- 
 signs ; that the British orders in council, instead of being intended as 
 measures of retaliation against her enemy, their real object was to force 
 a trade to France and the continent, generally through British ports, 
 where a transit duty was levied for the British treasury. They were in 
 fact spoken of by a leading member of parliament as " a system of self- 
 defense, to prevent the commerce of America from coming into competi- 
 tion with the commerce of England." Trade with all the world, even 
 with her enemies, seems to have been her object ; and she wished to make 
 our government the instrument of forcing France to receive her manu- 
 factures. Such an opinion is at least plausible. Niles said with some 
 truth : " If Bonaparte were to grant a license for the purpose, certain 
 London merchants could obtain leave to supply him even with arms and 
 ammunition — so zealous are they for a trade with an enemy ! The 
 least relaxation of his ' continental system ' is hailed with exultation and 
 joy. They gladly send him what he pleases to admit, and accept in re- 
 turn almost anything he pleases to give them. This has been the prac- 
 tice for years ; and yet some have said the orders in council were ' re- 
 taliatory' on the French decrees." 
 
 Equally manifest is it, from the reprehensible policy of France, in 
 connection with the facts disclosed in the foregoing letters and docu- 
 ments, and the indispensable conditions of the repeal of her decrees, viz., 
 that we should compel Great Britain to repeal her orders in council, 
 that the object of France was to force us into a quarrel with her enemy, 
 or, what is tantamount, into an alliance with herself. 
 
 In 1811, Robert Smith, secretary of state, in consequence of a dis- 
 agreement between himself and the president on the subject of the repeal 
 of the French decrees, and the consequent measures of the government^ 
 resigned his office, and was succeeded by Mr. Monroe. In an address 
 to the public, giving the reasons for his resignation, are statements which 
 may aid in forming an opinion as to the expediency of the policy of the 
 administration. Mr. Smith, as will be seen, considered the decrees of 
 France as not actually repealed, and, of course, the proclamation of the 
 president, removing the non-intercourse with France, and the law of 
 March 2, 1811, re^nacting it against Great Britain, as unwarranted by 
 facts. 
 
 Mr. Smith imputed to the president improper motives in procuring 
 the passage of the non-intercourse act. Congress had considered his 
 proclamation and the message recommending the enforcement of the act 
 of May, 1810, as satisfactory evidence of the repeal of the French 
 decrees. And Mr. S. notes it as a significant fact that the act was 
 
244 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 passed after the arrival of tlie new French minister. He also notices 
 the letters from the state department, of June and July, 1810, contain- 
 ing the protestation which was coramuriicated to the French government 
 that " a satisfactory provision for restoring the property lately surpiised 
 and seized by the order, or at the instance of the French government, 
 must be combined with a repeal of the French edicts, with a view to non- 
 intercourse with Great Britain ; " yet, before the passage of the act, the 
 French minister, Serrurier, had officially communicated to our govern- 
 ment the fixed detennination of the government of France not to restore 
 the property that had been so seized. " Moreover," adds Mr. Smith, 
 " from the infonnation which had been received by Mr. Madison, prior 
 to the date of the non-intercourse law, it was, at the time of passing it, 
 clear to my mind, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had not been 
 revoked, as had been declared by the proclamation." 
 
 Then follows a copy of the draft of a letter prepared. (June, 1810) by 
 Mr. S., to be sent to General Armstrong, after a letter had been received 
 of the duke of Cadore, justifying the seizure of Ameiican property in the 
 jjorts of France and her allies. This letter expressed the surprise of the 
 president at the " disposition to represent the United States as the ori- 
 ginal aggressor. It considered the seizure of American property as 
 " an act of violence scarcely less than an act of war," for which the 
 duke's letter "had not furnished even a plausible palliation or a reason- 
 able apology." To construe our resistance to the unlawful restrictions 
 upon our commerce by France into " a cause of warlike reprisal," he 
 called " a species of dictation." The French decrees, the letter said, 
 " had assumed a prescriptive power over the policy of the United States, 
 as reprehensible as the attempt of the British government to levy con- 
 tributions on our trade was obnoxious. * * * Had France inter- 
 dicted to our vessels all the ports within the sphere of her influence, and 
 had she given a warning of equal duration with that given by our law, 
 there would have been no cause of complaint on the part 'of the United 
 States. The French government would not then have had the oppor- 
 tunity of exercising its power in a manner as contrary to the forms aa 
 to the spirit of justice, over the property of the citizens of the United 
 States." 
 
 The letter says farther : " Let Tiim withdraw or modify his decrees ; 
 let him restore the property of our citizens so unjustly seized, and a law 
 of the United States exists which authorizes the president to promote the 
 best possible understanding with France, and to impose a system of ex- 
 clusion against the ships and merchandise of Great Britain in the event 
 of her failing to conform to the same just terms of conciliation." 
 
 Mr. Smith expressed to Mr. Madison his apprehensions that the 
 
smith's expose. 245 
 
 emperor would not fulfill our just expectations. But Mr. M. was confi- 
 dent that the decrees would bona fide cease on the 1st of November, 
 1810, and our commercial relations with France be encumbered with no 
 embarrassments whatever. Mr. S. told him he would converse with 
 Turreau (the French minister) on the subject. In the subsequent cor- 
 respondence, he says he '' was greatly checked by the evident indications 
 of utter indiflference on the part of Mr. Madison. Instead of encouraging 
 he absolutely discouraged the making of any animadversions upon Tur- 
 reau's letter of December 12, 1810." The letter of Mr. S. was prepared 
 after the receipt of a letter from the French minister of foreign affairs 
 to our minister at Paris, in which the former had said : " The Americans 
 can not hesitate as to the part which they are to take. They ought 
 either to tear to pieces the act of their independence, and so become 
 again, as before the revolution, the subjects of England. * * * Men 
 without just political views, without honor, without energy, may allege 
 that pa}'Tnent of the tribute imposed by England may be submitted to 
 because it is light. * * * It will then be necessary to fight for 
 interest, after having refused to fight for honor." 
 
 Notwithstanding this disrespectful and offensive language, and the 
 outrages upon our neutral rights, Mr. Madison objected to the letter of 
 Mr. Smith on account "of its severity, and instead of the animadversions it 
 contained, he directed the insertion of simply the following : " As the John 
 Adams is daily expected, and as your further communications by her 
 will better enable me to adapt to the actual state of our affairs of the 
 French government, the observations proper to be made in relation to 
 their seizure of our property, and to the letter of the duke of Cadore of 
 the 14th of February, it is by the president deetned expedient not to 
 make at this time any such animadversions. I can not, however, forbear 
 informing you, that a high indignation is felt by the president, as well 
 as by the public, at this act of violence on our property, and at the out- 
 rage, both in the language and in the matter, of the letter of the duke of 
 Cadore, so justly portrayed in your note to him of the 10th of March." 
 Mr. Smith calls attention to the fact, that the last sentence was addressed 
 to Gen. Armstrong personally, and not intended for the French govern- 
 ment ; showing, he says, " that our executive had at that time, but just 
 resolution enough to impart to his own minister the sentiments of indigna- 
 tion that had been here excited by the enormous outrage of the Rambouil- 
 let decree, and by the insulting audacity of the duke of Cadore's letter." 
 
 Congress, Mr. S. said, had been, during the preceding session, embar- 
 rassed as to the course to be taken with respect to our foreign relations, 
 from the defect in the commimications to them as to the views of the 
 emperor. And when the arrival of Serrurier the French envoy, was 
 
, 246 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 announced, congress suspended proceedings touching our foreign rela- 
 tions, in order to avail themselves of information from France since 
 the first of November, the day fixed for the repeal of the decrees to take 
 effect. Mr. Smith,, to relieve the impatience of congress, prepared a 
 letter to Serrurier, proposing the following questions : 
 
 " 1st. Were the Berlin and Milan decrees revoked, in whole or in 
 part, on the first day of last November? Or have they at any time 
 posterior to that day been so revoked ? Or have you instructions from 
 your government to give this government any assurance or explanation 
 in relation to the revocation or modification of those decrees ? 
 
 " 2d. Do the existing decrees of France admit into French ports, with 
 or without licenses, American vessels laden with articles the produce of 
 the United States, and under what regulations and conditions ? 
 
 " 3d. Do they admit into French ports, with or without licenses, 
 American vessels laden with articles not the produce of the United 
 States, and under what regulations and conditions ? 
 
 " 4th. Do they permit American vessels, with or without licenses, to 
 return from France to the United States, and upon what terms and con- 
 ditions ? 
 
 " 5th, Is the importation into Fi-ance of any articles, the produce of 
 the United States, absolutely prohibited? And if so, what are the 
 articles so prohibited? and especially are tobacco and cotton? 
 
 " 6th. Have you instructions from your government to give to this 
 government any assurance or explanation in relation to the American 
 vessels and cargoes seized under the Rambouillet decree ? " 
 
 The sending of this letter, however, was interdicted by the president, 
 as being in his opinion inexpedient. This refusal of the president to 
 permit these inquiries to be made, when the revocation of the decrees 
 was so much questioned, and when congress was so desirous for informa- 
 tion, was pronounced by his opponents to have been dictated either by 
 a fear of Bonaparte, or by an undue regard for the French nation. 
 
 Before the arrival of Serrurier, and in anticipation of the expiration 
 of the three months from the 1st of November, allowed to Great Britain 
 by the conditional non-importation law of May, 1810, a bill was intro- 
 duced into the house to revive, as to Great Britain, the non-importation 
 provisions of the acts of 1809 and 1810. Action upon the bill had for 
 some days been suspended for information daily expected by the new 
 minister from France, when a motion was made to take up the bill for 
 the purpose of adding a provision against the forfeiture of goods already 
 shipped and arriving from British ports after the. 2d of March, as it was 
 presumed that goods had been ordered, and shipped before the president's 
 proclamation was known. A proposition was made by Mr. Randolph to 
 
 
THE TWELFTH CONGRESS. 247 
 
 ' i "^ 
 
 reliuquisli tlie wliole restrictive system. To whicli it was objected, tliat 
 our pledges to France required its continuance. Notwithstanding it was 
 Jsnown that two vessels had been seized under the Berlin and Milan 
 decrees since the 1st of November, and notwithstanding Serrurier came 
 before the passage of the bill, without instructions to make any explana- 
 tions of the seizures, but with instructions to refuse indemnity for 
 seizures under the Bayonne and Rambouillet decrees ; the bill was passed. 
 
 CHAPTEE XYIL 
 
 TWELFTH CONGRESS. BRITISH PLOT. THE WAR QUESTION IN CON- 
 GRESS. DECLARATION OF WAR. 
 
 The 12th congress, having been convened by proclamation before 
 the regular day of meeting, commenced its session the 4th of November, 
 1811. The principal topics of the president's message were those of our 
 relations with Great Britain and France and of the public defense. 
 Although he spoke of the French decrees as having been repealed, he 
 complained that the measure had not been followed by such others as 
 were due to our reasonable claims and the amicable professions of the 
 French government ; but no proof had yet been given of an intention 
 to repair the other wrongs done to the United States, and particularly 
 to restore the great amount of American property seized and condemned 
 under her edicts. The United States had also much reason to be dis- 
 satisfied with the rigorous and unexpected restrictions to which their 
 trade with the French dominions had been subjected, and which, if not 
 discontinued, would require at least corresponding restrictions on impor- 
 tations from France. 
 
 Great Britain was complained of for persisting in her refusal to revoke 
 her orders in council " after the successive confirmations of the extinc- 
 tion of the French decrees, so far as they violated onr neutral com- 
 merce." The orders had been, " when least to have been expected, put 
 into more rigorous execution; " and it had been " communicated through 
 the British envoy just arrived^ that while *he revocation of the edicts of 
 France, as ofiicially made known to the British government, was denied 
 to have taken place, it was an indispensable condition of the repeal of 
 the British orders, that commerce should be restored to a footing that 
 would admit the productions and manufactures of Great Britain, when 
 
248 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 owned by neutrals, into markets stut against them by her enemy ; the 
 United States being given to understand, that, in the mean time, a con- 
 tinuance of their non-importation act would lead to measures of retalia- 
 tion." 
 
 On the subject of defense, the president said " the period had arrived 
 which claimed from the legislative guardians of the national rights a 
 system of more ample provision for maintaining them.*' And he con- 
 sidered it the duty of congress " to put the United States into an aiTnor 
 and an attitude demanded by the crisis, and corresponding with the 
 national spirit and expectations." 
 
 On the 9th of March, 1812, the president communicated to congress 
 certain documents disclosing a secret plot, on the part of Great Britain, 
 to dismember the union, and to form the eastern states into a political 
 connection with Great Britain, 
 
 In the winter of 1809, John Henry was employed by Sir James H. 
 Craig, late governor-general of Canada, to undertake a secret mission to 
 the United States with a view to this object. He was directed to pro- 
 ceed to Boston, from which place he was to keep governor Craig informed 
 of " the state of public opinion with regard to their internal politics, 
 and to the probability of a war with England ; the comparative strength 
 of the two great pai'ties into which the country was divided ; and the 
 views and designs of that which might ultimately prevail." It was 
 hoped, if the federalists should obtain sufficient influence to direct public 
 opinion, they would, rather than submit to the continuance of the difK- 
 culties and distress to which they were then subject, exert their influence 
 to bring about a separation from the general union. 
 
 Henry was advised not to appear as an avowed agent ; but if he could 
 obtain an intimacy with any of the leading men, he might insinuate, 
 though with great caution, that if they should wish to enter into any 
 communication with the British government, he might receive it and 
 transmit it to him (Craig). Henry proceeded through" Vermont and 
 New Hampshire to Boston, from which place most of his letters to Craig 
 and his secretary, Ryland, were written. Having suggested in his last 
 letter from this place, that, " in the present state of things in this coun- 
 try, his presence could contribute very little to the interest of Great 
 Britain," he was recalled. It does not appear that Henry had conver- 
 sation with any person in this country on the object of his mission. 
 
 As a compensation for his services, Craig had promised him an office 
 worth a thousand pounds a year. The office not ha\dng been received, 
 and a memorial to the British government on the subject having failed 
 of securing relief, he made a disclosure of the plot to Mr. Monroe, 
 secretary of state, for which the president paid him out of the secret 
 
BRITISH PLOT. 249 
 
 service fund, $50,000. Henry's letter of disclosure to Mr. Monroe was 
 dated the 20th of February, 1812, at Philadelphia, he having been at 
 Washington and received his money. Mr. Madison did not communi- 
 cate the disclosures to congress till the 9th of March, after Henry had 
 sailed for Europe. 
 
 In the British parliament, on the 5th of May, lord Holland moved 
 an address to the prince regent for the production of all the correspond- 
 ence between Sir James Craig and the British government, relating to 
 the employment of Henry. In the debate on this motion, some of the 
 lords vindicated the conduct of Craig, who, when he had heard that the 
 points in controversy between the two governments had been adjusted 
 by Mr. Madison and Mr. Erskine, recalled Henry ; which proved that 
 his instructions had been given in contemplation of hostilities between 
 the two countries. Others reprobated, as dishonorable, the endeavor to 
 seduce American subjects from their allegiance to their own country, 
 while the two governments were employed in amicable negotiation for 
 peace. They thought the honor of their country, and satisfaction to the 
 American government, required an absolute denial on the part of minis- 
 ters, or a condemnation of the measure by parliament. It does not 
 appear from this debate, that the scheme was known by the British gov- 
 ernment, until after Henry's return from the United States. The 
 excitement produced by these disclosures soon subsided. 
 
 At an early period of the session, November 29, 1811, the committee 
 on foreign relations, Peter B. Porter, of New York, chairman, made a 
 report stating that France had repealed the Berlin and Milan decrees, 
 so far as concerned the United States ; and that Great Britain, " instead 
 of retracting that unjustifiable attack on neutral rights, in which she 
 professed to be only the reluctant follower of France, had advanced 
 with bolder and continually advancing strides, demanding as a condition 
 of her revoking her orders, that France and her allies should admit 
 into their territories the products and manufactures of Great Britain." 
 The committee reported resolutions recommending the increase of the 
 military force.; the fitting up of the vessels belonging to the navy and 
 worthy of repair ; and allowing merchant vessels to arm in self-defense. 
 After considerable debate, in which Mr. Randolph took a prominent 
 part against the resolutions, they were all adopted, December 19. 
 
 The debates on the bill carrying these resolutions into effect indicated 
 the existence of strong parties in both houses in favor of war, although 
 it is doubtful whether war was thus early intended by the administra- 
 tion. Certain it is, that there were many republicans who considered 
 that a war at that time would be premature. Indeed, such was the 
 reluctance of Mr. Madison to engage in a war — with whom Mr. Galla- 
 
Q5Q THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tin secretary of the treasury, concurred-tliat the congressional caucus 
 to 'nominate a candidate for president at the approaching election, was 
 for a time delayed, as the war party was unwilling to support 1^1"^ ^^^^es^ 
 he should determine to go for war. Mr. Monroe was preferred by the 
 most zealous friends of the war. In New York the war party was^in 
 favor of De Witt Clinton, who, notwithstanding the nomination of Mr. 
 Madison, was subsequently nominated by the republican members of the 
 
 legislature of that state. 
 
 The ist of April, 1812, the president sent to congress a conhdential 
 message, recommending the immediate passage of an act laying a general 
 embargo, for sixty days, on all vessels in port, and thereafter arrinng. 
 A bill for that purpose was forthwith introduced by Mr. Calhoun. In 
 the course of the debate it was declai-ed by Mr. Grundy and Mr. Clay, 
 both ardent supporters of the bill, to be a preliminary war measure. 
 The bUl was passed the same day. It was amended in the senate so as 
 to extend the period of its operation to ninety days; the amendment 
 was concurred in by the house ; and the bill was approved by the presi- 
 dent on the 4th. This act was succeeded, on the 8th, by an act to in- 
 crease the military force; on the 10th, by another authorizing a detach- 
 ment of 100,000 men from the militia of the United States; and on 
 the 14th, by an act to prohibit the exportation of specie or goods during 
 the existence of the embargo. 
 
 On the 18th of May, the republican caucus was held. it was 
 attended by 11 senators and 65 representatives. Mr. Madison having 
 consented to recommend war, received the nomination unanimously. 
 For vice-president, John Langdon of New Hampshire received 64 votes, 
 and was nominated. He however, declined the nomination on account 
 of age and infirmity; and Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who had 
 received sixteen votes in the caucus, was afterward substituted. A few 
 days after the congressional nomination, De Witt Clinton was nominated 
 by the republican members of the legislature of New York. 
 
 About the last of May, dispatches arrived from Mr. Barlow, our 
 minister at Paris. Nothing definite had been accomplished by him. 
 There was, however, some prospect, so he wrote, of the conclusion of a 
 treaty of commerce, on principles of reciprocity ; although a letter 
 from him to the Duke of Bassano of some six weeks' later date (March 
 12 1812), calling his attention to a case of plundering and burning an 
 American vessel, complained that he was " obliged so frequently to caU 
 the attention of his excellency to such lawless depredations." In one 
 ■ of his letters to the secretary of state, he said Mr. RusseU (at London) 
 had written him again for additional proofs of the repeal of the decrees 
 and he Ud sent him a Ust of vessels which had been restored by the 
 
THE WAR QUKSTION IN CONGRESS. 251 
 
 emperor. No encouragement had been given of indemnity for French 
 spoliations on our commerce. 
 
 On the 1st of June, 1812, the president sent to both houses of con- 
 gress a confidential message recommending war with Great Britain. In 
 setting forth the grounds or causes of war, the impressment of our sea- 
 men was first mentioned. Persons sailing under the American flag had 
 been seized and carried oflE, not in the exercise of a belligerent right 
 founded on the law of nations against an enemy, but of a municipal 
 prerogative over British subjects. Under the pretext of searching our 
 vessels for her own subjects, thousands of American citizens had been 
 taken, and forced to serve on British ships of war. 
 
 British cruisers, said the message, had also violated the rights and 
 peace of our coasts. They hovered over and harassed our entering and 
 departing commerce, and had wantonly spilled American blood within 
 our own territorial jurisdiction. Our commerce had also been plun- 
 dered under her pretended blockades, in the face of the definition, by her 
 own government, of a legal blockade ; viz., that " particular ports must 
 be actually invested, and previous warning given to vessels bound to 
 them not to enter." Next came the sweeping system of blockades 
 under the name of orders in council, which had been moulded and man- 
 aged to suit her political views, her commercial interests, and the 
 avidity of British cruisers. Our remonstrances against the injustice 
 of this innovation were met with the reply, that these orders had been 
 reluctantly adopted as a necessary retaliation on the decrees of her 
 enemy, which proclaimed a general blockade of the British isles, at a 
 time when the force of that enemy dared not issue from his own ports. 
 Great Britain had been reminded that her own prior unsupported block- 
 ades were a bar to this plea. And when the ground of this plea had 
 been removed by the repeal of the decrees of her enemy prohibiting 
 our trade with Great Britain, instead of a corresponding repeal of her 
 orders, had avowed the determination to persist in them until the mar- 
 kets of her enemy should be opened to her products. And farther, she 
 required, as a prerequisite to the repeal of her orders, a needless for- 
 mality (an oflicial publication or promulgation) to be observed in the 
 repeal of the French decrees, and the extension of the repeal to other 
 neutral nations. Thus it had become suflSciently certain, that the com- 
 merce of the United States was to be sacrificed, as interfering with a 
 monopoly which Great Britain coveted for her own commerce and navi- 
 gation. She carried on a war against the lawful commerce of a friend, 
 that she might the better carry on a commerce with an enemy — a com- 
 merce polluted by the forgeries and perjuries which were for the most 
 
&52 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. ' 
 
 part the only passports by which it could succeed ; (alluding to the 
 forged papers granted to vessels under the American name.) 
 
 The president adverted to the aiTangement made with Mr. Erskine, 
 the British minister at Washington, in 1809. Had not the British 
 government disavowed the act of its minister, a lasting reconciliation 
 would probably have been effected. He considered that there was on 
 the side of Great Britain a state of war against the United States, and 
 on the side of the United States, a state of peace toward Great Britain. 
 Had Great Britain revoked her blockades and orders, the way would 
 have been opened for a general repeal of the belligerent edicts ; and if 
 France had refused to repeal her decrees, the United States would have 
 been justified in turning their measures exclusively against France. 
 
 The president also expressed the opinion, that the recent renewal of 
 hostilities by the north-western Indians had been instigated by British 
 influence. 
 
 Two days after the receipt of this message, the committee on foreign 
 relations, through Mr. Calhoun, made a report to the house in favor of 
 war. This report gave a review of the controversy, declaring the British 
 blockade of Maj*, 1 806, to be the first aggression on our commerce ; and 
 the fii-st on the part of France was the decree of Berlin of November 
 21st, 1806. It embraced the same points as the message, to which it 
 may be considered as an affirmative response. 
 
 At the time of the communication of the message, and of the prepara- 
 tion and presentation of the repoit, as also the proceedings on the bill 
 reported by the committee declaring war, all of which was dcine with 
 closed doors, a correspondence was going on between Mr. Foster and 
 Mr. Monroe. With his letter of the 30th of May, Mr. Foster commu- 
 nicated a copy of a report of the French minister of foreign relations to 
 king Napoleon, communicated to the conservative senate, at the sitting 
 of March 10, 1812, and which Mr. F. considered as confirming the as- 
 sertions of his government, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had never 
 been revoked. The doctrines asserted in that report were pronounced 
 repugnant to the law of nations. They were as follows : 
 
 " The maritime rights of neutrals have been solemnly regulated by 
 the treaty of Utrecht, which has become the common law of nations ; 
 having been expressly renewed in all the subsequent treaties between the 
 maritime powers. 
 
 " The flag covers the property. Enemy's property under a neutral 
 flag, is neutral ; as neutral property under an enemy's flag is enemy's 
 property. The only articles which the flag does not cover, are contrar 
 band articles ; and the only articles which are contraband, are arms and 
 munitions of war. 
 
THE WAR QUESTION IN CONGRESS. 253 
 
 " A visit of a neutral vessel by an armed vessel can only be made by 
 a small number of men, the armed vessel keeping beyond tlie reach of 
 cannon-shot. 
 
 " Every neutral vessel may trade from an enemy's port to an enemy's 
 port, and from an enemy's port to a neutral port. The only ports ex- 
 cepted are those really blockaded ; and the ports really blockaded are 
 those which are invested, besieged, and in danger of being taken, and 
 into which a merchant ship could not enter without danger." 
 
 This report also declared that the Milan decree denationalized every 
 vessel which had submitted to English legislation, known to have 
 touched at an English port, known to have paid a tribute to England, 
 and which had thereby renounced the independence and the rights of its 
 flag. All the merchandise of the commerce and of the industry of 
 England were blockaded in the British isles ; the continental system ex- 
 cluded them from the continent. And it declared farther, that " as 
 long as the British orders in council are not revoked, and the principles 
 of the treaty of Utrecht in relation to neutrals put in force, the decrees 
 of Berlin ought to subsist for the powers who suffer their flag to be de- 
 nationalized. The ports of the continent ought to be opened neither to 
 denationalized flags nor to English merchandise." 
 
 Mr. Monroe said, in reply, that this report of the French minister 
 evidently referred to the continental system, by the means relied on to 
 enforce it ; it afforded no proof that the French government intended 
 by it to violate its engagement to the United States, as to the repeal of 
 the decrees. 
 
 Letters also passed between these gentlemen on the subject of im- 
 pressed seamen. Mr. Foster cited cases dn which British seamen had 
 been encouraged to desert his majesty's service, and of others who had 
 been detained against their will on board American ships of war ; but 
 says his sovereign (then the prince regent) would continue to give the 
 most positive orders against the detention of American citizens on board 
 his majesty's ships. 
 
 Mr. Monroe objected to the attempt to show the analogy between the 
 American practice and the British. They were quite different. The 
 regulations of the United States prohibited the enlistment of aliens into 
 their vessels of war. No such regulations existed on the side of Great 
 Britain. Enlistments by force or impressment were contrary to the 
 laws of the United States. This mode of procuring crews from public 
 ships was practiced by Great Britain, not only within her legal jurisdic- 
 tion, but was extended to foreign vessels on the high seas. As to the 
 orders against the detention of American citizens on board British ships 
 of war, they would afford no adequate remedy. Orders should be given 
 
^Si TttE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 against impressment itself ; and nothing short of this would be effectual, 
 or prove a disposition to do justice or promote a good understanding 
 between the two countries. 
 
 On the 18th of June, 1812, the injunction of secrecy ha\T[ng been re- 
 moved from the proceedings of congress, a declaration of war was an- 
 nounced, and the message of the president, and the report or manifesto of 
 the committee on foreign relations was published, with the act declaring 
 the war. On the final passage of the bill, the vote in the senate was 
 19 to 13 ; in the house, 79 to 49. 
 
 Before the adjournment, the federal members of the house of repre- 
 sentatives published an address to their constituents, on the subject of 
 the war with Great Britain. The minority complain that they had 
 been called into secret session on the most interesting of all public rela- 
 tions, without any reason for secrecy. No fact not previously known 
 was before the house, and no reason for secrecy existed, unless it was 
 found in the apprehension of the effect of pubUc debate on public opinion, 
 or of public opinion on the result of the vote. 
 
 The object of waging war and invading Canada, the address said, had 
 long been openly avowed, while, as was well known, our army and navy 
 were inadequate for successful invasion, and our fortifications were insuffi- 
 .cient for the security of our seaboard. Yet the people had been kept in 
 ignorance of the progress of measures until the purposes of the adminis- 
 tration were consummated, and the fate of the country was sealed. The 
 demand of the minority for open doors having been refused, they declined 
 discussion, convinced that, in the house, all argument with closed doors 
 was hopeless. 
 
 In speaking of the alleged cause of war, on the subject of impress- 
 ment, they remarked : " The government of the United States asserts 
 the broad principle, that the flag of their merchant vessels shall protect 
 the mariners. The privilege is claimed, although every person on board 
 except the captain may be an alien. The British government asserts 
 that the allegiance of their subjects is inalienable, in time of war, and 
 that their seamen, found on the sea, the common highway of nations, 
 shall not be protected by the flag of private merchant vessels." This 
 doctrine, they said, was common to all the governments of Europe. 
 France, as well as England, claimed, in time of war, the services of her 
 subjects. Both, by decrees, forbid their entering into foreign employ, 
 both recall them by proclamation. None doubted that, in the present 
 state of the French marine, if American merchant vessels were met at 
 sea, having French seamen on board, France would take them'. Did any 
 man believe that the United States would go to war with France on this 
 account? They considered impressment to be a subject of arrange- 
 
255 
 
 ment rather than of war. It had been so treated by every former ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 England, they said, had disavowed the right of impressment as it re- 
 spected our native citizens ; and an arrangement, it was believed, might 
 be made in regard to such as were naturalized. Indeed, Mr. King, 
 when minister to England, had obtained from the British government a 
 disavowal of the right to impress American seamen, naturalized as well 
 as native, on the high seas. An arrangement had been advanced nearly 
 to a conclusion, upon this basis, and was broken o£E only because Great 
 Britain insisted on retaining the right on the narrow seas. Mr. King 
 was of the opinion, however, " that with more time than was left him for 
 the experiment, the objection might have been overcome." Mr. Madison, 
 it appeared, was himself of the same opinion. In his letters to Messrs. 
 Monroe and Pinkney, in February, 180Y, he says : " I take it for grant- 
 ed that you have not failed to make due use of the arrangement concert- 
 ed by Mr. King with lord Hawkesbury in the year 1802, for settling the 
 question of impressment. On that occasion, and under that administra- 
 tion, the British principle was fairly renounced in favor of the right of 
 our flag, lord Hawkesbury having agreed to prohibit impressment on the 
 * high seas,' and lord Vincents requiring no more than an exception of 
 the narrow seas, an exception resting on the obsolete claim of Great 
 Britain to some peculiar dominion over them." 
 
 It appeared farther, that the British ministry had called for an inter- 
 view with Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney on this topic, at which they 
 had gone so far as to ojffer, on the part of Great Britain, to pass laws 
 making it penal for British commanders to impress American citizens on 
 board of American vessels on the high seas, if America could pass a law 
 making it penal for the officers of the United States to grant certificates 
 of citizenship to British subjects. And Mr. Monroe, after his return, in 
 a letter from Richmond to Mr. Madison, dated February 28, 1808, said: 
 " I have, on the contrary, always believed, and still do believe, that the 
 ground on which that interest (impressment) was placed by the paper 
 of the British commissioners of the 8th of November, 1806, and the ex- 
 planation which accompanied it, was both honorable and advantageous 
 to the United States ; that it contained a concession in their favor, on 
 the part of Great Britain, on the great principle in contestation, never 
 before made by a formal and obligatory act of their government, which 
 was highly favorable to their interest." In view of these facts, the mi- 
 nority thought this subject furnished no proper cause of war. 
 
 They undertook to show also, that the blockade of 1806, which had 
 been made a specific ground of complaint, and a cause of war, was re- 
 garded at first as favorable to the United States. As the manner in 
 
256 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 wHcli the American and French governments, in their official papers, 
 had spoken of the order of blockade, was vague and indeterminate, and 
 calculated to mislead, they presented the following facts:. In August, 
 1804, the British established a blockade at the entrance of the French 
 ports from Ostend to the Seine. The nearness of these ports to the British 
 coasts, and the absence of all complaint, authorized the belief that the 
 blockade was lawful, and enforced according to the usage of nations. On 
 the 16th of May, 1806, the English secretary of state, Mr. Fox, notified 
 our minister at London, Mr. Monroe, that the British government had 
 thought fit to direct measures to be taken for the blockade of the coasts, 
 rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to the river Brest, both inclusive. 
 The order, however, declared " that such blockade shall not prevent 
 neutral vessels laden with goods not being the property of his majesty's 
 enemies, and not contraband of war, from approaching, entering, or leav- 
 ing the said coasts, rivers, and ports, except those from Ostend to the 
 Seine, already in a state of rigorous blockade, and which are to be so 
 continued ; " and provided that the vessels entering had not been laden 
 at an enemy's port, and the vessels departing were not destined to an 
 enemy's port. 
 
 Hence it appeared, that the order did not actually extend the block- 
 ade ; and instead of operating against our trade, it was considered at 
 the time as designed to favor it, as the minority infer from the letters of 
 Monroe to Mr. Madison; On the 17th of May, 1806, he wrote, that the 
 order of blockade was " couched in terms of restraint, and professes to 
 extend the blockade further than was heretofore done ; nevertheless it 
 takes it from many ports already blockaded ; indeed from all east of 
 Ostend, and west of the Seine, except in articles contraband of war and 
 enemy's property, which are seizable without blockade. And in like 
 ■ form of exception, .... it admits the trade of neutrals within the same 
 limits to be free in the productions of enemies' colonies, in every but the 
 direct route, between the colony and the parent country ; " adding, " it 
 can not be doubted that the note was drawn by the government in refer- 
 ence to the question ; and if intended as the foundation of a treaty, 
 must be viewed in a favorable light." And on the 20th of May, he 
 wrote, that he had been " strengthened in the opinion, that the order of 
 the 16th was drawn with a view to the question of our trade with the 
 enemies' colonies, and that it promises to be highly satisfactory to our 
 commercial interest." 
 
 In reference to this blockade, the minority said, as Mr. Foster had 
 said to Mr. Monroe, that " it had never been made the subject of 
 complaint by the Ameiican government, until after the first order in 
 council; and indeed not until the 1st of May, 1810, and until after the f 
 
THE -WAR QUESTION. c257 
 
 American government was apprised of the ground wHch it was the will 
 of France should be taken on the subject," In proof of this, they refer- 
 red to the offers made during the administration of Mr. Jefferson for 
 the discontinuance of the embargo as it related to Great Britain ; none 
 of which required the repeal of the blockade of May, 1806. Nor was it 
 ^ required by the arrangement made with Mr. Erskine during the adminis- 
 tration of Mr. Madison. It did not appear to be of sufficient import- 
 ance to engage even a thought; yet, under the act of May, 1810, it is 
 made by our cabinet a sine qua non — an indispensable requisite ! 
 
 The British orders in council were the remaining cause of war. They 
 had heretofore been considered by our government in connection with the 
 French decrees. Certainly, both formed a system subversive of neutral 
 rights ; yet the undersigned could not persuade themselves that the or- 
 ders in council as they now existed, and with their present effect and 
 operation, justified the selection of Great Britain as our enemy, and ren- 
 dered necessary a declaration of unqualified war. 
 
 It was contended that the Berlin and Milan decrees had never been 
 revoked. The condition on which the non-intercourse ; according to the 
 act of the 1st of May, 1810, was to be revived against Great Britain, 
 was, on the part of France, an effectual revocation of her decrees. The 
 president was bound to require evidence of such revocation. A revoca- 
 tion to be effectual, must require, that the wrongs done to the commerce 
 of the United States by the operation of the decrees should be stopped. 
 According to the address, the release of vessels, after capture and deten- 
 tion, was not evidence of the repeal. The authority to capture, was the 
 very essence of the wrong, and must be annulled, before the decrees 
 could be considered effectually revoked. The letter of the duke of Ca- 
 dore of the 5th of August, 1810, was no annulment of this authority. 
 The imperial act which gave the authority, required, to annul it, another 
 imperial act equally formal and solemn. This subject was pursued at great 
 length, with a view to prove that these decrees had never been revoked. 
 
 Was there any thing in the friendship or commerce of France, they 
 asked, very interesting or alluring for entering into hostilities ? Of our 
 exports during the last year, amounting to upwards of 45 millions of 
 dollars, a little more than one million in value was exported to France. 
 France was now deprived of all her foreign colonies ; and our trade to 
 that country had 'been, for several years past, and before the date of the 
 orders in council, comparatively inconsiderable. 
 
 " But," says the address, " it is said that war is demanded by honor. 
 
 Is national honor a principle which thirsts after vengeance, and is appeased 
 
 only by blood ? which, trampling on the hopes of man, and spurning the 
 
 laws of God, untaught by what is past, and careless of what is to come, 
 
 17 
 
258 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 precipitates itself into any folly or madness, to gratify a selfish vanity, or 
 to satiate some unhallowed rage ? If honor demands a war with Eng- 
 land, what opiate lulls that honor to sleep over the wrongs done us by 
 France ? On land, robberies, seizures, imprisonments by French author- 
 ity ; at sea, pillage, sinkings, burnings under French orders. These are 
 notorious. Are they unfelt because they are French ? Is any allevia-^ 
 tion to be found in the correspondence and humiliations of the present 
 minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the French court ? In 
 his communications to our government, as before the public, where is the 
 cause for selecting France as the friend of our country, and England 
 as the enemy ? " * * * 
 
 " At a crisis of the world such as the present, and under impressions 
 such as these, the undersigned could not consider the war into which 
 the United States have, in secret, been precipitated, as necessary, or 
 required by any moral duty, or any political expediency." 
 
 This address was signed by 34 members of the house, all federalists ; 
 of whom there were, from New Hampshire, 1 ; Massachusetts, 8 ; Con- 
 necticut 7 ; Rhode Island, 2 ; Vermont, 1 ; New York, 4 ; Pennsyl- 
 vania, 1 ; Delaware, 1 ; Maryland, 3 ; Virginia, 4 ; North Carolina, 2. 
 There were only two federalists in the house who did not sign the address : 
 and their names are not among the yeas or nays on the passage of the 
 war act. Of the republicans who voted against war, there were from 
 Massachusetts, 1 ; New York, 7 ; New Jersey, 4 ; Virginia, (Randolph) 
 1 ; Pennsylvania, 1 ; North Carolina, 1. 
 
 Although all the federal members of the house, and nearly the whole 
 federal party, were opposed to the declaration of war; yet many of the 
 party, after war had been declared, gave it their support as a measure 
 of the country. Among its federal supporters of distinction, was ex- 
 president John Adams. 
 
 A few days before the declaration of war, an arrival from Europe 
 brought a copy of a decree of Napoleon, repealing the Berlin and Milan 
 decrees. This decree of repeal was dated April 28, 1811, and was in 
 the following words : 
 
 " On the report of our minister for foreign affairs. 
 
 "Being informed of the law of the 2d of March, 1811, by which the 
 congress of the United States has decreed the exemption of the provis- 
 ions of the act of non-intercoui'se, which interdicts the' entry into Ameri- 
 can ports, of the ships and the merchandise of Great Britain, her colonies 
 and dependencies : 
 
 " Considering that the said law is an act of resistance to the arbitrary 
 pretensions advanced by the British orders in council, and a formal 
 refusal to sanction a system hostile to the independence of neutral pow- 
 ers and of their flaacs : 
 
BRITISH ORDERS REVOKED. 259 
 
 " We have decreed, and do decree, as follows : 
 
 " The decrees of Berlin and Milan are definitely (from the 1st of 
 November last,) considered as no longer in force, as far as regards 
 American vessels." 
 
 A powerful incentive to the publication of this decree, is presumed to 
 have been, that the British government was making use of the duke of 
 Bassano's report of the 10th of March, to prove the non-repeal of the 
 Berlin and Milan decrees. And probably this fact aided our minister, 
 Mr. Barlow, in extracting tliis decree from the emperor. It was strongly 
 suspected, that no act of repeal had taken place pre^'iously to the publi- 
 cation of the above. Tliis suspicion was justified by the fact, that neither 
 Mr. Russell, who was charg^ at Paris at the time the decree purports to 
 have been issued, nor Mr. Serrurier, the French minister at Washington, 
 had any infonnation of it, as they both asserted against the declaration 
 of Bassano to Mr. Barlow that it had been communicated to both of 
 them. Its bearing date nearly a year before its appearance, afforded, of 
 itself, strong ground for doubting its preexistence. 
 
 Early in August intelligence was received of the revocation of the 
 British orders in council. The prince regent, in the name and on be- 
 half of the king, had, on the 21st of April, 1812, issued a declaration, 
 " That if, at any time thereafter, the Berhn and Milan decrees should, 
 by some authentic act of the French government, publicly promulgated, 
 be unconditionally repealed, the orders in council of the 7th of January, 
 1807, and of the 26th of April, 1809, should thenceforth be wholly 
 revoked." Mr. Russell, our charge at London, having, on the 21st of 
 May, transmitted to lord Castlereagh a copy of the French decree of 
 repeal, the prince regent, on the 23d of June, publicly declared the orders 
 to be revoked, so far as might regard American vessels and their cargoes 
 being American property, from the 1st day of August next. He stated, 
 however, that he did not consider the conditions of his order in April as 
 satisfied by the French decree, but he was " disposed to take such meas- 
 ures as might tend to reestablish the intercourse between the neutral 
 and belligerent nations upon its accustomed principles." The revocation 
 was of course conditioned upon the repeal, by the United States, of the 
 non-intercourse acts by which British vessels were excluded from our 
 ports. 
 
 This act of the British government was caused by the complaints of 
 the manufacturers, who had begun to feel the effects of the renewal of 
 our non-importation act, and in whose behalf some movement had been 
 made in parliament, and by the favor which the measure received from 
 the new ministry ; there having been an entire change in that branch of 
 the British government. 
 
'260 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Soon after the declaration of war, Mr. Foster took his departure, bear- 
 ing a letter from Mr, Monroe to Mr. Russell, charge at London, author- 
 izing him to propose to the British government a suspension of hostili- 
 ties with a view to an adjustment of all difficulties between the two 
 countries. The conditions of the proposed armistice were, that the 
 orders in council should be revoked, and no illegal blockades substituted 
 for them ; and that orders should be given to discontinue the impress- 
 ment of seamen from our vessels, and to restore those already impressed. 
 As an inducement to the British government to discontinue impressments, 
 assurances might be given, that a law would be passed by congress to 
 prohibit the employment of British seamen in our vessels, public or 
 private ; a similar prohibition to be enacted by Great Britain against the 
 employment of American citizens. These reciprocal enactments would 
 operate most in favor of Great Britain, as few of our seamen voluntarily 
 entered the British service. 
 
 In a subsequent letter of the 27th of July, Mr. Monroe authorized 
 Mr. Russell to modify the propositions so as to free them still farther 
 from reasonable objection on the part of Great Britain, by dispensing 
 with the former condition of an express previous stipulation on the sub- 
 ject of impressment. That is, he might agree, in general terms, in order 
 to allow full time for a general adjustment of difficulties, that an armis- 
 tice should take place for that purpose, on the simple condition that com- 
 missioners should be appointed by each party, Avith power to form a 
 treaty providing to secure the seamen of each from being taken or em- 
 ployed in the service of the other, and to regulate commerce and all 
 other interesting questions between them. 
 
 At Halifax, on his way home, Mr, Foster received dispatches from his 
 government, dated about the lYth of June, and directed to him at Wash- 
 ington, but which he there opened, informing him of the intended revo- 
 cation of the orders in council, to take effect on the 1st of August. Pre- 
 suming that the object of communicating this intention was to prevent or 
 stop hostilities, he sent the dispatches to Mr. Baker, secretary to the 
 British legation, still at Washington, and requested him to communicate 
 to our government the contemplated change of policy on the part of 
 Great Britain, and to propose a suspension of hostilities. Having had a 
 conversation at Halifax with vice-admiral Sawyer, naval commander, and 
 sir John Sherbroke, lieutenant-governor, he was authorized by them to 
 say to Mr. Baker, that decisions of cases of capture of American vessels 
 should be suspended. He had not seen sir George Provost, the governOr- 
 in-chief, and captain-general of the land forces ; but he had written to 
 him by express, and did not doubt his agreeing to the arrangement. Our 
 government, however, declined the proposition, alleging as a reason, that 
 
ARMISTICE DECLINED, j,- 261 
 
 it was not probable, even if it was less liable to insuperable difficulties, 
 that it could have any material effect sooner than the arrangement pro^ 
 posed through Mr. Russell, if it should be favorably received. 
 
 These facts were communicated by letters of the 9th and 10th of 
 August, to Mr. Russell, by Mr, Graham, acting as secretary in the tempo- 
 rary absence of Mr. Monroe, who, after his return, wrote to Mr. Russell, 
 detailing at length the principal reasons against accepting the proposition. 
 1st. The president had no power to suspend judicial proceedings on 
 prizes. 2d. The proposition did not proceed from the British govern- 
 ment, and might not be approved by it. 3d. No security was proposed 
 against the Indians, who had engaged in the war on the side of Great 
 Britain. 4th. The proposition was not equal, as it would restrain us 
 from attacking Canada, and give Great Britain time to augment her 
 forces there. 5th. As a principal object of the war was redress for im- 
 pressments, an agreement to suspend hostilities, even before the British 
 government was heard from, might be considered a relinquishment of 
 that claim. 6th. The instructions given him (Mr. Russell,) if met by 
 the British government, might have already produced the same result in 
 a greater extent and more satisfactory form. He also stated several 
 points in which the declaration itself was objectionable. 
 
 In September, Admiral Warren, who was sent out as commander of 
 the British naval forces on the American coasts, arrived at Halifax. He 
 had power also to propose an armistice, and negotiate an arrangement 
 respecting the repeal of our non-intercourse regulations. The president 
 was unwilling to suspend hostilities, without an agreement on the part 
 of Great Britain to suspend her impressments ; and as Warren had no 
 power on that subject, the proposals for an armistice were rejected. As 
 the propositions through Mr. Russell to the British government were 
 also rejected, the wai^ was prosecuted. And, as the orders in council 
 had been conditionally revoked, the only remaining grievance to be 
 redressed by wgf, was that of impressment — a grievance, however, of 
 great magnitude. The number of impressments has never been accu- 
 rately ascertained. There were recorded in the state department, more 
 than six thousand cases ; which, it was supposed, was scarcely half the 
 number actually impressed. Making all due allowance for cases of 
 persons falsely claiming to be American citizens, the number must still 
 have been very great. Many of them were doomed to a cruel service on 
 board British vessels until they could prove themselves Americans, 
 which, while in such condition, was in most cases impossible. And when 
 at last war took place between the United States and Great Britain, they 
 were compelled to fight against their own country, or suffer imprison- 
 ment. Thousands, it is said, did actually choose the latter alternative. 
 
262 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the most of whom, unable to procure the necessary proof of their origin, 
 were not liberated till after the restoration of peace. The name of 
 Dartmoor became notorious from the number confined within its prison. 
 
 After the declaration of war, and before congress adjourned, acts 
 having reference to the war were passed, for the more perfect organiza- 
 tion of the army ; to authorize the issuing of treasury notes ; for impos- 
 ing additional duties on imports ; to make farther appropriation for the 
 defense of the maritime frontier and for the support of the navy ; for 
 the safe keeping and accommodation of prisoners of war; for prohibiting 
 American vessels from trading with enemies of the United States; 
 besides several others. An act had passed in March, authorizing a loan 
 not exceeding $11,000,000. An act was also passed before adjourn- 
 ment, fixing the 1st Monday of November for the next meeting of con- 
 gress. 
 
 An act having been passed at the previous session of congress to 
 enable the people of the territory of Orleans to form a constitution and 
 state government, and for the admission of such state into the union ; 
 an act was passed at the present session, declaring the state to be admit- 
 ted into the union, with the name of Louisiana. And by another act, 
 the name of Louisiana territory was changed to that of Missouri, and 
 its government to a territorial government of the first class, the legisla- 
 ture being chosen by the people. 
 
 CHAPTER XYIII. 
 
 ELECTION OF MR. MADISON. CONTROVERSY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND 
 
 CONNECTICUT. RUSSIA OFFERS TO MEDIATE. DUTIES AND TAXES. 
 
 EMBARGO. ITS SUDDEN REPEAL. OFFER TO NEGOTIA^'E ACCEPTED. 
 
 CAPITOL BURNED. HARTFORD CONVENTION. BANK PROJRCTS. 
 
 The presidential election of 1812, resulted in the election of a 
 majority of electors in favor of Messi-s. Madison and Geny for president 
 and vice-president; the former receiving 128 votes and the latter 131. 
 DeAVitt Clinton received 89 votes for president, and Jared Ingersoll, 
 of Pennsylvania, 86 for vice-president. They were supported by the 
 republican party of the state of New York, and the federal party gene- 
 rally, Mr. Clinton was adopted by a general convention of the latter 
 party, in which eleven states were represented ; all of those north of the 
 Potomac, with South Carolina. Though a republican, he was nominated 
 
CONTROVERSY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT. 263 
 
 with a view of defeating Mr. Madison, which the reduced strength of 
 the federal party had rendered hopeless with a candidate of their own 
 politics. Mr. IngersoU was a ^iioderate federalist. 
 
 The 2nd session of the 12th congress commenced on the 2nd day of 
 November, 1812. The leading topics of the message were those relating 
 to the war. He recapitulated the important events which had occurred 
 since the last session ; presented the present condition of the country; 
 and recommended farther measures for the prosecution of the war. 
 Among the subjects noticed in the message, was the refusal of the gov- 
 ernoi"s of Massachusetts and Connecticut to furnish the required detach- 
 ments of militia toward the defense of the maritime frontier. One of 
 the grounds of this refusal was, that, in their opinion, there was at that 
 time no invasion, nor any danger of one, to render a call for the militia 
 necessary. The denseuess of the population along the sea-coast, espe- 
 cially of Massachusetts, was such as to admit a speedy assembling of 
 her well disciplined militia at any point of danger ; and the governor 
 deemed it unnecessary either to take them from their employments, or to 
 incur the expense of supporting an unemployed military force. Assuming 
 the right to judge of the existence of an emergency which should justify 
 such a call, they refused compliance. The legislature of Connecticut 
 passed an act to raise a provisional anny of 2,600 men for its own 
 defense. 
 
 An act was passed at this session authorizing a loan of sixteen mil- 
 lions of dollars ; and an act authorizing the issue of treasury notes not 
 exceeding the sum of five millions. 
 
 With the expectation that the suspension of the non-importation act 
 would, according to its own provisions, follow the repeal of the orders in 
 council, American vessels in the ports of Great Britain at the time of 
 the repeal, were loaded with British goods, which on arrival in our ports 
 became forfeited. This exportation of goods from Great Britain con- 
 tinued for several weeks, encouraged by the opinion of Mr. Russell, 
 American charge at London, that the non-importation law would cease 
 to operate. Eighteen millions' worth of goods which had during this 
 time left England, was illegally brought into our ports. These goods, 
 instead of being detained by the government, were delivered to the claim- 
 ants, on their giving bonds for the amount of their value. An act was 
 passed, mainly through the efforts of Mr. Cheves and Mr. Calhoun, 
 though opposed by leading men of their own party, remitting the for- 
 feitures under the act. The vote in the house on the bill was 64 to 61. 
 The federal members, objecting to certain provisions of the bill, voted 
 against it. 
 
 By another act, the president was authorized to cause ample retalia- 
 
264 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tion to be made, according to the laws and usages of war among civilized 
 nations, for any violations of such laws and usages which should be 
 committed on American citizens by per^ns acting under British au- 
 thority, or by Indians in alliance with the British government. 
 
 An act was passed, near the close of the session, by which the next 
 congress was required to meet on the 4th Monday of May. 
 
 On the 3d of March, 1813, Mr. Madison's first term expired; and on 
 the next day, he was again inaugurated. 
 
 Mr. Adams was at this time, and had been since 1809, minister at St. 
 Petersburg. With his approbation, it is said, the Russian emperor, 
 Alexander, tendered his offices as mediator between the two governments. 
 The offer was communicated to our government early in March, 1813, 
 through Mr. Daschkoff , the Russian minister at Washington : whereupon 
 Mr. Madison immediately nominated Mr. Gallatin, then secretary of the 
 treasury, and Mr, Bayard, of Delaware, senator in congi'ess, as ministers, 
 with whom Mr. Adams was to be associated, to negotiate a peace with 
 Great Britain. Both the former gentlemen wei'e, it is said, in favor of 
 peace. Mr. Crawford, senator from Georgia, was appointed minister to 
 France, in place of Mr. Barlow, deceased. 
 
 Congress, pursuant to the act of the preceding session, met on the 
 24th day of May, 1813. The nomination of coramissionei's to negotiate 
 peace with Great Britain was at an early day submitted to the senate. 
 The nomination of Mr. Adams and Mr. Bayard was confirmed, but that 
 of Mr. Gallatin was rejected, for the reason that he still held the office 
 of secretary of the treasury. The nomination of Mr. Russell as minister 
 to Sweden, was also rejected. 
 
 In his message to congress, the president noticed with satisfaction the 
 proffer of mediation by the Russian emperor, and stated that it had 
 been promptly accepted ; and he presumed from the sentiments of 
 Great Britain toward that sovereign, that it had also been accepted by 
 the British government. 
 
 The principal subject of the rnessage was the increase of the revenue, 
 which was necessary to meet the demands upon the treasury the coming 
 year. To provide for this object appears to have been the chief design 
 of this early meeting of the new congress. Several acts for the purpose 
 were passed. By one of these acts, a direct tax of three millions was 
 levied on real estate and slaves. Another imposed a duty of four cents 
 a pound on all sugar refined within the United States. Another laid a 
 duty on pleasure carnages : on every coach, $20 a year ; on a chariot OT 
 post-chaise, $17; on a phaeton or coachee, $10; on a four-wheel car- 
 riage hanging on steel or iron spiings, $7 ; on a four-wheel carriage on 
 wooden springs, and a two-wheel carriage on iron or steel springs $4 ; 
 
DUTIES AND TAXES. 265 
 
 and on every other four or two wheel carriage, $2, An act was also 
 passed laying duties on licenses to distillers of spirituous liquors. The 
 duty was laid per gallon, not according to the number of gallons manu- 
 factured, but according to the capacity of the still, including the head 
 thereof. On a license for two weeks, 9 cents a gallon ; the proportional 
 duty per gallon slightly diminishing for a longer term, being for six 
 months VO cents a gallon. A higher duty was imposed if the spirits 
 were manufactured from foreign materials. A duty of one per cent, 
 was laid on sales at auction. Duties were also laid on licenses to retail- 
 ers of wines, spirituous liquors, and foreign merchandise. The duty 
 annually on a license was from $10 to $25, being graduated according 
 to the number of families within a given territory ; and being also less 
 or more if only a part or if all the different classes of goods were to be 
 sold. Duties were also laid on stamps ; viz., on bank notes or bills, one 
 per cent. ; on bonds or promissory notes discounted by banks, and on bills 
 of exchange, certain fixed sums, according to the amount specified in 
 the obligation or \\Titing. And the secretary of the treasury was au- 
 thorized to compound with the banks for one and a half per cent, on their 
 annual dividends, in lieu of the stamp duty. From these duties two 
 milUons were expected. The duties and taxes imposed by the preceding 
 acts were to begin with the year 1814. An additional sum of $7,500,000 
 was authorized to be raised by loan. 
 
 An act was passed at this session, allowing a bounty of $25 to the 
 owners, officers and crews of private armed vessels, (privateers,) for each 
 prisoner captured and brought into port. Also an act prohibiting our 
 citizens from obtaining or using any license granted by the government 
 of Great Britain for the protection of any vessel or merchandise, under 
 a penalty of double the value of the ship and merchandise, besides 
 being liable to be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined not ex- 
 ceeding $5,000, nor less than $1,000. 
 
 The 2d session of the 13th congress commenced on the 6th of Decem- 
 ber, 181.3. An account of the progress of the war, and the state of the 
 finances, constituted the burden of the president's message. He made 
 mention also of the unexpected refusal of Great Britain to accept the 
 mediation of Russia. ^ 
 
 On the 9th of December, he communicated a confidential message 
 recommending another embargo. Supplies of the most essential kind, 
 he said, were finding their way to British ports and armies ; and British 
 goods were coming into our ports, in contravention of the non-importa- 
 tion act, often in British vessels disguised as neutrals by false colors and 
 papers. To prevent these and several other evils, an embargo was 
 deemed necessary. An act, very stringent in its provisions, was accord- 
 
^66 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ingly passed in secret session. Such was the operation of this act upon 
 coasting vessels, that it was soon found necessary to pass an act permitting 
 the return to the ports where they were owned, of such of these vessels 
 as were in other districts at the time of the passage of the embargo act. 
 
 The issue of treasury notes to the amount of five millions, and a loan 
 of twenty-five millions, were authorized; and several acts were also 
 passed for the increase of the army and the support of the navy. 
 
 Before the close of the session, an act was unexpectedly passed, re- 
 pealing both the recent embargo act, and the non-importation act by 
 which the importation of British goods had been prohibited ; except so 
 far as it affected property belonging to an enemy at the time of its im- 
 portation, which was still to be excluded. This repeal was enacted in 
 pursuance of a recommendation of the president in a special message of 
 the 31st of May, stating as reasons, "the mutual interests which the 
 United States and the foreigii nations in amity with them have in a 
 liberal commercial intercourse, and the extensive change favorable 
 thereto which have recently taken place." The " changes " here referred 
 to had been produced by recent occurrences in Europe. The allied 
 powers had offered peace to France, and negotiations for that object had 
 commenced ; but they had been abruptly terminated. The allied armies 
 had entered France; and, as a consequence, Bonaparte's "continental 
 system " had been ripped up, and trade with the continent reopened to 
 the northern nations of Europe, including Great Britain. This unex- 
 pected repeal of French decrees and British orders, had dictated the 
 policy recommended by the president. 
 
 On the 4th of April, Mr. Calhoun, from the committee on foreign re- 
 lations, n^ade a brief report, accompanied by a bill for the repeal of the 
 acts mentioned. The reasons assigned by the report for this measure, 
 were, in substance, that our commercial intercourse with the friendly 
 powers of the world having been obstructed, the bearing of our restric- 
 tive measures had been chiefly confined to our enemies. But there was 
 now a prospect of an extended commerce with the former, which, it was 
 presumed, they would find an equal interest and disposition to promote. 
 Denmark, all Germany, and Holland, had been liberated from the double 
 restraint of internal regulation and external blockades, and depredations 
 from a commerce with the United States. Other reasons for the open- 
 ing of our ports were, that it would augment the revenue, and maintain 
 the public credit ; that it would enhance the price of our produce, and 
 promote its circulation, in lieu of specie, which had lately become so 
 much the object of speculations tending to embarrass the government 
 An increase of revenue was certainly an important object, as loans could 
 not then be effected on the credit of the government without considerable 
 sacrifice. 
 
OFFER TO NEGOTIATE ACCEPTED. 267 
 
 The president also recommended, as an additional safeguard and en- 
 couragement to our growing manufactures, that the double duties on im- 
 ports which were to expire at the end of one year after a peace with 
 Great Britain, should be prolonged a year ; and that, in favor of our 
 moneyed institutions the exportation of specie during the same period 
 should be prohibited. A bill for the latter purpose was introduced ; 
 but no act was passed in favor of either of these measures. 
 
 Although Great Britain had declined the offer of mediation by Russia, 
 an offer to treat of peace, at London, was communicated to our govern- 
 ment : or, if some other place should be preferred, Gottenburg, in 
 Sweden, was proposed. The offer was readily accepted, and Gottenburg 
 was chosen as the place of meeting. And as commissioners, the jjresi- 
 dent nominated (January 14), Henry Clay and Jonathan Russell, to join 
 Messrs. Adams and Bayard, whose nomination had been confirmed at the 
 preceding session. Mr. Russell was now also confirmed as minister to 
 Sweden. On the 8th of February, Mr. Gallatin, still in Europe, was 
 again nominated, and was confirmed. The place of meeting, however, 
 was changed to Ghent, in Belgium. By the vessel which brought the 
 offer to negotiate, news was received of the defeat of Bonaparte at 
 Leipsic, which was thought to have had some influence in determining 
 the. president's acceptance of the offer to negotiate. 
 
 This news from Europe was succeeded, in June, by that of the abdi- 
 cation of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons ; and induced 
 the president to send new instructions to the commissioners. Instead of 
 insisting on security against impressment, as they had been first instructed, 
 they might, if peace could not be had upon other terms, waive the ques- 
 tion of impressment, and leave it for future negotiation. On the sea, 
 where it was apprehended we should be least able to cope with the enemy, 
 "we had been most successful. Many brilliant victories had been achieved 
 by our navy. On the lakes, our fleets had been signally triumphant. 
 Yet, a large portion of our Atlantic coast being in a state of blockade, 
 our coasting trade was seriously obstructed. The operations of our 
 army had not been attended with equal success. They had been such as 
 to inspire little hope of effecting the conquest of Canada, which, if it 
 were not, as the federalists charged that it was, a motive to the declara- 
 tion of war, had since become one of its chief objects. Several inva- 
 sions had been made with this view ; but, although in a number of en- 
 gagements our arms had been victorious, the acquisition of these British 
 provinces was next to hopeless. Besides, the peace of Europe had re- 
 leased large portions of the British naval and military forces, which 
 were about to be sent over to serve in the American war. Perhaps also 
 the state of the national finances and currency contributed to the indis- 
 
268 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 position of our government to protract a war in which we were, in all 
 probability, soon to exchange our offensive position for one of defense ; 
 preparations being in progress, as was supposed, for an invasion of the 
 United States. 
 
 In the month of August, 1814, a British army of between 4,000 and 
 5,000 men under Gen. Ross, ascended the Potomac to Washington, 
 burned the capitol and other public buildings, including the president's 
 house, and retreated. The president and his secretaries, to avoid capture, 
 fled from the city. The want of due preparation to defend the seat of 
 Government, was owing to a culpable negligence on the part either of 
 the president or of General Armsti-ong, then secretary of war, or both. 
 Though not entirely defenseless, the forces were inadequate to a success- 
 ful resistance. 
 
 On the 19th of September, the 13th congress commenced its 3d ses- 
 sion. It had been convened by the president before the day (the last Mon- 
 day of October-) fixed at the last session. In his message, the president 
 assigned as a reason for having convened congress before the appointed 
 time, " as well that any inadequacy in the existing wants of the treasury 
 might be supplied, as that no delay might happen in providing for the 
 result of the negotiation, on foot with Gi'eat Britain, whether it should 
 require arrangements adapted to a return of peace, or further and more 
 effective provisions for prosecuting the wai"." He regarded the repeal 
 of the order in council, and the general pacification in Europe, which 
 had withdrawn the occasion for impressments from American vessels, as 
 favoring the expectations that peace might be reestablished, while the 
 rejection of the offer of mediation, the delay in preparing for the negoti- 
 ation proposed by Great Britain herself, and the manner in which the 
 war was then conducted, indicated a hostility more violent than ever. 
 In speaking of the events of the war, he mentions " the splendid victo- 
 ries" and "the most unfading laurels" gained by Brown, Scott, and 
 Gaines, and " the bold and skillful operations of ' major-general Jack- 
 son." He noticed the enterprises of the enemy against the metropolis 
 and Alexandria, " from both of which his retreats were as precipitate as 
 his attempts were bold and fortunate ; " and the success of our arms at 
 Plattsburg, and our victories on the waters, were made a subject of 
 congratulation. 
 
 The president also recommended farther provisions for increasing the 
 army and for furnishing the necessary pecuniary supplies. The situa- 
 tion of the country called for its greatest efforts. The enemy, he said, 
 was powerful in men and money, on the land and on the water. Avail- 
 ing himself of fortuitous advantages, he was aiming with his undivided 
 force a deadly blow to our growing prosperity, perhaps at our national 
 existence. 
 
HARTFORD CONVENTION. 269 
 
 Measures were accordingly adopted by congress to prosecute the war 
 with vigor. The purchase or building of additional war vessels was 
 authorized; and provision was made for filling the ranks of the anny, 
 and for otherwise increasing it. In aid of the treasury, an additional 
 loan of three millions was authorized ; duties on carriages, distilled 
 spirits, and on other domestic manufactures, were increased ; and duties 
 were laid on household furniture and gold and silver watches. Also a 
 direct tax of six millions was laid. 
 
 On the 15th of December, 1814, was held that famed assemblage, the 
 Hartford Convention. It was long supposed, and indeed the opinion is 
 to some extent still entertained, that the designs of this convention were 
 treasonable, or, at least, that it contemplated a dissolution of the union. 
 As the proceedings of this convention wet-e conducted within closed 
 doors, the public have no other means of information respecting their 
 character than the account of them as published by order of the conven- 
 tion itself, and more recently, (in 1833,) a history of that convention by 
 its secretary, Theodore Dwight. In the absence of any other evidence 
 against the unlawful designs of that body than the suspicious circum- 
 stances under which, and the particular juncture at which, it was held 
 we are compelled to rely for facts on the statements of those who. wit- 
 nessed its deliberations. 
 
 The general object of the convention was a redress of grievances. 
 One ground of complaint was the law passed at the preceding session, 
 *' making further provision for filling the ranks of the anny of the United 
 States." This law authorized the recruiting officers to enlist into the 
 army any free, effective, able bodied men betAveen the ages of eighteen 
 and fifty years. It also repealed the provisions of former acts requiring 
 the consent in writing of parents or guardians in the enlistment of 
 minors ; provided masters of apprentices who were enlisted should receive 
 a portion of the bounty money. Parents were unwilling that their 
 children should be taken from under parental care, and placed in the 
 contaminating atmosphere of an army. This mode of supplying the 
 army by conscription, as it was called, or drafting, they objected to. 
 They claimed it as a state right to raise men in their own way ; and 
 denied the right of the general government either to prescribe the mode 
 of enlistment, or to sever the connection established by law between 
 parents and children, or masters and apprentices. 
 
 The secretary in his history of the convention, says : " The situation 
 of the New England states was in the highest degree critical and dan- 
 gerous. The services of the militia, for two years, had been extremely 
 severe ; they were constantly taken from their farms and their ordinary 
 occupations, and in addition to all the losses which such a state must 
 
270 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 necessarily produce, they were subjected to the hardships and hazards of 
 a camp, and the life of a soldier. In the meantime, the United States 
 had withheld all supplies for the maintenance of the militia for the year 
 1814, both in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and thus forced upon the 
 states the burden of supporting the troops employed in defending their 
 coasts from invasion, and their towns from being sacked and pillaged. 
 * * * It had become perfectly apparent, that if the New England states 
 were rescued from the ejffects of these calamities at all, it must depend, 
 as far as human means were concerned, upon their own exertions, and 
 that they could not place the least dependence on the national govern- 
 ment. Indeed, they had been repeatedly told that such was the state 
 of things by the national government." 
 
 In October, a resolution was adopted by the legislature of Massachu- 
 setts for the appointment of twelve delegates " to meet and confer with 
 delegates from the other New England states, or any other, upon the 
 subject of their public gi'ievances and concerns ; and upon the best 
 means of preserving our resources ; and of defense against the enemy ; 
 and to devise and suggest for adoption by those respective states, such 
 measures as they may deem expedient ; " &c. A letter was also pre- 
 pared and addressed to the governors of the several states accompanying 
 the above resolution, and extending the invitation to their legislatures 
 to appoint delegates to the proposed convention, the object of which was 
 to devise, if practicable, means of security and defense which may be 
 consistent with the preservation of their resources from total ruin, and 
 adapted to their local situation, mutual relations and habits, and not 
 repugnant to their obligations as members of the union." Another ob- 
 ject was to procure such amendments of the national constitution as 
 should secure to them equal advantage. 
 
 Formal action was taken upon this communication by the legislatures 
 of Connecticut and Rhode Island, and delegates were appointed. The 
 people of the counties of Grafton and Cheshire, in New Hampshire, and 
 those of the county of Windham, in Vermont, also appointed delegates. 
 The convention was in session from the 15th of December, 1814, till 
 the 5th of January, 1815. George Cabot, of Massachusetts, was chosen 
 president, and Theodore Dwight, secretary. Mr. Dwight's name is not 
 in the list of members. The following is the list : 
 
 From Massachusetts : George Cabot, Nathan Dane, William Prescott, 
 Harrison Gray Otis, Timothy Bigelow, Joshua Thomas, Stephen Long- 
 fellow, Jun., Daniel Waldo, Hodijah Baylies. 
 
 From Connecticut: Chauncey Goodrich, John Treadwell, James 
 Hillhouse, Zephaniah Swift, Nathaniel Smith, Calvin Goddard, Roger 
 Minot Sherman. 
 
HARTFORD CONVENTION. 27l 
 
 From Rhode Island : Daniel Lyman, Samuel Ward, Edward Manton, 
 Benjamin Hazard. 
 
 From New Hampshire : Benjamin West, Mills Olcott. 
 
 From Vermont : William Hall, Jun. 
 
 The result of the deliberations of the convention was embodied in a 
 report of great length, which concludes with four resolutions and seven 
 proposed amendments to the constitution. 
 
 The first resolution recommended to the states the adoption of mea- 
 sures to protect their citizens against forcible drafts, conscriptions, or 
 impressments not authorized by the constitution. The second, recom- 
 mended application to the general government for consent that the 
 states represented in this convention might separately or in concert de- 
 fend themselves against the enemy. The third, recommended state laws 
 authorizing the governors or commanders-in-chief of their militia to make 
 detachments from the same, or to form voluntaiy corps, and to cause 
 them to be well armed and disciplined, and ready for service, &c. The 
 fourth, recommended to the states represented in that convention certain 
 amendments to be by them proposed for adoption by the state legisla- 
 tures, &c. The amendments were as follows : 
 
 1. Excluding slaves from the basis on which representatives and 
 direct taxes are apportioned. 
 
 2. Requiring, in the admission of new states, the concurrence of two- 
 thirds of both houses. 
 
 3. Prohibiting congress from laying an embargo for more than sixty 
 days. 
 
 4. Prohibiting congress from interdicting commercial intercourse with 
 foreign nations, without the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses, 
 
 5. Requiring the concurrence of two-thirds to declare war, or author- 
 ize acts of hostility against any foreign nation, except in defense and in 
 cases of actual invasion. 
 
 6. Making ineligible to any civil office under the general government, 
 any person thereafter naturalized. 
 
 v. The president to be eligible only for a single term ; and not to be 
 chosen two terms in succession from the same state. 
 
 Then followed a resolution, that, if the application recommended in 
 the second of the foregoing resolutions should be unsuccessful, and peace 
 should not be concluded, and the defense of these states should be 
 neglected as it had been since the commencement of the war, it would 
 be expedient for the legislatures of the several states to appoint dele- 
 gates to another convention, to meet at Boston on the third Tuesday 
 of June next, with such powers and instructions as the exigency of a 
 crisis so momentous might require. 
 
272 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 A committee was also appointed, authorized to call another meeting 
 of this convention before that time, if it should^be deemed necessary. 
 
 When, in 1819, the original journal of the proceedings of this con- 
 vention was placed in the oflfice of the secretary of state in Boston, it 
 was duly certified by the president, Mr. Cabot, to be a faithful and 
 complete record of all the motions, resolutions, votes, and proceedings 
 of that convention. 
 
 The state of the national finances, as presented to congress at its 
 meeting in September, 1814, by the new secretary of the treasury, Mr. 
 Campbell, was by no means gratifying. Stock had been issued for 
 about half of the twenty-five million loan authorized at the preceding 
 session, and only about 80 per cent, had been received for the same; 
 that is to say, the government was obliged to sell its obligations on 
 interest at six per cent, at a discount of 20 per cent. About one-half 
 of eight millions of treasury notes outstanding, together with other 
 sums, amounting in the aggregate to about twenty-five millions, would 
 be drawn for upon the treasury within the year ; of which all but about 
 nine millions was to be provided for. 
 
 In addition to the loan of three millions, and the duties above men- 
 tioned, an act, in further aid of the treasury, was passed, for the issue 
 of treasury notes in lieu of such portion of the twenty-five million loan 
 authorized at the preceding session, and the three milUon loan author- 
 ized at the present session, as had not yet been obtained ; and for the 
 further sum of three millions to defray the expenses of the war depart- 
 ment for the present year. 
 
 Most of the banks, except those of New England, had suspended 
 specie payments, caused, in part, by the drain of specie to pay for 
 foreign goods, chiefly British, which had been brought into the country 
 clandestinely and under false colors. Mr. Campbell ha\ing resigned 
 immediately after making his report to congress, Alexander Dallas, of 
 Philadelphia, was appointed in his place. Mr. Dallas proposed a plan 
 of a huge national bank, with a capital of fifty millions, to consist of five 
 millions of specie, and the residue of government stock ; the govern- 
 ment itself to subscribe two-fifths of its capital, to appoint a part of 
 the directors, and to have power to authorize a suspension of specie 
 payments ! Another of its proAisions required it to loan to the govern- 
 ment thirty millions. This scheme of a bank — so necessary was some 
 institution of the kind considered at that particular crisis — received 
 the favor of the administration. So obnoxious, however, was it to Mr. 
 Calhoun and some other republicans, that he proposed a counter pro- 
 ject : a bank with a capital of fifty millions, to consist of six millions 
 of specie, and forty -four millions of treasury notes ; the government to 
 
? D'A7i;5n 
 
 ^^2^^S^ ^^^^k^&^^M:^ 
 
w 
 
 i 
 
BANK PROJECTS. o^q 
 
 Jl'Tr2.:-,X'-.r;r'.""~"' *■'•■ >• 
 
 alists now voting against the biU ' *^® ^^'^^^^ 
 
 pier z t t,:Tr .ii^t;::^!-: '^^ -r -' 
 
 some amendments and thp n, .• v ■ ^P^'f^'^' ^'^' ^^^'i^g undergone 
 
 stood, 81 inTcr dC"j;:tit ^"''rT''''^™'' 
 
 availed M„s.,f of Ms' right to Te to ! ^ J^d 'at ^^^^ 
 given his reasons for opposinff th^ I.ill „ -j ' ' """""S 
 
 unexampled, and despeZ "It " h» . r T°« " " "<>»«<="»»> 
 a <^; a'nd then decla« e MU; be , Zt ^ "f ""' ^™'"°'"« 
 moved and ea„ied; and a con.p o^ e lu trZST "^T" 
 
 fifteen ^illion^! ZT^^l^'lJ::, ^^:^ "-^ -'^^ 
 be no eompnlsory loan to the government Lr„' "'"'« "'^ '» 
 jpecie payments. After an ine JctnTarm;,": .rZVL'^'^t' 
 to snbstitnte a clause authorizing the president V ^ f } '""'^ 
 
 tp:f"ruu"i :^uttrir:f iLt:i- i-r -^ 
 
 of sneh an institution ha™g been rL! !^ i ""' """'"'^ 
 
 t-e legislative, executive. a„f ^dicTblcLroTr '' " ^"' °' 
 accompanied by indications, in .Merent mode,!^ government, 
 
 general will of the nation." Burhe sa d ■ H,.' ■=""; r™"<^ <" "-o 
 
 wear to be calculated to answer the pu'm '^T^- '""'^ ''°^'' °°' 
 
 -^y^'^TZt^t!:^:,:^-^ - - revenue, 
 »a'd in't renatf b 'Sr°B t ''™?!! °' ^^^'^ P'^' ™ "^gi- 
 
 '«y p».;:;dtrh::::;--i -^^^^ r r-- "' -- 
 
2Y4 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 i 
 
 PEACE WITH GREAT BRITAIN.-GENERAL JACKSON AND MARTIAL LAW AT 
 NEW ORLEANS.-PROTECTIVE TARIFF.-BANK.-COMPENSATION, NAVI- 
 GATION, NEUTRALITY, AND OTHER ACTS. 
 
 The first account of the progress of Degotiations at Ghent was 
 unfavorable. The British commissioners, lord Gambler, Henry Gou - 
 bnrn, and William Adams, did not arrive until the 6th of August 
 Dispatches dated the 12th, were communicated to congress the 10th of 
 October. As an indispensable condition of a treaty of peace, the British 
 commissioners were instnicted to require, that their Indian allies should 
 be included in the pacification, and that a definite boundary between them 
 and the United States should be settled; with the intention, on then- 
 part, that the Indian tenitories should be a barrier between the United 
 States and Canada; and the United States were to be prohibited from 
 purchasing those territories. Extravagant as this demand was, it was 
 Bot less so than another, designed to strengthen this bamer-our relin- 
 quishment of the right to maintain military posts on the lakes, or to 
 teep armed vessels on them, . 
 
 Other subjects were mentioned which they thought proper to discuss, 
 none of which, however, were to be made a sine qua non of a treaty. 
 One was the forcible seizure of mariners from on board merchant ships 
 on the high seas, and, in connection with it, the right of the kmg of 
 Great Britain to the allegiance of all his native subjects. Another was 
 the revision of the boundary line between the United States and the 
 British territories. And another was the fisheries. It was_ intended to 
 refuse the privilege formerly granted by treaty, of fishing withm the ter- 
 ritorial jurisdiction of Great Britain, without an equivalent. _ 
 
 The American commissioners stated that, upon the subjects of impress- 
 ment and boundary they were authorized to treat; but as the Indian 
 and fishery questions had not been in dispute between the two govern- 
 ments, they had not been anticipated by our government, and, conse- 
 quently, in relation to them they had no instructions. Our commission- 
 ers mentioned as additional subjects suitable for discussion : 1. A den- 
 nition of blockade, and of other neutral and belligerent rights. 2. Oer-^ 
 tain claims of indemnity to individuals for captures and seizures, pre- 
 cedincand subsequent to the war; besides several others, to be con- 
 sidered in case of a propitious termination of the present conferences. 
 The extravagant and even humiliating terms which were exacted by 
 
PEACE WITH GREAT BRITAIN. g^g 
 
 the British government, and to which no one could believe our govern 
 ment would ever accede, nearly extinguished all hope of peace and 
 sei-ved to stimulate conoress to a mnl off .• ^ ' 
 
 prosecution of the war Tft ' a . . Preparation for the 
 
 nth of Februarv Ml. . , '^"''"" '^ ''^'"'^ ^^""^^^' ^" ^^e 
 
 or i^eoruary, 1815, a vessel arrived at New York brinrrino- thp 
 
 emmeit The mtelhgence spread rapidly throughout the couutrv and 
 . «, eve,jwhere received with exclamations of joy. It w^ rl L at 
 p Jid:r *^ "" "' '^'™^'^' -^ proclai.ueVthe neld; hylhe 
 The correspondence between the American and Tlm'f ;.T, . • • 
 
 one of the declared oZTfll' . "^ " '^^°^^'^'' ^^^^t' ^hat not 
 
 cussion nfl . •" *^' ^^' ^^^'^^ ^^ e«««°tial topic of dis- 
 
 cussion m this negotiation of peace: the proo-ress and result nf I i! 
 as rawn f .^e correspondence, is thusLm^Vlt X ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 The weakness of the British possessions in North Ameri/; ^ 
 necessity of some barrier against tLt ambitious spl^ ^^^ 
 
 Canad ". T "^""'"" '' ^^^^^^^^^' ^^^ threatened conq^st of 
 
 asr:cest:LT,yTer„fi"d'" -7° °'^^'^"^ - contLytotr: 
 
 reciorooitv '7^^,^'™" »f » deposition to treat on terms of perfect 
 restored tll!l' T^'' ■ '" ''"''""'<'' »' '>"* "'<"<> °f 'he war to be 
 
 -nr^ris* u nXd ot't r ■'"' •'°"* r "- -■"™"- 
 
 American comrni««i. ^^ J*^^^*^^ of by the provisional assent of the 
 ncan commissioners, the next related to boundaries. The faJse idea 
 
^Q. THE AMERICAN STATESMj^N. 
 
 that the Mississippi had its source north of the 49th degree of latitude, 
 had rendered nugatory the provision of the treaty of 1783 as to the 
 northern boundary of the United States west of the Lake of the Woods. 
 That boundary, indeed, since the acquisition of , Louisiana,, remained to 
 be extended far to the west, the United States claiming, under that ces- 
 sion even to the Pacific Ocean. The provision of a boundary on the 
 northeast, so far as related to the territory between the head of the St. 
 Croix and the head of the Connecticut, had likewise failed, so the British 
 commissioners contended, from similar geographical ignorance; and, as 
 the basis of a new arrangement, they had suggested that each party 
 should retain what he held at the signing of the treaty. To this the 
 American commissioners had refused to agree. So the negotiation had 
 stood by the latest accounts previous to the arrival of the treaty of 
 
 peace. • £ n 
 
 "The treaty, as signed, provided for the mutual restoration of aU 
 conquered territory, and for the appointment of three commissions; 
 one to settle the title to the islands in Passamaquaddy Bay, another to 
 make out the north-eastern boundary as far as the St. Lawrence, and a 
 third to run the line through the St. Lawrence and the lakes to the 
 Lake of the Woods. In case of disagreement in either commission, 
 the point in dispute was to be referred to some friendly power. No 
 provision was made as to the boundary west of the Lake of the Woods, 
 nor as to the fishing on the shores of British America. The British 
 commissioners refused to accept, in return for this fight of fishmg, a 
 modified renewal of the article for the navigation of the Mississippi, which, 
 in their view, was also terminated by the war. The result, therefore, 
 was, that, instead of leaving the parties where they began, the war took 
 away from Great Britain a nominal right, never used, of navigating the 
 Mississippi, and from the New England fisheimen a valuable right, 
 hitherto used from the earliest times, of catching and curing fish on the 
 shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the loss of which still continues 
 to be felt. By some adroit management, the English commissionei-s 
 were induced to admit into the treaty a clause copied from that of 1783, 
 with the history of which probably they were not familiar, against 
 carrying away "any negroes or other property." The only remaining 
 article related to the slave trade, for the suppression of which, as irre- 
 concilable with the principles of humanity and justice, both parties 
 promised to use their best endeavors." 
 
 An inquiry here naturally suggests itself. As, after the revocation 
 of the British orders in council, impressment was the only grievance to i 
 be redressed by war; and as that question was subsequently waived- 
 by our government in the negotiation ; what was gained by the war I' 
 
MARTIAL LAW AT NEW ORLEANS. 277 
 
 It has been considered as no small point gained, that ample evidence 
 has been given to G-reat Britain of our capacity successfully to resist 
 her power, especially upon the ocean, where she had long claimed a vast 
 superiority ; and that a guaranty had thus been furnished against future 
 aggression. It is questionable, however, if the result could have been 
 known, or if the unbiased counsels of our older statesmen had prevailed, 
 whether war would have been declared. Jefferson, Madison, Gallatin, 
 Macon, and others, were of a pacific disposition. The leading men of 
 the administration were known to have given a reluctant sanction to the 
 war project; but they found themselves under a kind of necessity to 
 yield to the impulsive young politicians, Calhoun, Clay, and a number of 
 others, who, it was suspected, were striving to turn the popular preju- 
 dice against Great Britain, to their own political advantage. Whether 
 the nation has ever obtained an equivalent for the 30,000 lives and the 
 hundred millions of money expended ; for the loss of property and 
 several years of prosperous commerce ; for the depravation of the public 
 morals, and the train of other evils inseparable from a state of war ; is 
 a question which at least admits of a reasonable doubt. 
 
 On the 26th of December,. Gen. Jackson proclaimed martial law at 
 New Orleans. On the 5th of March, an order was issued, stating, that 
 attempts had been made, under specious pretexts, to diminish our force 
 by seducing French inhabitants from their duty ; and that he had, on 
 the 28th ultimo, ordered all French subjects having certificates of the 
 French consul, to repair to the interior, not short of Baton Rouge, until 
 the enemy had left our waters, or until the restoration of peace. And 
 he now enjomed all officers and soldiers to give the earliest intelligence 
 of all mutiny or sedition, and to arrest all concerned therein, and to 
 confine them for trial agreeably to the rules and articles of war. On the 
 7th he enclosed in a letter to " Mr. Le Clerc, printer," a circular from 
 .the postmaster general, which, he said, he believed to be genuine, and 
 which placed the pleasing intelligence of peace almost beyond a doubt. 
 Martial law, however, was still continued, for the alleged reason that he 
 had not received official advice of the ratification of the treaty of peace. 
 No farther danger from the enemy being generally apprehended, the con- 
 tinuance of martial law, which began to be complained of, Avas made the 
 subject of animadversion by a writer in one of the newspapers, whose 
 name the publisher was compelled to disclose, and' who proved to be a 
 member of the legislature, named Louallier, who was, by order of Gen. 
 Jackson, committed to prison to be tried by a military court for his life, 
 on a charge of mutiny. 
 
 On application to Judge Hall, of the United States district court, a 
 writ of habeas corpus was obtained in behalf of the prisoner ; whereupon 
 
;278 ,v,<,THB AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the judge was himself arrested and sent out of the city. The district 
 attorney having applied to a state judge for a writ of habeas corpus to 
 release Judge Hall, he also waa imprisoned. 
 
 In his answer to a complimentary address of the city battalion of uni- 
 form companies, the general took occasion to vindicate his resistance to 
 the civil authority. He said : " In declaring martial law, his object, 
 and his only object, was to embody the whole resources of the country 
 for its defense. The law, while it existed, necessarily suspended all 
 rights and privileges inconsistent with its provisions." He maintained 
 the necessity of continuing martial law, in order to prevent his ranks 
 from being "thinned by desertion, and his whole army broken to pieces 
 by mutiny, while yet a powei'ful force of the enemy remained on the 
 coast, and within a few hours sail of the city." It was not until he dis- 
 covered that the civil power stood no longer in need of the military for 
 its support, that he restored to it its usual functions ; and the restora- 
 tion was not delayed a moment after that period had arrived. 
 
 After the militia had been dismissed, and the judge had returned to 
 the city, he ordered the general to appear before him to show cause why 
 an attachment should not be issued against him for contempt in refusing 
 obedience to the writ of habeas corpus, and for imprisoning the judge. 
 The general appeared, accordingly, and tendered to the court, in his de- 
 fense, a paper protesting against the proceedings of the court as " illegal, 
 unconstitutional, and informal," and reserving to himself the benefit of 
 his exceptions to them. This list of exceptions was followed by a state- 
 ment of the reasons for instituting and keeping up martial law ; among 
 which were letters from the governor of Louisiana, and information de- 
 rived from other sources after his arrival at that place, putting him on 
 his guard against a portion of the inhabitants, the legislature, and foreign 
 emissaries ; many of the people being disaffected foreigners, and unwor- 
 thy of confidence. The militia has been represented as insubordinate, 
 encouraged in their disobedience by the legislature, which was character- 
 ized as politically rotten, and the whole state dependent mainly on the 
 regular troops and the militia from other states. These facts justified, 
 in his view, the institution of martial law. 
 
 In regard to its continuance after the first information of peace, he 
 said, the numbers of the enemy still quadrupled all the regular forces 
 which he could command ; and they might renew their attacks. If he 
 had revoked his proclamation, or ceased to act under it, the fatal security 
 into which they had been lulled would have destroyed all discipline, dis- 
 solved all his forces, and left him without any means of defense against 
 an enemy instructed by traitors within our own bosom of the time and 
 place at which an. attack might be safely made. He thought the peace 
 
MARTIAL LAW AT NEW ORLEANS. 279 
 
 probable, but not certain. If certain, a few days would bring tbe oflacial 
 advice of it ; and he thought it better to submit during these few days 
 to the restraints imposed, than to put the country at risk on an uncertain 
 contingency. 
 
 The reading of the defense was objected to by the opposite counsel. 
 The judge admitted that part of the paper which related to the legal 
 points of defense, but debarred the reading of that which was intended 
 as a vindication of his conduct. After considerable discussion, the court 
 adjourned to the next day, (March 28,) when the judge read an opinion 
 which he had drawn up, containing certain points of objection in regard 
 to martial law and the suspension of civil jurisprudence, and declarino- 
 that the written defense could not be legally admitted. After the hear- 
 ing, the judge decided that an attachment should issue, returnable on 
 the 31st, when the general appeared without his counsel. Being told by 
 the judge that there were interrogatories to be propounded to him, he 
 replied that he would not answer them ; saying, that he had offered a 
 defense which had been refused ; that he now appeared to receive the 
 sentence of the court, and had nothing further to add. During the read- 
 ing of his opinion, the judge was several times interrupted by the general, 
 who at one time said : " Sir, state facts, and confine yourself to them : 
 since my defense has been precluded, let not censure constitute a part 
 of this sought for punishment." The judge sentenced him to pay a fine 
 of $1,000, for which he drew a check on the spot, which was received in 
 discharge. 
 
 On leaving the court-house, he was received by the multitude outside, 
 with acclamation, and seated in a coach, which was drawn by the people 
 to a public house, where he addressed them in a short speech. The 
 amount of the fine was immediately raised by subscription, and paid 
 over, and the check returned without having been presented. It has 
 been said that he declined to receive the money, which is probable, from 
 the fact that, in 1844, by an act of congress, the thousand dollars, with 
 interest, was refunded. 
 
 Peace having been restored, the government very naturally directed 
 its attention to the adaptation of its policy to our altered condition. The 
 general peace of Europe, no less than the restoration of peace between 
 the United States and Great Britain, demanded a change in our com- 
 mercial regulations. Permanent provision was to be made for the pay- 
 ment of the public debt, which had been increased by the war to about 
 $120,000,000. Importations were large, and must rapidly augment our 
 indebtedness to foreigners — the more so as the peace of Europe would 
 greatly lessen the demand for our agricultural products, and seriously 
 affect our carrying trade, A similar state of things had not existed 
 since the establishment of the government under the constitution. 
 
280 THE AMEBICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Therefore, at the next session of congress, in December, 1815, the 
 president recommended a " tariff on manufactures," with reference, both 
 to the revenue and to manufacturing industry. The views of Mr. 
 Madison on this subject were thus stated : 
 
 " In adjusting the duties on imports to the object of revenue, the in- 
 fluence of the tariff on manufactures will necessarily present itself for con- 
 sideration. However wise the theory may be which leaves to the saga- 
 city and interest of individuals the application of their industry and 
 resources, there are in this, as in other cases, exceptions to the general 
 rule. Besides the condition which the theory itself implies of a recipro- 
 cal adoption by other nations, experience teaches that so many circum- 
 stances must occur in introducing and maturing manufacturing estab- 
 lishments, especially of the more complicated kinds, that a country may 
 remain long without them, although sufficiently advanced, and in some 
 respects even peculiarly fitted for carrying them on with success. Under 
 circumstances giving a powerful impulse to manufacturing industry, it 
 has made among us a progress, and exhibited an efficiency, which justify 
 the belief that with a protection not more than is due to the enterprising 
 citizens whose interests are now at stake, it will become at an early day 
 not only safe against occasional competitions from abroad, but a source 
 of domestic wealth and even of external commerce. In selecting the 
 branches more especially entitled to tbe public patronage, a preference is 
 obviously claimed by such as will relieve the United States from a de- 
 pendence on foreign supplies, ever subject to casual failures, for articles 
 necessary for the public defense, or connected with the primary wants of 
 indi\dduals. It will be an additional recommendation of particular 
 manufactures, where the materials for them are extensively drawn from 
 our agriculture, and consequently impart and insure to that great fund 
 of national prosperity and independence an encouragement which can 
 not fail to be rewarded." 
 
 Mr. Dallas, secretary of the treasury, reported to congress a tariff of 
 duties on imports, which, with some modification, became a law. This 
 may be regarded as the commencement of what is called the protective 
 system ; which, though not without essential modifications, has been the 
 established policy of the government to the present time. The duties 
 imposed by Great Britain upon cotton, rendered the home manufacture 
 of that article an object of great importance to the cotton producing 
 states. Hence, Calhoun and Lowndes, the leading members from South 
 Carolina, were among the most zealous advocates of the measure. Mr. 
 Clay, also, then as ever afterward, took a strong stand in favor of that 
 system ; while Webster and most of the members from the New Eng- 
 land states, with John Randolph, took ground against it. 
 
PROTECTIVE TARIFF. BAKK. 281 
 
 This question affofds a striking illustration of the effect of personal 
 interest, real or imaginary, pecuniary or political, upon the opinions of 
 men. The change of position on this subject is somewhat remarkable. 
 The report, in 1792, of Hamilton, the great federal leader, whose 
 schemes of finance were then repudiated by his political opponents, now 
 furnished the democrats with arguments, while the federalists planted 
 themselves on the doctrines of free trade. The positions in which indi^ 
 viduals stood in 1816, were, a few years afterward, entirely reversed; 
 each still advocating his new position on the general principle, either of 
 free trade or protection. The mercantile class were generally opposed 
 to the system. 
 
 The duties imposed by this act upon the most important articles, 
 ranged from about twenty to thirty-five per cent. On coarse cottons, 
 costing twenty -five cents ot less, which must all be deemed to have cost 
 twenty-five cents the square yard, the duty was twenty-five per cent. 
 On woolens twenty-five per cent. On manufactures of hemp, iron, steel, 
 brass, copper, <fec., twenty per cent. On bar iron, $1 50 per hundred 
 weight. On nails, spikes and bolts, 4 cents per pound. On window- 
 glass, from $2 50 to $3 25 per hundred feet. On hemp, $1 50 per 
 hundred weight. On spirits, from 38 to 75 cents per gallon. The list 
 of articles was numerous; and the duties varied according to the 
 measure of the ability of the country to supply the demand ; those of 
 which a full supply of the domestic article could be furnished being 
 rated higher than those the demand for which could be supplied only in 
 part, or could not be produced at all. The internal taxes, or duties on 
 domestic manufactures laid during the war, were either repealed or 
 materially reduced. 
 
 Application for the rechartering of the first bank, had been made in 
 1810, and a favorable report made to congress by Mr. Gallatin, secretary 
 of the treasury ; but at too late a period of the session to be acted upon. 
 The application was renewed the next year ; a bill was introduced into 
 each house; and after an arduous cohtefet, the bills in both houses were 
 lost ; that of the house having been indefinitely postponed, 65 to 64 ; 
 and that of the senate having had its enacting clause struck out by the 
 casting vote of the vice-president, George Clinton, who was opposed to 
 the bill, on the ground of its supposed unconstitutionality. It was sup- 
 ported in the senate by ]\Ir. Crawford and Mr. Giles ; the latter, how- 
 ever, voting against it in obedience to instructions of the legislature of 
 his state, (Virginia.) It was opposed by Mr. Clay, then in the senate, 
 Mr. Bayard, and others. 
 
 Many of the leading statesmen had changed their views on the subject 
 of a national bank since 1811 ; among whom Was Mr. Clay, now (1816) 
 
282 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 a member of the house and again its speaker, who made a very able 
 speech in its favor. It was believed that a bank was necessary to restore 
 the currency to its former healthy state, and to facilitate the financial 
 • operations of the government. The vote on the final passage of the bill 
 in the house, was 80 to Vl. It became a law on the 10th of April. Its 
 capital was $35,000,000 ; of which one-fifth (Y.OOOjOOO,) was to be sub- 
 scribed by the government. Of the sums subscribed, one-fifth was to be 
 paid in specie. It was entitled to the deposit of the public moneys, and 
 was required to disburse them in any part of the Union where they might 
 be wanted, without charge to the government. It was also to pay 
 $1,500,000 as a bonus for its charter. Of the twenty-five directors, five 
 were to be appointed by the president with the consent of the senate. 
 The deposits were removable by the secretary of the treasury for suffi- 
 cient reasons, to be laid before congress. The term of its charter was 
 twenty years. 
 
 The people of the territory of Indiana were authorized (April, 1816) 
 to form a constitution and state government, preparatory to admission 
 into the Union. 
 
 A joint resolution was passed, requiring the secretary of the treasury 
 to cause, as soon as might be, all taxes, duties, and pubhc dues to be 
 cullected and paid in specie, or notes of specie-paying banks, or treasury 
 notes. The object of this requisition was to effect a resumption of specie 
 payments by the banks, which took place at the commencement of the 
 next year. 
 
 The daily compensation of members of congress, which was six dol- 
 lars, was changed at this session to an annual salary of $1,500, irrespec- 
 tive of the length of the sessions; the usual mileage to be continued- 
 Such was the popular clamor against this bill, as to induce its re- 
 peal at the next session, (1817) though not to take efiect until after the 
 expiration of the session. The act contained a proviso, that no former 
 act should be revived by the repeal. Not agreeing upon a rate of com- 
 pensation after the end of their own term, the matter was left to be dis- 
 posed of by their successors. 
 
 A caucus was held on the 16th of March, by the republican members, 
 to nominate a successor to Mr. Madison. Mr. Clay moved a resolution 
 that it was inexpedient to make, in caucus, any recommendation to the 
 people of candidates for president and vice-president, which was nega- 
 tived ; as was another by John W. Taylor, of New York, declaring the 
 practice of making such nominations by members of congress, to be in- 
 expedient. A ballot having been taken, it appeared that James Monroe 
 had 65 votes, and William H. Crawford 58. Daniel D. Tompkins, 
 governor of New York, had 85 votes for vice-president, and Simon 
 
NAVIGATION, NEUTEALITY, AND OTHER ACTS. 283 
 
 Snyder, governor of Pennsylvania, 30. Messrs. Monroe and Tompkins 
 were declared nominated without opposition. 
 
 The 14th congress commenced its 2d session December 2, 1816, which 
 terminated with Mr. Madison's presidential term, the 3d of March, 
 1817. 
 
 On the 11th of December, the people of Indiana, having, in conform- 
 ity with the act of congress at the preceding session, formed a state con- 
 stitution which was accepted by congress, that territory was, by a joint 
 resolution, admitted as a state into the Union. By an act of March 1, 
 1817, the people of the western part of the territory of Mississippi, 
 • were authorized to form a constitution and state government with a view 
 to admission. And by another act, the eastern part of the territory was 
 to constitute a separate territory, called Alabama. 
 
 Among the most important acts of this session, was " an act concern- 
 ing the navigation of the United States." In consequence of the discrimi- 
 nations made by certain European nations since the peace in favor of 
 their own navigation, a similar policy was deemed necessary on the part 
 of the United States. An act was therefore passed, restricting import- 
 ations to vessels of the United States, and to foreign vessels owned in 
 the country of which the goods were the product or manufacture : the 
 regulation to apply only to the vessels of those nations which had 
 adopted a similar regulation. For a violation of the law, vessel and 
 goods were forfeited. The coasting trade was restricted to vessels 
 owned wholly by our own citizens, under a penalty of the forfeiture of the 
 goods. And to encourage the employment of American seamen, coast- 
 ing vessels not having crews of whom three-fourths were Americans, 
 were to be subject to a duty of fifty cents a ton, instead of six cents, as 
 in other cases. 
 
 By an act to provide for the redemption of the public debt, $10,000,000 
 from the proceeds of the duties on imports and tonnage, of internal du- 
 ties, and of the public land sales, was to be appropriated annually to 
 the sinking fund. 
 
 Spain having complained that aid had been given by citizens of the 
 United States to the insurrections in Texas and Mexico, a general law 
 was passed against fitting out vessels within the jurisdiction of the Uni- 
 ted States, to aid or cooperate in any warlike measure against any 
 friendly power; imposing as a penalty for its violation, a fine not 
 exceeding $10,000, and imprisonment not exceeding ten years. 
 
 The president had, in his annual message to congress at the preceding 
 session, recommended to the consideration of congress the subject of 
 internal improvement. A bill creating a fund for this purpose, to con- 
 sist of the bonus to be paid by the bank, and the dividends of the gov- 
 
284 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ernment stock in the same, was passed, in tlie house 86 to 84 ; in the 
 senate 20 to 15; but was vetoed by the president, for the reason that 
 appropriations for that object were unauthorized by the constitution. 
 The leader in this measure was Mr. Calhoun, then a latitudinarian in 
 his views of constitutional power. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 ELECTION AND INAUGURATION OF MR. MONROE. CORRESPONDENCE WITH 
 
 GEN, JACKSON. CABINET APPOINTMENTS. PRESIDENT'S TOUR. 
 
 At the presidential election in 1816, there was little opposition to the 
 republican candidates. Of the votes of the presidential electors, Mr. 
 Monroe and Mr. Tompkins received each 183; and 34 were given to 
 Rufus King, the federal candidate for president, and about the same 
 number were scattered upon a number of persons for vice-president. 
 
 Mr. Monroe was inaugurated on the 4th of March, 1817, with the 
 usual ceremonies. A prominent subject of his inaugural address was 
 the national defense. With respect to securing the country against 
 foreign dangers, his ideas seem to have gone beyond those of his two 
 iinmediate predecessors. " To put our extensive coast in such a state 
 of defense as to secure our cities and interior from invasion," he said, 
 " would be attended with expense ; but the Avork, when finished, would 
 be permanent; and it was fair to presume, that a single campaign of 
 invasion by a naval force superior to our own, aided by a few thousand 
 land troops, would expose us to a greater expense, without taking into 
 the estimate the loss of property and distress of our citizens, than 
 would be sufficient for the great work." " Our land and naval forces 
 should be adequate to the necessary purposes ; the former to garrison 
 our fortifications, and to meet the first invasions of a foreign foe ; the 
 latter, retained within the limits proper to a state of peace, might aid 
 in maintaining the neutrality of the United States, with dignity in the 
 wars of other powers, and in saving the property of their citizens from 
 spoliation." 
 
 Respecting the encouragement of home industry, he said : 
 
 " Our manufactures will likewise require the systematic and fostering 
 care of the government. Possessing, as we do, all the raw materials, 
 the fruit of our own soil and industry, we ought not to depend in the 
 degree we have done on supplies from other countries. While we are 
 thus dependent, the sudden event of war, unsought and unexpected, can 
 
MR. Monroe's inaugural. . 285 
 
 not fail to plunge us into the most serious difficulties. It is important, 
 too, that the capital which nourishes our manufactures should be domes- 
 tic, as its influence in that case, instead of exhausting, as it may do in 
 foreign hands, would be felt advantageously on agriculture, and every 
 other branch of industry. Equally important is it to provide at home 
 a market for our raw materials, as by extending the competition, it will 
 enhance the price and protect the cultivator against the casualties inci- 
 dent to foreign markets." 
 
 As the best means of preserving our liberties, he said : " let us pro- 
 mote intelligence among the people. It is only when the people become 
 ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they 
 are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. The people themselves 
 become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin." 
 
 Mr. Monroe entered upon the duties of his office under auspicious 
 circumstances. The nation was at peace ; and, although negotiations 
 with Spain were still pending, there was no apprehension of an interrup- 
 tion of our amicable relations with any foreign power. The return of 
 peace had been succeeded by a political calm. The federal party as an 
 organization, was defunct, beyond the hope of resuscitation : and not 
 the least cheering reflection was, that his administration would escape 
 the embarrassments of a powerful party opposition which had been 
 experienced by all former administrations. Says the address : " Equally 
 gratifying is it to witness the increased harmony of opinion which per- 
 vades the Union. Discord does not belong to our system. Union is 
 recommended, as well by the free and benign principles of our govern- 
 ment, extending its blessings to every individual, as by the other eminent 
 advantages attending it." He adds : " To, promote this harmony in 
 accordance with the principles of our government, and in a manner to 
 give them the most complete effect, and to advance, in all other respects, 
 the best interests of our country, will be the object of my constant and 
 zealous exertions." 
 
 From the liberal and conciliatory spirit indicated by the inaugural 
 address toward those who differed from him in their political opinions, it 
 was inferred by some, that, in the bestowment of patronage, Mr. Monroe 
 intended to make no discrimination. That such was not his intention, 
 however, appears both from his practice and from his correspondence 
 with Gen. Jackson, which though it took place at that time, was not 
 published until many years afterward. Immediately after the presiden- 
 tial election, and before the electors had yet cast their votes, Gen. Jack- 
 son, in a letter to Mr. Monroe, recommended the course above suggested. 
 As the advice contained in that letter appears to have been prompted by 
 a truly magnanimous and patriotic sentiment, which should be the guide 
 
286 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of every statesman, we transcribe the paragraph relating directly to this 
 subject : 
 
 " Your happiness and the nation's welfare materially depend upon the 
 selections which are to be made to fill the heads of departments. * * * 
 Every thing depends on the selection of your ministry. In every selec- 
 tion, party and party feelings should be avoided. Now is the time to 
 exterminate that monster called party spirit. By selecting characters 
 most conspicuous for their probity, virtue, capacity, and firmness, with- 
 out any regard to party, you will go far to, if not entirely, eradicate those 
 feelings, which, on former occasions, threw so many obstacles in the way 
 of government ; and perhaps have the pleasure and honor of uniting a 
 people heretofore politically divided. The chief magistrate of a great 
 and powerful nation should never indulge in party feelings. His conduct 
 should be liberal and disinterested, always bearing in mind that he acts 
 for the whole and not a part of the community. By this course you will 
 exalt the national character, and acquire for yourself a name as imperish- 
 able as monumental marble. Consult no party in your choice, pursue 
 the dictates of that uneiTing judgment which has so long and so often 
 benefited our country, and rendered conspicuous its rulers. These are 
 the sentiments of a friend ; they are the feelings, if I know my own 
 heart, of an undissembled patriot." 
 
 The time, however, had not yet come, in the opinion of Mr. Monroe, 
 when it was politic to break down the partition wall between the parties. 
 His views are thus expressed in his answer of December 14, 1816 : "The 
 election has been made by the republican party, supposing that it has 
 succeeded, and of a person known to be devoted to that cause. How 
 shall he act ? How organize the administration, so far as dependent on 
 him, when in that station? How fill the vacancies existing at the 
 time ? 
 
 "The distinction between republicans and federalists, even in the 
 southern, and middle, and western states, has not been fully done away. 
 To give effect to free government, and secure it fro\n future danger, ought 
 not its decided friends, who stood firm in the day of trial, to be principally 
 relied on ? Would not the association of any of their opponents in the 
 administration, itself wound their feelings, or, at least, of very many of 
 them, to the injury of the republican cause ? Might it not be considered, 
 by the other party, as an offer of compromise with them, which would 
 lessen the ignominy due to the counsels which produced the Hartford 
 Convention, and thereby have a tendency to revive that party on its 
 former principles? My impression is, that the administration should 
 rest strongly on the republican party, indulging toward the other a spirit 
 of moderation, and evincing a desire to discriminate between its mem- 
 
CORRESPONDENCE WITH GEN. JACKSON. 2m 
 
 bers, and to bring the whole into the republican fold, as quietly as possi- 
 ble. Many men, very distinguished for their talents, are of opinion that; 
 the existence of the federal party is necessary to keep union and order 
 in the republican ranks ; that is, that free government can not exist with- 
 out parties. This is not my opinion. The first object is to save the 
 cause, which can be done by those who are devoted to it only, and of 
 course by keeping them together ; or in other words, by not disgusting 
 them by too hasty an act of liberality to the other party, thereby break- 
 ing the generous spirit of the republican party, and keeping alive that 
 of the federal party. The second is, to prevent the reorganization and 
 revival of the federal party, which, if my hypothesis is true, that the 
 existence of party is not necessary to a free government, and the other 
 opinion which I have advanced is well founded, that the great body of 
 the federal party are republican, will not be found impracticable. To 
 accomplish both objects, and thereby exterminate all party divisions 
 in our country, and give new strength and stability to our govern- 
 ment, is a great undertaking, not easily executed. I am, nevertheless, 
 decidedly of opinion that it may be done ; and should the experiment 
 fail, I shall conclude that its failure was imputable more to the want of 
 a correct knowledge of all circumstances claiming attention, and of sound 
 judgment in the measures adopted, than to any other cause. I agree, 
 I think, perfectly with you, in the grand object, that moderation should 
 be shown to the federal party, and even a generous policy be adopted 
 toward it ; the only difference between us seems to be, how far shall that 
 spirit be indulged in the outset ; and it is to make you thoroughly 
 acquainted with my views on this highly important subject, that I have 
 written you so freely upon it." 
 
 The correspondence between these two gentlemen was continued, 
 taking, however, a different turn. Gen. Jackson, in a letter of the 6th 
 of January, 181Y, approved Mr. Monroe's exposition of "the rise, pro- 
 gress, and policy of the federalists ; " and said : " Had I commanded the 
 military department where the Hartford convention met, if it had 
 been the last act of my life, I should have punished the three prin- 
 cipal leaders of the party. I am certain an independent court-martial 
 would have condemned them under the 2d section of the act estab- 
 lishing rules and regulations for the government of the army of the 
 United States." These men, he said, although called federalists, were 
 really monarchists and traitors. But there were those called federalists 
 who were honest, virtuous, and really attached to the government. He 
 repeats his recommendation of Col. William H. Drayton, of South Caro- 
 lina, though a federalist, as well qualified for the war department ; and as 
 if to remove any objections, on account of his being a federalist, he said ; 
 
288 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ." Permit me to add, that names, of themselves, are but bubbles, and 
 sometimes used for the most wicked purposes. I will name one instance 
 I have once been denounced as a federalist. You will smile when I. 
 name the cause. . When your country put up your name in opposition to 
 Mr. M., (Madison) I was one of those who gave you the preference, for 
 the reason that, in the event of war, which was then probable, you would 
 steer the vessel of state with more energy, &c. &c. That Mr. M. was one 
 of the best of men, and a great civilian, I always thought ; but I always 
 believed that the mind of a philosopher could not dwell on blood and car- 
 nage with any composure : of course that he was not very well fitted for 
 a stormy sea. I was immediately branded with the epithet federalist, 
 and you also. But I trust, when compared with the good old adage, of 
 the tree being known by its fi'uit, it was unjustly applied to either." 
 ■ Mr. Monroe, on the 1st of March, communicated to the general his 
 selection of some of his cabinet officers. He states that Mr. Clay, who 
 had declined the offer of the war department made to him the last sum- 
 mer by Mr. Madison, had again declined it ; that he then fixed his mind 
 on him, (Jackson) but doubted whether he ought to draw him from the 
 command of the southern army, where, in case of any emergency, no one 
 could supply his place. He then resolved to nominate *****; though 
 it was uncertain whether he would serve. For secretary of state he had 
 determined upon Mr. Adams, " whose claims, by long service in our 
 diplomatic concerns, appearing to entitle him to the preference, supported 
 by his acknowledged abilities and integrity, his nomination will go to the 
 senate. Mr. Crawford, it is expected, will remain in the treasury." 
 
 In answer, (March 18,) the general approves the selection of Mr. Adams 
 as the best that could be made. In the hour of difficulty, he would be 
 an able helpmate, and his appointment would afford general satisfaction. 
 
 In accordance with the sentiments expressed in his letter to Gen. 
 Jackson, Mr. Monroe selected his cabinet officers exclusively from the 
 republican party, John Quincy Adams, then minister at London, was 
 called to the office of secretary of state ; William H. Crawford was con- 
 tinued secretary of the treasury ; and Benjamin W. Crowninshield, of 
 Massachusetts, was continued secretary of the navy ; Isaac Shelby, of 
 Kentucky, was selected for the department of war, but declining, the 
 office was vacant until the appointment of John C. Calhoun, December 
 16, ISl*? ; Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania, was continued attorney-gen- 
 eral, performing also the duties of secretary of state, until the return of 
 Mr. Adams, whom he succeeded as minister to Great Britain, in Decem- 
 ber following; when William Wirt was appointed attorney-general. 
 Return J. Meigs, of Ohio, was continued postmaster-general. The last 
 was not then a cabinet officer. 
 
THE SEMINOLE WAR. 289 
 
 Regarding an effective frontier defense as an object of higli importance — 
 the want of which had been severely felt during the war — the president 
 in the summer, made a tour through the eastern states, for the purpose 
 of a personal examination of the condition of the fortifications along the 
 Atlantic coast ; continuing his journey westward along our northern 
 waters to Detroit, and returning to the seat of government through Ohio, 
 Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The president was every where received 
 with those demonstrations of respect which were due to his official station. 
 
 CHAPTER XXT. 
 
 THE SEMINOLE WAR. OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE OCCUPATION OF 
 
 FLORIDA BY GENERAL JACKSON. RATIFICATION OF A TREATY WITH 
 
 SPAIN. TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN. CESSION OF FLORIDA AND THE 
 
 WESTERN TERRITORY, 
 
 The Seminole war, as an item of political history, derives much of its 
 importance from the question which it involves; viz., whether the occu- 
 pation of Florida and other transactions relating to that war were not 
 violations of the neutrality of Spain, of the law of nations, and of the 
 constitution and laws of the United States. 
 
 In August, 1814, while the war existed between the United States 
 and Great Britain, a British force, commanded by Col. Nicholls, entered 
 Florida, then a province of Spain, took possession of Pensacola and the 
 fort of Barancas, and by public proclamation invited runaway negroes, 
 savage Indians and traitors to join their standard, and wage war against 
 our defenseless inhabitants bordering on the neutral and violated terri- 
 tory of Spain. On the approach of the army under Gen. Jackson, Col. 
 Nicholls evacuated this part of the province, and established himself on 
 the Appalachicola river, where he erected a fort from which to carry on 
 his predatory warfare, and where he continued his hostile operations 
 after the ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States 
 and Great Britain. 
 
 By the 9th article of this treaty, the United States stipulated to put 
 an end immediately to all hostilities with the Indian tribes with whom 
 they were at war, and to restore to them all the possessions which be- 
 longed to them prior to the year 1811. This stipulation did not apply 
 to the Creeks. This nation had been brought, during the war, to terms 
 of peace by Gen. Jackson, and in a treaty concluded in August, 1814, 
 had ceded to the United States a part of their lands. 
 
 19 
 
•290 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The expected peace, however, was not secured. The Seminoles were 
 tribes living within and on the borders of Florida. A large portion of 
 tixem were fugitives from northern tribes residing within the United 
 States, whose numbers had been considerably augmented by Indians who 
 were dissatisfied with their treaty, and had taken refuge in Florida, car- 
 rying with them feelings of hostility against the United States. Though 
 most of the Seminoles resided in Florida, they were induced by CoL 
 Nicholls to believe that they were, by the treaty of Ghent, entitled to 
 all the lands owned by the whole Creek nation within the United States 
 in 1811, and that Great Britain would enforce the .observance of that 
 treaty. 
 
 The Seminoles soon manifested their hostile feelings ; and, for the 
 security of the frontier, forts were established, and occupied by a portion 
 of the regular forces. In the summer of 1817, murders having been 
 committed on our citizens, Gen. Gaines was sent with a force to protect 
 the inhabitants, with directions not to cross the Florida line, but to de- 
 mand of the Indians a surrender of those who had committed the crimes. 
 Among the instigators to these outrages, were Alexander Arbuthnot and 
 Robert C. Ambrister, British subjects, who revived the pretense, that 
 these Indians were entitled to the lands ceded by the Creeks to the 
 United States in 1814. The demand for the murderers was made and 
 refused ; massacres and plunder were continued ; and a border warfare 
 ensued, in which the most wanton butcheries were perpetrated by the 
 Indians without regard to age or sex. 
 
 With a view to the speedy termination of the war. Gen. Jackson, who 
 had been appointed to the command, entered the Spanish province of 
 Florida, and took possession of the posts of St. Marks and Pensacola. 
 The government of Spain protested against these acts as invasions of her 
 territory, and demanded the prompt restitution of these and all other 
 forts and places, with all the property, public and private, taken and 
 occupied by the forces under Gen. Jackson, and indemnity for all injuries 
 and losses sustained by the crown and subjects of Spain. The contro- 
 versy which ensued was conducted principally through Louis de Onis, 
 the Spanish minister at Washington, and John Quincy Adams, secretary 
 of state. 
 
 For the security of the inhabitants residing on the borders of both 
 countries, the United States and Spain were, by the treaty of 1795, re- 
 ciprocally bound, " by all means in their power, to maintain peace and 
 harmony among the several Indian nations who inhabit the country ad- 
 jacent to the lines and rivers which form the boundaries of the two 
 Floridas ; and the better to obtain this effect, both parties oblige them- 
 selves expressly to restrain, by force, all hostilities on the part of the 
 
OOCUPAnON OF FLORIDA BY GENERAL JACKSON. 291 
 
 Indian nations living within their boundaries ;" so that neither partj 
 should suffer the Indians within its territory to commit acts of hostility 
 against the citizens or subjects of the other party, " in any manner 
 whatever." 
 
 It was alleged by the Spanish minister that the governor of Florida 
 had observed a strict neutrality throughout the provinces during the late 
 war between the United States and Great Britain. The obligation to 
 prevent all hostile acts of the Indians of Florida against our citizens was 
 acknowledged ; and it was declared that the governor had faithfully 
 recommended and enjoined peace and harmony with our citizens, and 
 that, if any complaints had been made to the Spanish authority of any 
 excesses committed by the Indians, (with which, however, they were not 
 chargeable,) forcible means would have been employed to compel them 
 to a reparation of injuries, and to punish them for their outrages. 
 
 Mr. Adams, in reply, referred to the treaty of 1795. Notwithstand- 
 ing this express compact, the most shocking barbarities had been com- 
 mitted by the Seminole Indians and a banditti of negroes sallying from 
 within the Spanish border, and retreating to it again with the fruits of 
 their crimes. The governor of Pensacola had been called upon by a 
 letter from Gen. Jackson to break up this stronghold ; but he had pleaded 
 an insufficiency of force to fulfill the obligation of his government. By 
 the laws and usages of nations, we had a right to pursue an enemy seek- 
 ing refuge in a neutral territory. But Florida was not in this case even 
 a neutral, being the abode of an enemy of the United States whom 
 Spain was bound to restrain. 
 
 The previous occupation of St. Marks was also defended. A report 
 direct from the governor of Pensacola, as well as information from other 
 reliable sources, had reached Gen. Jackson, that the fort of St. Marks 
 had been threatened by the Indians and negroes ; and the governor him- 
 self had, from the weakness of the garrison, expressed apprehension for 
 its safety. To avoid the hazard of life in an attempt to expel the enemy, 
 it was necessary to anticipate his movements, and get possession of it 
 peaceably. 
 
 The duplicity and unfriendly feelings of the commandant of St. Marks 
 had been clearly discovered. He had thrown open the gates of the fort, 
 and permitted it to be used for councils of war ; for storing goods ; and 
 for trading in cattle and other property plundered from our citizens. 
 Foreign agents also had free access ; and Arbuthnot, the chief instigator 
 of the war, was an inmate of the commandant's family, When charged 
 by Gen. Jackson with having given aid to the enemies of the United 
 States, he admitted that he had been governed by policy. The defense- 
 less state of the garrison had induced him to manifest external friendship 
 b7 opening the fortress, lest it should be entered by violence. 
 
29i THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Adams also reminded the Spanish minister of the erection of the 
 fort upon Spanish territory, under the sufferance of Spanish authorities, 
 by British olficers during the war, for the annoyance of the United 
 States, and of its having remained the stronghold of fugitive negroes and 
 Indian robbers and murderers after the peace. And in reply to the plea 
 of De Onis, that measures would have been taken to restrain the Indiana 
 had the authorities known them to be necessary, Mr. Adams observed 
 that " the obligation of Spain was positive and unqualified ; and that an 
 attempt to evade its force by the allegation that Spain could not carry 
 it into effect until she knew what hostilities had been committed, and the 
 possible causes of them, would be equally unwarranted by the express 
 terms of the article, and by the intentions of the contracting parties. 
 The stipulation of Spam was not to punish her Indians for murders com- 
 mitted upon the aged and infirm, the women and children of the United 
 States, but to restrain them from committing them : and the insinuation 
 that the Indians had been provoked to such atrocious acts, would be as 
 disingenuous, on the part of Spain, to escape from the sacred duties of 
 her compact, as it would be unfounded in point of fact." 
 
 Gen. Jackson having, in a letter of the 2d of June, 1818, announced 
 the termination of the Seminole war, Mr. Adams, in a letter to De Onis 
 of the 23d of July, informed him that St. Marks and Pensacola would 
 be restored — the latter to any person duly authorized by Spain to receive 
 it. St. Marks, being in the heart of the Indian country, and remote 
 from Spanish settlements, could be surrendered only to a force sufficient 
 to hold it against the attack of hostile Indians, when such force should 
 appear. 
 
 The conduct of G-en. Jackson in the prosecution of the Seminole war, 
 was the subject of severe animadversion and of official investigation. He 
 had, it was alleged, violated, in sundry instances, not only the instruc- 
 tions of the war department, but the constitution of the United States. 
 Arbuthnot and Ambrister had, by his order, been tried by a court mar- 
 tial, and found guilty, on the following charges : the former, of exciting 
 the Creek Indians against the United States, and of aiding, abetting, and 
 comforting the enemy, supplying them with the means of war ; the lat- 
 ter, of the first of the above charges, and of leading and commanding the 
 lower Creek Indians in carrying on a war against the United States. 
 Arbuthnot was sentenced by the court to be hung ; Ambrister to bo 
 shot. On a reconsideration of the vote on the sentence of the latter, it 
 was changed to fifty stripes on the bare back, and confinement with a 
 ball and chain, to hard labor for one year. Gen. Jackson, however, dis- 
 approved the reconsideration. The evidence against the prisoner being 
 clear, aiid the law of nations regarding an individual of a nation making 
 
OCCUPATION OF FLORIDA BY GENERAL JACKSON. 293 
 
 war against the citizens of any other nation as having forfeited his alle- 
 giance, and become an outlaw and a pirate, the general ordered him to 
 be shot, agreeably to the first sentence of the court. 
 
 The proceedings of G-en, Ja'ckson in the Seminole war were made the 
 subject of investigation by congress at the ensuing session. In the 
 house of representatives, on the 1 2th of January, 1819, the committee 
 on military affairs, to whom the subject ha|d been referred, made a 
 report, in which they express the opinion, that there is no law authoriz- 
 ing the trial of Arbuthnot and Ambrister before a military court ; that 
 there was no necessity for the death of the prisoners, the war being 
 virtually at an end ; the enemy's strongholds destroyed ; the Indians 
 dispersed; the forts in our possession; and the Georgia militia having 
 returned to their homes. The offenses charged were not piracies, which 
 imply offenses on the high seas, of which the court could not take cog- 
 nizance. Nor did the term " outlaw " apply to the offenders ; it applied 
 only to the relations of individuals with their own governments. The 
 reversal of the sentence of the court in the case of Ambrister was also 
 disapproved as contrary to the forms and usages of the army. The 
 committee accordingly submitted the following resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That the house of representatives of the United States 
 disapproves the proceedings in the trial of Alexander Arbuthnot and 
 Robert C. Ambrister." 
 
 Another paper, drawn up in the shape of a report, but which had 
 been refused by a majority of only one vote, was submitted by R. M. 
 Johnson of the same committee. This paper defended the proceedings 
 of Gen. Jackson, both in the occupation of the Spanish posts, and in 
 the trial and execution of Ambrister and Arbuthnot. Florida, it was 
 said, was no longer neutral territory. The Spanish authorities had, by 
 their own act, made it the seat of war ; and having, whether by weak- 
 ness or partiality, suffered the enemies of the United States to retreat 
 into Spanish territory, to collect strength and provide supplies for a 
 renewal of the conflict, our army had a right, by the law of nations, to 
 pursue the enemy into that territory. 
 
 The principle was also asserted, ^s consonant to the laws of nature 
 and of nations, that when a nation departs from the rules of civilized 
 warfare, " and grossly violates the laws of nations and of humanity, 
 retaliation or reprisals are always justifiable, often useful, and some- 
 times necessary, to teach the offenders to respect the laws of humanity, 
 and to save the effusion of blood. In such cases, when the guilty per- 
 sons can be taken and identified, the punishment ought to fall exclusively 
 upon them." Hence, Ambrister and Arbuthnot, for their ageucy in this 
 cavage warfare, might have been lawfully executed, even without the 
 
'294 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 intervention of a court-martial. The committee, however, expressed 
 the opinion, that it would have been more correct for Gen. Jackson, 
 after having submitted the case to a court martial, to acquiesce in its 
 decision as to the punishment to be inflicted. 
 
 On the 8th of February, the question was taken on the report of the 
 military committee and Mr. Cobb's resolutions, which were disagreed 
 to, as follows : On disagreeing to that part of the report which related 
 to the case of Arbuthnot, 108 to 62. On that which related to Ambris- 
 ter, 107 tp 63. A resolution was then moved by Mr. Cobb, declaring 
 the seizure of the Spanish posts at Pensacola and St. Carlos de Barancas 
 to have been contrary to the constitution of the United States. After 
 a motion to postpone its consideration indefinitely had been negatived, 
 87 to 83, the resolution was disagreed to, 100 to 70. 
 
 In the senate the subject was referred to a select committee, who also 
 made a report disapproving the acts of G-en, Jackson. They charge 
 him, first, with having raised his army in disregard of positive orders. 
 The constitution gives to congress " the power to raise armies, and to 
 provide for calling forth the militia to suppress insurrections and inva- 
 sions ; " and in conformity with this provision, congress has authorized 
 the president, on such occasions, to call on the governors or any militia 
 officers of the states for the requisite militia force. Gen. Jackson had 
 been ordered to make such call on the governor of Tennessee ; but he 
 bad, contrary to orders, himself raised a volunteer force of 1000 mounted 
 gun-men to serve during the campaign. He had also himself appointed 
 the officers, in direct violation of the provision of the constitution, which 
 reserves to the states this power ; and five of these officers, created by 
 him, and holding their office at his will, were members of the court 
 martial. The committee saw no necessity of thus hastily increasing the 
 regular army. The whole strength of these undisciplined banditti of 
 Indians and fugitive slaves, did not exceed 1000 men, while under 
 Gen. Gaines, previous to Gen. Jackson's taking the command, there 
 were 1800 regulars and militia, and the 1500 friendly Indians subsidized 
 by the former general. 
 
 Gen. Gaines, it was said, had been enjoined, in case the enemy should 
 take refuge under a Spanish garrison, not to attack them there, but to 
 report the fact to the secretary of war. Gen. Jackson having succeeded 
 to the command, ought to have observed the injunction. Having 
 annulled the civil and military government of Spain, he abolished her 
 revenue laws, and established those of the United States, as being more 
 favorable to our commerce ; appointed a collector, and instituted a new 
 government, the powers of which, civil and military, were vested in 
 military officers 
 
OCCUPATION OF FLORIDA Bl GEN, JACKSON. 295 
 
 As Spain had not invaded the United States, nor congress drclared 
 war against her, his taking possession of the Spanish posts, and imposing 
 terms of capitulation, were acts of war against that nation which 
 congress alone had power to declare or make. Had Spain violated every 
 article of the treaty, the executive was bound to require its observance 
 on our part, until it should have been annulled or revoked by congress. 
 Her conduct, though it had been deemed by congress good cause of war, 
 would not make her a party to the war : this could be done only by op- 
 posing Gen. Jackson by physical force. 
 
 The committee also noticed the projected expedition against St. 
 Augustine. More than two months after the war had been terminated, 
 suspecting that the agents of Spain or the officers of St. Augustine had 
 excited the Indians to hostility, and furnished them with means of war, 
 he issued an order to Gen. Gaines, dated Nashville, August 7, 1818, 
 directing him, if evidence of this fact should be obtained, and his force 
 should be deemed sufficient, to take and garrison the fort with United 
 States troops, and to hold the garrison prisoners, until he should hear 
 from the president, or to transport them to Cuba, as he should think 
 best. The general declared the order to rest, " not on the ground that 
 we are at war with Spain, but on the broad basis of the law of nature 
 and of nations, and justified by giving peace and security to our fron- 
 tiers." The committee considered this an assumption of authority to 
 make war on a neutral colony, in disregard of the legislative and execu- 
 tive authorities of the United States. The secretary of war, on receiving 
 a copy of the order, promptly countermanded it. " And then," say the 
 committee, " was arrested a military scheme as unconstitutional as it 
 was impolitic, and which might, as stated by the secretary of war, in his 
 letter of the 8th of September, 1818, have involved this nation in a war 
 with all Europe." 
 
 The committee considered the execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister 
 " as an unnecessary act of severity," without precedent in our conflict 
 with the savages, and dishonorable to our national character. This com- 
 mittee, as that of the house, controverted the principle that these men, by 
 uniting in war against the United States, while we were at peace with 
 Great Britain, " became outlaws and pirates, and liable to suffer death." 
 This principle was not recognized by the custom and usages of civilized 
 nations. 
 
 The report was made to the senate on the 24th of February, 1819 — 
 too late a day to admit its being acted on during the session, which 
 closed the 3d of March. Strictures written with great ability, strongly 
 animadverting upon the character of the report, and vindicating the 
 general, soon appeared in the newspapers ; and at the next session of 
 
i 
 
 ) 
 
 296 THE AMEKIC'AN STATESMAN. 
 
 congress, Gen. Jackson presented to the senate a memorial in his otra 
 defense against the conclusions of the committee's report. 
 
 The general alleged, in justification of his proceedings, the discretion- 
 ary orders from the department of war. He had been directed to act 
 offensively — to bring the war to a speedy termination ; to inflict exem- 
 plary punishment for hostilities so unprovoked ; and to establish a peace 
 on such terms as would make it honorable and permanent. Powers 
 more ample could not have been conferred. He was not bound by the 
 orders issued to Gen. Gaines. But even if they had been obligatory, 
 they must have lost their force, as the ease they contemplated never oc- 
 curred. The orders to himself had superseded those directed to Gen. 
 Gaines ; he could not therefore be guilty of their violation : and the sub 
 sequent approval of his measures by the executive, he considered as set- 
 tling the question. 
 
 The terras of capitulation had been settled by the general government ; 
 and he, not as negotiator, but as conqueror of the country, had received 
 their submission on those terms, which demanded the surrender of the 
 instigators of the war. 
 
 The occupation of the Spanish posts was necessary to the execution 
 of his orders. The war could not have been effectually terminated while 
 the enemy were assisted and encouraged in their savage hostilities. The 
 authority of Spain over Florida, according to the acknowledgment of 
 her own commanding officers, had ceased ; and he was not bound to re- 
 spect an authority that did not exist — a sovereignty that was not asserted 
 or exercised. The aid rendered the savages was so flagrant a violation 
 of good faith on the part of Spain, as wholly to merge the neutral char- 
 acter. Ambrister had appeared before St. Marks with about 500 negroes 
 and Indians ; and an equal number had been seen about Pensacola, the 
 most of whom had been equipped for war by governor Magot ; a strength 
 sufficient, in both instances, for a forcible occupation of these posts. 
 The governor had refused the passage of provisions up the Escambia for 
 the relief of our starving troops ; and the vessels had been detained 
 and captured. Had he waited for additional orders from the war depart- 
 ment, the object of anticipating the enemy in obtaining possession of tho 
 fort, would have been defeated ; the time of the militia force would have 
 expired before any thing efficient could have been done, and the campaign 
 rendered abortive. 
 
 These proceedings were not acts of war : they had not been directed 
 against the government of Spain. The Spanish government did not so 
 consider them. The two governments still acknowledged themselves at 
 peace. It would appear from the correspondence, that he had entered 
 the territory of Spain as a friend^ to chastise an enemy of both nationa 
 
occur ATICN OF FLORIDA BY GEN JACKSON. 297 
 
 and to enforce obligations and duties which the Spanish authorities had 
 pleaded inability to perform. Nor was it true, as stated by the com- 
 mittee, that the garrisons were made prisoners of war. 
 
 As to the new government, nothing more was contemplated than some 
 kind of civil authority to protect the lives and property of the citizens 
 during the temporary occupancy of the fortress. The temporary gov- 
 ernor was a military officer ; but civil officers were appointed to the dif- 
 ferent departments from amongst the citizens. The establishment of 
 the revenue laws of the United States became necessary to prevent 
 smuggling, as well as to admit the American merchant to an equal par- 
 ticipation in trade, which was denied by the Spanish laws. 
 
 The execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, he said, was justified by 
 precedent and the laws of nations. They had become identified with the 
 outlawed Ked Sticks and fugitive negroes, who were in a state of open 
 rebellion — associates in war, and acting as their chiefs. Great Britain 
 would not interfere in their case ; and the Spanish authorities either 
 would not, or could not. Respecting none of the laws of civilized war- 
 fare, they could not claim the benefit of these laws, and were as much 
 outlaws to all their provisions as a pirate on the ocean. It should be 
 remembered that these British outlaws and the Indian chiefs were the 
 monsters demanded to be surrendered by the treaty of Fort Jackson, 
 the terms of which had been antecedently settled by the government, 
 ratified by your honorable body, and carried into effect by congress ; and 
 that these British incendiaries were the instigators of the war, upon 
 whom " exemplary punishment" was to be inflicted. The rights and 
 privileges secured by the rules and articles of war, belonged only to our 
 own countrymen ; and the offenses having been committed by foreigners 
 beyond our territorial limits, the only law applicable to the case was the 
 law of nations, which attaches to their crimes no other penalty than 
 that of death. Hence, the last sentence of the court in the case of 
 Ambrister being deemed void, the first was confirmed and executed. 
 
 Gen. Jackson also denied that, in raising the volunteers, he had disre- 
 garded the orders of the war department, or the constitution and laws. 
 His orders were to call upon the governors of the adjacent states for 
 such additional force as he might deem necessary to beat the enemy, no 
 number or description of troops having been mentioned. He had been, 
 in the language of the department, " vested with full powers to conduct 
 the war as he might judge best." He cited facts to show that the dan- 
 ger and distress of the frontier settlements and a part of the army were 
 such as to demand immediate relief As it was not known that the 
 governor was then at Knoxville or in the Cherokee nation, and as there 
 wofi danger in waiting for the slow process of drafting militia, he had 
 
V 
 
 ^98 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 appealed to his old and tried comrades in arms; and on the same day 
 the governor had been written to, apprising him that, if the appeal for 
 volunteers should not be promptly answered, 1000 drafted militia would 
 be required : and the measure had received the governor's approval and 
 cooperation. 
 
 Nor had he, as the committee alleged, appointed the officers ; they 
 had, at his own request, been chosen by the volunteers themselves. The 
 appointment of an inspector-general of the southern division, to super- 
 intend the organization, and lead them to Fort Scott, where he took the 
 command, was his only agency in the whole transaction. Every measure 
 touching the raising and organizing of the volunteers, had been fully 
 approved by the department. The committee, to make it appear that 
 there was no necessity for this hasty increase of the army, had misstated 
 the number of the enemy. They had been computed by Gen. Gaines at 
 2,800, and by Arbuthnot at 3,500. So also had the forces under Gen. 
 Gaines been greatly "exaggerated. 
 
 In vindicating his order for the occupation of St. Augustine, the 
 general admitted that the war had been supposed to be at an end ; 
 but subsequent information had proved the opinion to be erroneous. A 
 number of murders and other outrages had been committed. Intelli- 
 gence from Major Twiggs had created a strong presumption that this 
 post also had become a depot and retreat for the negroes and Indians 
 after they had been driven from Negro Fort, St. Marks, and Pensacola. 
 The order, however, was conditional and prospective ; and had the facts 
 reported been established, there would have been the same reason for the 
 occupancy of St. Augustine as of the other Spanish fortresses. 
 
 From the foregoing summary of facts and arguments, the reader is 
 left to draw his own conclusions. The character of our public men and 
 that of the nation, are inseparable. What affects the former, necessa- 
 rily affects the latter. The various public services of Gen. Jackson 
 have given his namo a conspicuous place on the roll of our distin- 
 guished men. When, subsequent to the transactions here recorded, he 
 was before the public as a candidate for the presidency, the old charges 
 of usurpation of power, and of insubordination to the constitution and the 
 laws, were revived ; and many of our citizens formed their opinions of 
 his official acts from representations made at a time and under influences 
 not the most favorable to candid inquiry and calm consideration. It 
 therefore seemed to be due to Gen. Jackson, to give a detailed sketch 
 of his proceedings in the Seminole war, and to allow him the benefit of 
 being heard in self-defense. With regard to the justice of the high 
 charges preferred against him, there was at the time a wide difference of 
 opinion. His acts appear to have been fully justified by Mr. Adams, 
 
\ 
 
 RATIFICATION OF A TREATY WITH SPAIN. 299 
 
 as secretary of state, in his correspondence with the Spanish minister 
 and Mr. Erving, our minister to Spain. On the other hand, Mr. Clay, 
 then a member of the house of representatives, zealously advocated the 
 adoption of the resolution of censure reported by the military com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. Monroe, in his annual message of November 17, 1818, alluded 
 to this subject as follows : " In authorizing Major^General Jackson to 
 enter Florida in pursuit of the Seminoles, care was taken not to encroach 
 on the rights of Spain. * * * The commanding general was con- 
 vinced, that he should fail in his object, that he should in effect accom- 
 plish nothing, if he did not deprive those savages of the resources on 
 which they had calculated, and of the protection on which they had 
 relied, in making the war. 
 
 '* Although the reasons which induced Major-General Jackson to take 
 these posts were duly appreciated, there was, nevertheless, no hesitation 
 in deciding on the course which it became the government to pursue. 
 As there was reason to believe that the commanders of these posts had 
 violated their instructions, there was no disposition to impute to their 
 government a conduct so unprovoked and hostile. An order was in con- 
 sequence issued to the general in command there to deliver the posts ; 
 Pensacola, unconditionally, to any person duly authorized to receive it, 
 and St. Marks, which is in the heart of the Indian country, on the arri- 
 val of a competent force to defend it against those savages and their 
 associates. 
 
 " In entering Florida to suppress this combination, no idea was enter- 
 tained of hostility to Spain; and however justifiable the commanding 
 general was, in consequence of the misconduct of the Spanish ofl&cers, in 
 entering St. Marks and Pensacola to determine it by proving to the 
 savages and their associates that they could not be protected even there ; 
 yet the amicable relations existing between the United States and Spain 
 could not be altered by that act alone. By ordering the restitution of 
 the posts, those relations were preserved. To a change of them th€ 
 power of the executive is deemed incompetent ; it is vested in congress 
 only." 
 
 This language of the president, considered with the prompt orders to 
 surrender the posts, indicates, on his part, an apprehension that the 
 occupation of these posts was incompatible with a state of neutrality. 
 A revival of this controversy took place during the administration of 
 Gen. Jackson, in which several interesting additional facts were elicited, 
 which will be found in their appropriate place. 
 
 A treaty with Spain, concluded at Madrid, August 11, 1802, and 
 ratified by our government, but the ratification of which by Spain had 
 
V 
 
 300 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 been withheld for sixteen years, was published by the president on the 
 22d of December, 1818. This treaty provided for the settlement, by 
 the arbitration of commissioners, of all claims of the citizens of Spain 
 and of the United States, respectively, for losses sustained by the depre- 
 dations of citizens of the two governments prior to the year 1802. The 
 claims of the United States for spoliations by French privateers, carry- 
 ing their prizes intw the ports of Spain, during the same period, were 
 not provided for, but reserved for future negotiatiou. 
 
 A treaty with Great Britain was concluded October 20, 1818, at 
 London, by Richard Rush, American minister to the court of Great 
 Britain, and Albert Gallatin, minister to France, on the part of the 
 United States, and Frederick John Robinson and Henry Goulburn, on 
 the part of Great Britain. The ratifications of the two governments 
 havinw been duly exchanged at Washington, the treaty was proclaimed 
 oy the president of the United States on the 30th of January. 
 
 By this treaty, the right of our citizens to the eastern fisheries was 
 settled and guarantied. A line between the territories of the two 
 countries was also determined, viz. : From the most north-western point 
 of the Lake of the Woods to the 49th degree of north latitude, and 
 along the said parallel of latitude to the Rocky Mountains. And any 
 territory claimed by either party on the north-west coast, west of the 
 Rocky Mountains, was, with its harbors and navigable waters, to be free 
 to the use of both parties for the term of ten years. This agreement 
 was to prevont disputes and difi"erences, and not to be construed to the 
 prejudice of the claim of either party to any part of the country. The 
 north-eastern boundary was not settled by this treaty. 
 
 As differences had arisen whether, by the true intent and meaning of 
 an article of the treaty of Ghent, the United States were entitled to 
 compensation for slaves within the territory or places occupied by the 
 British forces at the time of the making of the treaty, and directed by 
 that treaty to be restored to the United States ; these differences were 
 to be referred to the arbitration of some friendly power. In pursuance 
 of this agreement, the question was subsequently referred to the emperor 
 of Russia, who, on the 30th of June, 1822, gave his decision as folr 
 lows : That the United States were entitled to indemnification for all 
 the slaves carried away by the British forces from places and territories 
 which the treaty stipulated to restore, in quitting these same places and 
 territories : That all slaves were to be considered as having been so 
 carried away, who had been transferred from these territories to British 
 vessels within the said territories, and who for this reason had not been 
 restored : But that for slaves carried away from territories which the 
 treaty did not stipulate to restore, the United States are not entitled to 
 
\^^ 
 
 CESSION OF FLORIDA. 301 
 
 indemnification. The emperor also appointed two of his privy council- 
 lors, Count Nesselrode and Count Capodistrias, together with Henry 
 Middleton, the American minister at St. Petersburgh, and Charles 
 Bagot, the British minister at the same place, to provide the mode of 
 ascertaining the value of the slaves, and of other private property 
 unlawfully carried away, and for which indemnification was to be made. 
 
 Negotiations on the subject of the long standing disputes between the 
 United States and Spain, were, after the temporary suspension caused 
 by the Florida controversy, resumed, and soon brought to a successful 
 termination. A treaty of amity, settlement, and limits, was concluded 
 at Washington, on the 22d of February, 1819, by John Quincy Adams, 
 secretary of state, and Luis de Onis, the Spanish minister at Washing- 
 ton. By this treaty, Spain ceded to the United States all her territory 
 east of the Mississippi, known by the name of East and West Florida, 
 and a large territory west of that riper. 
 
 The cession of the Floridas included the adjacent islands dependent 
 on these provinces, with all public lots, buildings, fortifications, and the 
 archives and documents which related directly to the property and 
 sovereignty of the provinces ; the archives and documents to be left in 
 possession of the commissioners or officers of the United States autho- 
 rized to receive them. 
 
 West of the Mississippi was ceded the territory east and north of the 
 boundary line running along the west bank of the Sabine, from the gulf 
 of Mexico to the 32d degree of north latitude, being the north-west limit 
 of the state of Louisiana; thence due north to the Rio Roxo of Nachi. 
 toches, or Red River ; thence following the same westward to longitude 
 100 degrees from London, and 23 from Washington; then crossing 
 Red River and running thence due north to the river Arkansas ; thence 
 along the southern bank of the same to its source, in latitude 42 degrees 
 north ; and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South Sea, (Paci- 
 fic;) the whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, 
 published at Philadelphia, improved on the 1st of January, 1818. But 
 if the source of the Arkansas should be found to be north or south of 
 latitude 42> then the line was to run from the said source north or south 
 to that latitude, and thence along the said parallel to the South Sea, 
 All the islands in the Sabine, Red, and Arkansas rivers were to belong 
 to the United States ; but the use of the waters and the navigation of 
 the Sabine to the sea, and of the Red and Arkansas throughout the 
 extent of the said boundary, on their respective banks, were to be com- 
 mon to the inhabitants of both nations. 
 
 The inhabitants of the ceded territories were to be secured in the free 
 exercise of their religion ; and they were to be incorporated into the 
 
302 THE AMEKICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 union ae soon as might be consistent with the principles of the federal 
 constitution, and to be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
 privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. 
 
 The United States stipulated to pay out of the proceeds of the sales 
 of lands in Florida, or in stock or money, as congress should prescribe, 
 to our ovra citizens, on account of spoliations and other injuries received 
 by them from the government of Spain, or from the governments of her 
 colonies, a sum not exceeding Jive millions of dollars ; the amount of 
 the claims to be ascertained by a board of three commissioners, citizens 
 of the United States, to be appointed by the president and senate, and 
 and to make their report within three years. All other claims on each 
 other for spoliations or other injuries, were mutually renounced by the 
 two governments. 
 
 Spanish vessels laden only with productions of Spanish growth or manu- 
 facture, direct from the ports of Spain or her colonies, were to be admitted 
 for the term of twelve years, to the ports of Pensacola and St. Augus- 
 tine, on the same terms as vessels of the United States ; the twelve 
 years to commence three months after the exchange of the ratificationSr 
 of the treaty. 
 
 This treaty, of which these are the most essential provisions, was 
 hailed throughout the country as a satisfactory termination of the tedious, 
 unpleasant negotiations with Spain. The National Intelligencer, in 
 announcing the ratification of the treaty by the senate, said : " It termi- 
 nates the only existing controversy with any of the European powers^ 
 It rounds off our southern possessions, and forever precludes foreign 
 emissaries from stirring up Indians to war and negroes to rebellion, 
 whilst it gives to the southern country important outlets to the sea. It 
 adjusts tbe vast western boundary, acknowledging the United States to 
 be sovereign, under the hitherto contested Louisiana treaty, over all the 
 territory we ever seriously contended for. In a word, it is a treaty than 
 which the most sanguine have not anticipated one much more favorable ; 
 it is one that fully comes up to the expectations of the great body of 
 the American people." 
 
 A few days after the treaty was concluded, in expectation of its 
 prompt ratification on the part of Spain, a law was passed in pursuance 
 of a recommendation of the president, for the occupation of Florida. 
 The anticipated ratification, however, which by a provision of the treaty 
 was to have taken place, and ratifications exchanged, within six months 
 from its date, was, for reasons unknown to our government, delayed by 
 Spain long beyond that time. 
 
 During this period of suspense there was much speculation as to the 
 cause of the delay. Some ascribed it to the interference of the Britieh 
 
CESSION OP FLORIDA. 303 
 
 gOTemment, which was averse to the cession of the Floridas to the 
 United States : and it was suspected that a secret arrangement was in 
 progress between the governments of Spain and Great Britain to pre- 
 vent the stipulated transfer of the treaty. It was rumored on the 
 authority of letters from abroad, that, to an existing treaty between 
 England and Spain, certain secret articles were attached really ceding 
 Florida to Great Britain, on consideration that she should guaranty to 
 Spain her other American colonies. Apprehensions of a war between the 
 United States and Spain prevailed in England and France, as well as in 
 this country ; and certain movements under the direction of cur govern- 
 ment, were regarded as indications of a design to be prepared for such 
 an emergency. 
 
 Many of our citizen? were in favor of taking possession of the terri- 
 tory without waiting farther for the ratification, believing that the act 
 would be justified by the unredressed injuries we had suffered. At 
 length, pursuant to the recommendation of the president in his annual 
 message, the committee on foreign relations, on the Sth of March, 1820, 
 made a report on the subject, accompanied by a bill, '• requiring the 
 president to take possession of and occupy the territories of East and 
 West Florida." But before any decisive action was taken upon the bill, 
 information having been received by the president, that a new minister 
 had been appointed to the United States with power to settle all differ- 
 ences, and the governments of England, France and Russia having 
 interposed their good offices to promote the ratification of the treaty, as 
 well as expressed a desire that our government would delay any measure 
 tending to disturb the peace between the United States and Spain ; the pre- 
 sident communicated the same to congress, with the suggestion to postpone 
 a decision on the questions depending with Spain, until the next session. 
 
 The new minister, General Vives. arrived about the first of April. 
 He mentioned, as reasons sufficiently valid to exonerate the king from 
 the obligation of ratifying the treaty, the hostility pursued against the 
 Spanish dominions, and the property of their inhabitants, by American 
 citizens ; the decisions of several courts of the union ; and the criminal 
 expedition set on foot for the invasion of the Spanish possessions in 
 North America, when the ratification was still pending. Upon these 
 points he asked for explanations, and a pledge to take measures to 
 repress these excesses, and to prevent any invasion of Spanish posses 
 sions ; and to form no relations with the revolted Spanish provinces 
 in South America. These demands, he said, would have been long since 
 communicated through our minister at Madrid, (Mr. Forsyth,) if he had 
 not expressed himself in terms disrespectful to his majesty. 
 
 Explanations, satisfactory to General Vives, were made by Mt 
 
\^ 
 
 ^d^-" THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Adams on the points presented, except that relating to the southern pro- 
 vinces, our government being unwilling to contract an engagement not 
 to form any relations with them. The answer to this point was commu- 
 nicated to the king ; and, if it should be received by him as satisfactory, 
 the treaty would probably be ratified. The ratification took place on 
 the 24th of October, 1820; and the treaty was proclaimed by the presi- 
 dent on the 22d of February, 1821, precisely two years from its date 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 INVESTIGATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES BANK. OPINION 
 
 OF THE SUPREME COURT ON ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. DECISION OF THE 
 
 CIRCUIT COURT. JUDICIAL DECISION ON BANKRUPT LAWS QUESTION 
 
 or INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 
 
 The public mind had become much excited by the refusal of the bank 
 of the United States to receive the notes of its branches, except in pay- 
 ment of debts due to the United States, and by sundry acts of alleged 
 mismanagement on the part of the directors highly injurious to the pub- 
 lic interest. The dissatisfaction with the bank had become so general 
 as to induce congress to institute an investigation of its afi'airs and 
 management. 
 
 The inquiry was moved by John C. Spencer, of New York, on the 
 25th of November, 1818, who, as chairman of the committee of investi- 
 gation, on the 16th of January, 1819, made a very elaborate report, 
 reviewing minutely the transactions of the bank, and expressing the 
 opinion that it had in several instances violated its charter. The com- 
 mittee also reported a bill for the better regulation of the election of the 
 directors. No other remedial measures were recommended, as, by the 
 provisions of the charter, the secretary of the treasury had full power to 
 apply them, which it was presumed would be done, should the directors 
 persist in a course of conduct which should require it. 
 
 Subsequently, February 1, the same gentleman presented a resolution 
 requiring the corporation, on or before the 1st of July, to declare their 
 consent to certain propositions providing more stringent regulations in 
 the management of its affairs ; and in case of non-compliance, the secre- 
 tary of the treasury was required to cause all the public deposits to be 
 withdrawn from the bank and its branches on that day, and the attorney- 
 general was required to sue out a writ of scire facias^ in conformity wivh 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES BANK. 305 
 
 its charter, calling upon tlie corporation to show cause why its charter 
 should not be declared forfeited. 
 
 A proposition was made by ^Ir. Johnson, of Virginia, to repeal the char- 
 ter ; which was opposed by Mr. Spencer. The immediate destruction of 
 the bank, he said, would ruin thousands who had become its debtors, and 
 inflict a wound upon the public credit, and tarnish the national faith 
 abroad. The resolutions on the subject were referred to the committee 
 of the whole on the bank report, all of which were subsequently with- 
 drawn, or disagreed to, and the bill reported by Mr. Spencer, with amend- 
 ments designed to render its provisions more effectual, was passed. It 
 was believed the bank had been too much managed in a spirit of specu- 
 lation. Reformation, however, and not destruction, appears to have 
 been the desire even of those most unfriendly to the institution. 
 
 There was about this time a general depreciation of state bank paper ; 
 and many of the state banks were compelled to suspend specie payments. 
 The greatest pressure prevailed in the south-western states. 
 
 In March, 1819, was decided in the supreme court, the case of M'Cul- 
 loh against the state of Maryland, involving the question of the power 
 of a state to impose a tax on a branch of the bank of the United States. 
 The plaintiff was president of the branch bank in Maryland, which had 
 been taxed under a law taxing the banks of that state. This cause, in 
 the opinion of the court, presented two questions : (1.) Has congress 
 power to incorporate a bank ? (2.) Can a state, without a violation of 
 the constitution, tax a branch bank ? 
 
 The first of these questions was decided in the affirmative. The 
 arguments upon which the decision was founded, are substantially those 
 by which the constitutionality of the banks of 1791 and 1816 were main- 
 tained in congress. [See bank of the United States.] 
 
 In construing the constitution, the counsel for the state of Maryland 
 considered it, not as having emanated from the people, but as the act of 
 sovereign and independent states. And the powers of the general gov- 
 ernment were delegated by the states, and must be exercised in subordi- 
 nation to the states, who alone were supreme. The convention which 
 framed the constitution, the court said, was indeed elected by the state 
 legislatures. But it was a mere proposal without obligation, until it had 
 been submitted, not to the state governments, but to a convention of 
 delegates in each state chosen by the people, for their assent and ratifi- 
 cation. Hence the adoption of the constitution \Vas properly considered 
 the act of the people themselves. The confederation, which was a mere 
 league, was formed by the state sovereignties. The " more perfect 
 union " under the constitution was the act of " the people of the United 
 States." 
 
 20 
 
306 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The government is one of enumerated powers, and possesses those only 
 which are granted to it. But though limited in its powers, it is supreme 
 within its sphere of action. Among its enumerated powers is not that 
 of establishing a bank, or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase 
 in the instrument which excludes incidental or implied powers. The 
 confederation authorized the exercise of such powers only as were 
 expressly granted. But the word " expressly " was omitted in the con- 
 stitution. It was not even inserted in the 10th article of amendment, 
 which was framed to quiet the jealousies which had been excited against 
 that instrument. 
 
 The gi-eat powers having been given to lay and collect taxes, to borrow 
 money, to regulate commerce, to declare and conduct a war, and to raise 
 and support armies, it must be for the interest of the nation to facilitate 
 the execution of these powers. And it was not to be presumed, the 
 court said, that the express grant of these powers was intended to clog 
 and embarrass their execution by withholding the most appropriate 
 means. As the constitution does not profess to prescribe the means of 
 executing its powers, the government is left to a choice of means. 
 Hence, a corporation, if it is essential to a beneficial exercise of gi'anted 
 powers, may be created for this purpose. 
 
 Congress has " power to make all laws which are necessary and proper 
 for carrying into execution the foregoing powers," &c. It was contended 
 that this did not authorize, in all cases, the choice of means, but the 
 passing of such laws only as were absolutely indispensable, and without 
 which the powers gTanted could not be executed. It was maintained, on 
 the contrary, by the court, that the word " necessary " did not always 
 import an absolute physical necessity ; that in common use it meant no 
 more than that one thing is convenient, or useful, or essential to another ; 
 that it had not a fixed character peculiar to itself ; but that like many 
 other words, it admitted of all degrees of comparison. ... A thing 
 might be necessary, very necessary, or absolutely or indispensably neces- 
 sary. The constitution prohibits a state from laying " imposts, or duties 
 on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for exe- 
 cuting its inspection laws." The word " absolutely " being here inserted, 
 it was evident the framers intended to give a different meaning to the 
 word " necessary " in this place from that given to it when gi'anting 
 power " to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execu- 
 tion " the powers of the general government. 
 
 Against the right of a state to tax the bank, it was argued, that, if 
 congress could create, it could of course continue a bank. But the power 
 of taxing it by the states might be so exercised as to destroy it. Taxa- 
 tion had been claimed, on the part of the state, as an absolute power, 
 
DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT. 307 
 
 and, like other sovereign powers, was trusted to the discretion of those 
 who used it. But the sovereignty of the state, in the article of taxation 
 itself, is subordinate to, and may be controlled by, the constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 It was contended on the part of the state of Maryland, not that the 
 states may resist a law of congress, but that they may exercise their 
 acknowledged powers upon it ; and that the constitution leaves them this 
 right in the confidence that they will not abuse it. 
 
 The court admitted that the power of taxation was essential to the 
 very existence of government, and might be exercised on objects to which 
 it was applicable, to the utmost extent to which the government might 
 choose to carry it. And the fact that, in imposing a tax, the legislature 
 acts upon itself, as well as upon its constituents, and the influence of the 
 latter over their representatives, were deemed a suflScient security against 
 the abuse of this unlimited power of taxation given by the people of a 
 state to their government. But the sovereignty of a state extends only to 
 what exists by its own authority,but not to the means employed by congress 
 to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the 
 United States. These powers are not given by the people of a single state, 
 but by the people of all the states, to a government whose laws, made 
 in pursuance of the constitution, are declared to be supreme. The people 
 of a state, therefore, can not confer a sovereignty which will extend over 
 them. Besides, if the states might tax one instrument employed by the 
 government in executing its powers, they might tax any and every other. 
 They might tax the mails, the mint, patent rights, papers of the custom- 
 house, judicial process, and all other means employed by the government, 
 to an excess which would defeat all the ends of government. 
 
 In view of these and other reasons, the court unanimously declared 
 the law of Maryland imposing a tax on the bank of the United States, 
 unconstitutional and void. This opinion, however, did not deprive the 
 states of any resources which they originally possessed. The real pro- 
 perty of the bank, and the interest held in the bank by citizens of Mary- 
 land, were liable to taxation. 
 
 Another case of taxation occurred in the state of Ohio ; and a suit 
 was brought before the United States circuit court by the bank against 
 the officers of the state for the recovery of the money. A law had been 
 enacted in that state, by which it was provided, that if the branches at 
 Cincinnati and Chillicothe did not cease their operations by the first of 
 September, 1819, a tax of $100,000 should be levied on the bank. On 
 the 15th of September, a bill in chancery, issued from the United States 
 circuit court, was served on the auditor of the state, who was directed 
 i to answer to the bill of complaint, praying for an injunction against his 
 
308 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 proceeding under the law of the state to tax the bank of the United 
 States. On the same day, the auditor proceeded to charge the bank 
 with the sura of $100,000 ; one-half on each of the branches above men- 
 tioned, and directed the tax to be collected. The collector, with two 
 assistants, entered the branch at Chillicothe, and demanded payment, 
 which was refused ; whereupon they entered the vaults, and took out 
 specie and pa2:)er to the amount of $100,000, and conveyed the money to 
 the state treasury. 
 
 A protracted litigation ensued. A communication on the subject was 
 made by the state auditor to the legislature, and resolutions, reported 
 by a joint committee, were adopted by large majorities, (1.) Approving 
 the doctrines of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and 
 1799. (2.) Protesting against the doctrines of the federal circuit court 
 sitting in that state as being in direct violation of the 11th amendment 
 of the constitution of the United States. (3.) Asserting, and resolving 
 to maintain, the right of the states to tax the business and property of 
 any private corporation of trade incorporated by congress, and transact- 
 ing its business within any state. (4.) Declaring the bank of the United 
 States to be a private corporation of trade. (5.) Protesting against the 
 doctrine, that the political rights and powers of the separate states, may 
 be settled in the supreme court of the United States, so as to conclude 
 and bind them, in cases contrived between individuals, and in which none 
 of them is a party direct. 
 
 A decision was at length made, September, 1821, in the circuit court 
 of the United States, decreeing the restoration of the $100,000 which 
 had been seized, with interest of the specie part of it, (the specie being 
 nearly $20,000) and granting a perpetual injunction against the collec- 
 tion of any tax in future under the act of Ohio. 
 
 Another important decision of the supreme court about this time, was 
 on the question of the constitutionality of state bankrupt and insolvent 
 laws. The case was that" of Sturges against Crowninshield ; the defend- 
 ant pleading a discharge under " an act for the benefit of insolvent 
 debtors and their creditors," passed by the legislature of New York in 
 1811. 
 
 On the several questions which arose in this case, the opinions of the 
 court were, (1.) That, in the absence of any uniform laws of congress on 
 the subject of bankruptcies, authorized by the constitution, the states 
 may pass a bankrupt law, provided that it does not violate that provision 
 of the constitution which declares, that " no state shall pass any law 
 impairing the obligation of contracts." (2.) That the law of New York, 
 which not only liberates the person of the debtor, but discharges him 
 from all liability for any debt previously contracted, on his sun-endering 
 .his property, is clearly a law impairing the obligation of contracts. 
 
QUESTION OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 309 
 
 The court made the distinction between the obligation of a contract and 
 the remedy to enforce that obligation. The remedy might be modified 
 without impairing the obligation. Hence, a law requiring the imprison- 
 ment of an insolvent debtor may be repealed. Imprisonment of an 
 insolvent debtor being no part of the contract, the relief of the prisoner 
 does not impair its obligation. 
 
 This construction of the constitution did not extend to statutes of 
 limitation, and laws against usury. Statutes of limitation relate to the 
 remedies furnished in the courts, and establish that certain circumstances 
 shall amount to evidence that a contract has been performed, rather than 
 dispense with its performance. But if a law were passed which should 
 limit to six years the obligation of a contract previously made, there 
 would be little doubt of its unconstitutionality. And so with respect to 
 usury and other laws. So far as they affect contracts already made, 
 they are deemed unconstitutional and void. 
 
 The subject of internal improvements by the general government, has 
 received the attention of our statesmen from an early period of the gov- 
 ernment under the constitution ; and has often been elaborately discussed 
 in congress, and in documents emanating from the highest official 
 sources. In 1807, the attention of the senate was directed to this sub- 
 ject ; and in pursuance of a resolution of that body, the secretary of the 
 treasury, Mr. Gallatin, made an able and valuable report. And reports 
 have since been made, at different times, recommending some system of 
 internal improvements. 
 
 On the 3d of March, 1817, the day which terminated the 14th con- 
 gi'ess and Mr. Madison's administration, the bill was returned with the 
 executive veto, on the ground of its unconstitutionality. 
 
 Anticipating a revival of the subject of internal improvement, Mr. 
 Monroe, in his first annual message, took occasion to express his opinion 
 in advance, against the right of congress to establish such a system of 
 improvement. Owing, probably, to these executive communications, the 
 subject, for several years, seems to have received little attention from 
 congress. 
 
 At the session of 1821-1822, memorials and petitions from several 
 states, soliciting the aid of the general government in works of internal 
 improvement, were presented to congress, and referred to the committee 
 on roads and canals in the house of representatives, who, on the 2d of 
 January, 1822, made a favorable report, designating the " national ob- 
 jects which, in the opinion of the committee, claim the first attention of 
 the government." With the report was a bill, authorizing the president 
 to cause to be made the necessary surveys, plans and estimates of these 
 objects, and of such other routes for roads and canals as he might deem 
 of national importance in a commercial or military point of view. 
 
310 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Among the advantages of a well regulated system of internal improve- 
 ments, the committee, in their report, mention the " regular trade in 
 the exchange of manufactured articles for raw materials," which would 
 take place, and the " nation's receiving within itself the whole benefit 
 usually gained between old and new countries ; " it being admitted by 
 the ablest writers on political economy, that the most important branch 
 of the commerce of a nation was that which is carried on between the 
 inhabitants of the towns and those of the country. This trade was 
 attended with less risk than the foreign; which is always liable to be dis- 
 turbed by war and the fluctuating policy of other nations. The various 
 talents and inclinations of the citizens would be called into activity, and 
 a greater amount of labor insured to the nation ; and the ready inter- 
 course between the different parts of the country, would produce an 
 identity of interest and fraternity of feeling, which would strengthen the 
 bonds of the union. The lines of communication contemplated would 
 benefit nearly every state in the union ; yet no one or two states had 
 sufficient inducements to furnish the means to construct any one of these 
 works. Objects so important to the welfare and defense of the nation 
 must be made by the general government, or their construction was 
 scarcely to be expected. 
 
 In an additional report, (April 26,) the committee expressed the 
 opinion, that the time had arrived when the national improvements ought 
 to be commenced ; and pointed out their benefits to the nation. They 
 considered the national resources sufficient at least to commence the 
 surveys and estimates of the more important works, which would require 
 several years ; and as our finances should improve, the improvements 
 might be prosecuted to completion. The committee did not enter largely 
 into a discussion of the power of congress on the subject. They be- 
 lieved, however, that the constitution alone could confer the power; and 
 that the consent of the states was not necessary to its constitutional exer- 
 cise. If congress had no power to construct roads and canals, and main- 
 tain a control over them, it had no power to purchase lands for the pur- 
 pose of making them ; but it had been the practice of congress to allow 
 to the new states five per cent, of the proceeds of the sales of the public 
 lands to be laid out in the construction of roads and canals ; three-fifths 
 having been generally expended within the states, and two-fifths under 
 the direction of congress, in making roads leading to the states. The 
 committee mentioned several works authorized during the administrations 
 of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, one of which was the opening of a 
 road passing through a state, and without asking its consent. And they 
 asked : " How is it possible to reconcile these acts with the idea that 
 congress possesses no power to construct roads and canals ? " 
 
QUESTION OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 311 
 
 The committee, to strengthen their positions, alluded also to the report 
 of the secretary of war, (Mr. Calhoun,) of the 7th of January, 1819, in 
 compliance with a resolution of the house of representatives adopted at 
 the preceding session, instructing him to report at the next session " a 
 plan for the application of such means as are within the power of con- 
 gress for the purpose of opening and constructing such roads and canals 
 as may deserve and require the aid of government, with a view to mili- 
 tary operations in time of war ; " together with such information on the 
 subject as he might deem material to the objects of the resolution. 
 
 The secretary, in his report, did not discuss the constitutional ques- 
 tion ; his object being chiefly to show the utility of a system of roads 
 and canals, and to designate the several routes in different parts of the 
 Union, which he deemed essential to the defense and prosperity of the 
 nation. From the general tenor of the report, however, it has been in- 
 ferred, that he considered the construction of the works therein men- 
 tioned within the power of congress. He said : " A judicious system 
 of roads and canals, constructed for the convenience of commerce, and 
 the transportation of the mail only, without any reference to military 
 operations, is itself among the most efficient means for ' the more com- 
 plete defense of the United States.' Without adverting to the fact, that 
 the roads and canals which such a system would require, are, with few 
 exceptions, precisely those which would be required for the operations of 
 war, such a system, by consolidating our Union, increasing our wealth and 
 fiscal capacity, would add greatly to our resources in war." 
 
 Referring to the difficulties experienced during the late war, from the 
 want of these improvements, he said : " As it is the part of wisdom to 
 profit by experience, so it is of the utmost importance to prevent a re- 
 currence to a similar state of things, by the application of a portion of 
 our means to the construction of such roads and canals as are required 
 * with a view to military operations in time of war, the transportation of 
 the munitions of war, and the more complete defense of the United 
 States.' " And in carrying out the plan, he suggested " as the basis of 
 the system, and the first measure in the plan, that congress should direct 
 such survey and estimate to be made, and the result to be laid before 
 them as soon as practicable." 
 
 The committee did not deem it expedient to recommend the immediate 
 prosecution of any work, and concluded their report with a resolution, 
 declaring it expedient at present only to procure the surveys, plans and 
 estimates proposed by the bill. This bill, however, did not become a law. 
 
 At the same session, a bill " for the preservation and repair of the 
 Cumberland road," passed by both houses, was returned to the house of 
 representatives by the president, with the objection " that congress do 
 
312 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 not possess the power, under the constitution, to pass such a law." The 
 substance of his objection is contained in the following paragraph : 
 
 " A power to establish turnpikes, with gates and tolls, and to enforce 
 the collection of tolls by penalties, implies a power to adopt and execute 
 a complete system of internal improvement. A right to impose duties 
 to be paid by all persons on a certain road, and on horses and carriages, 
 as is done by this bill, involves the right to take the land from the pro- 
 prietor, on a valuation, and to pass laws for the protection of the road 
 from injuries ; and if it exists as to one road, it exists as to any other, and 
 to as many roads as congress may think proper to establish. A right to 
 legislate for one of these purposes, is a right to legislate for the others. 
 It is a complete right of jurisdiction and sovereignty for all the purposes 
 of internal improvement, and not merely the right of applying money, 
 under the power vested in congress to make appropriations, under which 
 power, with the consent of the states through which this road passes, the 
 work was originally commenced, and has been so far executed. I am of 
 opinion that congress do not possess this power ; that the states, indi- 
 vidually, can not grant it : for, although they may assent to the appro- 
 priation of money within their limits for such purposes, they can grant 
 no power of jurisdiction or sovereignty, by special compacts with the 
 United States. This power can be granted only by an amendment to 
 the constitution, and in the mode prescribed by it." 
 
 The president did not, in this inessage, assign the reasons on which his 
 objections were founded, but alluded to a paper expressing his senti- 
 ments, which he had occasionally, as his attention had been drawn to the 
 subject, committed to writing. This paper, one of the longest ever com- 
 municated to congress, was, on the same day, transmitted to the house. 
 It contains a very elaborate review of the articles of confederation and 
 the constitution, tracing the origin of the state and national governments, 
 and critically examining their respective powers. And the conclusion at 
 which the president arrived was, that congress had not the right to adopt 
 and execute a system of internal improvement ; but not doubting " that 
 improvements for great national purposes would be better made by the 
 national government than by the governments of the several states," he 
 expressed the opinion, that " an amendment to the constitution ought to 
 be recommended to the several states for their adoption." 
 
 ii 
 
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 313 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. ADMISSION OF MAINE AND MISSOURI INTO 
 
 THE UNION. 
 
 During the session of 1819-20, was passed the act to admit the new 
 state of Missouri into the Union, A bill for this purpose had been in- 
 troduced at the preceding session. In its progress in the house, Gen. 
 Tallmadge, of New York, moved an amendment prohibiting the farther 
 introduction of slavery within the territory, and requiring that all 
 children born therein after its admission, should be free at the age of 
 twenty-five years. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 73 to 67, 
 but was disagreed to in the senate ; and the bill was lost. 
 
 At the next session, (December 7, 1819,) a memorial from the people 
 of the district of Maine, until then a part of the state of Massachusetts, 
 praying to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the 
 original states, with a copy of the constitution formed for the state, was 
 presented to the house. At the same time was presented a memorial 
 from the people of Missouri, asking to be authorized to form a consti- 
 tution, and to be admitted as a state. A bill for the admission of Maine 
 passed the house without material opposition. In the senate its progress 
 was arrested by Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia, who moved an amend- 
 ment (February 3d,) coupling it with the bill for the admission of Mis- 
 souri Avithout any restriction as to slavery. This gave rise to a debate 
 which continued till near the close of the session, and terminated in the 
 famed " Missouri compromise." 
 
 In the house on the 26th of January, Mr. Taylor, of New York, 
 moved an amendment to the Missouri bill of that body, interdicting 
 slavery in the state ; providing, however, that fugitives slaves might bo 
 reclaimed within the same, and that the provision should not alter the 
 condition of those already held as slaves in the territory. In the house 
 also the debate was long and animated. 
 
 On the l7th of February, in the senate, the proposed junction of the 
 two states into one bill was decided in the affirmative, 23 to 21 ; all the 
 senators being present and voting. From the free states, Edwards and 
 Thomas, the two senators from Illinois, and Taylor, of Indiana, voted 
 in the affirmative; and from the slave states, the Delaware senators. 
 Horsey and Van Dyke, voted in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, then offered an amendment to the Missouri 
 branch of the bill, proposing to prohibit slavery in all that territory 
 ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, 
 
314 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 lying north of 36 1-2 degrees north latitude, except within the limits 
 of the proposed state of Missouri. The next day the amendment was 
 adopted, 34 to 10; and the bill was ordered to a third reading, 24 to 
 20, From the free states, those who voted in the aflSrmative, were Ed- 
 wards and Thomas, of Illinois, Hunter, of Rhode Island, and Parrott, of 
 New Hampshire. From slave states, Macon, of North Carolina, and 
 Smith, of South Carolina. 
 
 On the 23d of February, the Maine bill having been returned to the 
 house, the amendments of the senate were disagreed to ; the proposition 
 to annex the Missouri bill to the Maine bill, by a vote of 93 to 72, and 
 the compromise section, 159 to 18: and a message announcing the fact 
 was sent to the senate. On the 28th, the senate refused to recede from 
 its amendments; that providing for the admission of Missouri being 
 adhered to by a vote of 23 to 21 ; and that inhibiting slavery, by 33 to 
 11 : and the house was informed of the determination of the senate to 
 insist on its amendments. On the same day, the house again voted to 
 insist on their disagreement to the amendments ; to the first, 97 to 76 ; 
 to the last, embracing the compromise, 160 to 14: and the senate was 
 informed of the determination of the house to disagree. The senate, 
 then, on motion of Mr. Thomas, appointed a committee of conference, 
 consisting of Messrs. Thomas, Pinckney and Barbour. The conference 
 was the next day (29th) agreed to by the house, and a committee of five 
 appointed, consisting of Messrs. Holmes, Taylor, Lowndes, Parker, of 
 Massachusetts, and Kinsey. 
 
 In the house of representatives the Missouri bill as amended in com- 
 mittee of the whole, including the amendment moved by Mr. Taylor the 
 26th of January, was ordered to a third reading, 93 to 84 ; and on the 
 next day, (March 1st,) was passed, 91 to 82, and sent to the senate for 
 concurrence, when, the next day, the restrictive clause was stricken out, 
 and the senate's compromise clause inserted,^ and returned to the house 
 of representatives. The house, before any vote was taken upon it, re- 
 ceived the report of the conference, which recommended, (1.) That the 
 senate recede from its amendments to the Maine bill, that is, detach 
 from it the Missouri branch ; (2.) That both houses strike out of the 
 Missouri bill the restriction upon the state ; (3.) A restriction on all 
 other territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes. The committee of con- 
 ference was unanimous in this report, with the exception of Mr. Taylor, 
 of the committee on the part of the house, who did not concur in striking 
 out the restriction. 
 
 The question was first taken on striking out the restriction upon 
 the state, and decided in the affirmative, 90 to 87 ; the speaker not 
 voting, and 8 absent, including Mr. Walker, of Kentucky, deceased. 
 
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 815 
 
 If, as was presumed, five of the absentees, if tliey had been present, 
 would have voted against concurring, and the other two who were living 
 would have voted for concurring, the question would have been deter- 
 mined by the vote of the speaker. Before taking the question on the 
 second amendment of the senate, (the compromise,) Mr, Taylor moved 
 an amendment by striking out the words, " 36 degrees 30 minutes north 
 latitude," and inserting a line which Avould exclude slavery from all the 
 territory west of the Mississippi, except Missouri and Arkansas, and 
 the state of Louisiana. To avoid taking the question on this amend- 
 ment, some member moved the previous question. The motion having 
 been sustained, the main question was taken on concurring with the 
 senate in inserting the clause inhibiting slavery north of 36 degrees 30 
 minutes north latitude, and decided in the affirmative, 134 to 42. 
 
 The advocates of the unrestricted admission of Missouri contended that 
 the prohibition of slavery would place her on an unequal footing with 
 the other states. By the treaty ceding Louisiana to the United States, 
 the inhabitants were to "be incorporated into the union, and to be 
 admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of the consti- 
 tution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of 
 citizens of the United States ; " and congress was bound, in good faith, 
 to admit Missouri without imposing upon her citizens terms to which 
 they did not consent. Congress had not the right to prescribe the terms 
 of admission. The general government had no constitutional right to 
 interfere with the municipal policy of a state, farther than was necessary 
 and proper to carry into effect the powers expressly granted to that gov- 
 ernment. The constitution declared, that " the powers not delegated to 
 the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, 
 are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The right to 
 hold slaves was one of these rights ; and the guaranty applied to the 
 new states as well as to the original states. It was conceded that the 
 right of congress to admit new states, implied the power to refuse admis- 
 sion ; but it did not give the right to impose the terms of admission. 
 
 In support of the restriction it was said, that congress, under the 
 " power to dispose of and make all needful rules respecting the terri- 
 tory and other property of the United States," had passed laws for the 
 survey and sale of the public lands, and the division of them into terri- 
 tories, and had established governments in them. The power to make 
 needful rules and regulations includes the power to determine what regu- 
 lations are necessary, and consequently, the power to prohibit slavery, if 
 such prohibition shall be deemed a needful regulation. It was said, too, 
 that the power to admit new states was conferred without limitation : 
 and congress might admit them at discretion as to time, terms and cir- 
 
316 THE AMERICAN STATESMAK. 
 
 cumstances. No new state could, of right, demand admission, unless 
 the demand was founded on some previous engagement with the United 
 States, Hence, the prohibition of slavery might be made a condition of 
 admission. 
 
 It was said, farther, that the exercise of this power had been sanc- 
 tioned by congress. The ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery in the 
 North Western Territory, passed by the old congress, had been ratified 
 by the new congress at their first session under the constitution; and 
 new states had been admitted in conformity to the " articles of com- 
 pact " embraced in the ordinance, one of which was that which excluded 
 slavery. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia had, 
 by the unanimous vote of their delegates, approved that ordinance. 
 North Carolina must have supposed that congress possessed the power 
 to prohibit slavery in the new territory, having made the grant upon the 
 express condition, " that no regulation made, or to be made by congress, 
 should tend to emancipate slaves." Georgia, also, in ceding the Missis- 
 sippi territory, had made a similar exception. 
 
 It was also said to be an error to represent Missouri as now entitled 
 to the rights and prerogatives of a state. These she would not have 
 until she had a constitution sanctioned by congress, and an act of admis- 
 sion had been passed. 
 
 In reply to those who claimed for the people of Missouri the right to 
 judge for themselves in the matter of excluding slavery, it was said, that 
 congress had a right to judge whether it would be for the good of the 
 union to admit new states in which slavery should be permitted. The 
 interests of the whole nation were affected by the character and condi- 
 tion of those who were to be members of the political family. 
 
 It is unnecessary to observe, that in a debate of nearly two months' 
 duration, a large number of members must have participated. Among 
 the senators who took a prominent part in the discussion, were King, of 
 New York, Momll and Burrell, of New Hampshire, Mellen, of Massa- 
 chusetts, Roberts and Lowrie, of Pennsylvania, in favor of the proposed 
 restrictions; and Barbour, of Virginia, Smith, of South Carolina, 
 Macon, of North Carolina, and Thomas, of Illinois, in opposition. 
 In the house, John W. Taylor, of New York, Edwards, of Connecticut, 
 Fuller and Cushman, of Massachusetts, Plumer and Claggett, of New 
 Hampshire, Hendricks, of Indiana, and Sergeant of Pennsylvania, in 
 favor of restriction ; and Holmes, of Massachusetts, (District of Maine,) 
 Baldwin, of Pennsylvania, Clay, of Kentucky, Randolph, Tyler and 
 Smyth, of Virginia, Lowndes and Pinckney, of South Carolina, and 
 McLane, of Delaware, in opposition. 
 
 The bill for the admission of Maine having become disconnected from 
 
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 31r7 
 
 the Missouri bill, all obstruction to its passage was removed ; and the 
 people of the district having already adopted an approved constitution, 
 the act of admission was complete. Different, however, was the case of 
 the people of Missouri. Their constitution was not presented until the 
 next session. On the 23d of November, 1820, Mr. Lowndes, of South 
 Carolina, from the committee to whom it was referred, in their report to 
 the house, alluded to a provision which directed the legislature to pass 
 laws " to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, or set- 
 tling in, the state," which might be construed to apply to persons of this 
 class who were citizens of the United States, and whose exclusion was 
 deemed repugnant to the federal constitution, which declares that " the 
 citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
 ties of citizens in the several states." But the committee, preferring to 
 leave this question for judicial decision whenever a case requiring it 
 should arise, reported a resolution for the admission of Missouri. 
 
 On the 29th, a committee of the senate, Mr. Smith, of South Caro- 
 lina, chairman, reported a similar resolution. Mr. Eaton, of Tennessee, 
 who seems to have entertained doubts of the constitutionality of the 
 clause alluded to in the report of the committee of the house, moved 
 and obtained a postponement ; and, on the 6th of December, offered a 
 proviso to the resolution, that nothing contained therein should be so 
 construed as to give the assent of congress to any provision in the con- 
 stitution of Missouri, which contravened that clause of the constitution 
 of the United States which declares, that " the citizens of each state 
 shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
 several states." The question on this amendment was postponed to the 
 next day ; when Mr. King, of New York, objected to the proposed 
 amendment, expressing the opinion that the proviso would not weaken 
 the effect of the offensive article ; and the senate, after having negatived 
 a substitute offered by Mr. Wilson, of New Jersey, rejected Mr. Eaton's 
 amendment, 21 to 24. The question then recurred on the resolution 
 itself, and, after some debate, was postponed until the next day, and was 
 not taken until the 11th. Before taking the question, Mr. Eaton again 
 offered his proviso, which was adopted by a bare majority ; and the reso- 
 lution so amended, was agTeed to, 26 to 18. With the exception of Mr. 
 Macon, of North Carolina, all those who voted in the negative were 
 from the free states. From the free states voting in the affirmative, 
 were. Chandler and Holmes, of Maine, Edwards and Thomas, of Illi- 
 nois, Parrot, of New Hampshire, and Taylor, of Indiana. 
 
 In the house, Mr. Lowndes' resolution was taken up for considera- 
 tion on the 6th, and debated untU the 13th, when the question was taken, 
 aud the resolution rejected, 79 to 93. Besides negativing one or two 
 
318 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 proposed amendments similar to that adopted in the senate, no farther 
 proceedings were had upon the subject, until the 29th of January, 1821, 
 when the amended resolution of the senate was taken up. Mr. Clay- 
 supported the resolution. Mr. Randolph moved^ to strike out the pro- 
 viso ; and amendments were subsequently proposed, at different times, 
 by Messrs. Foot of Connecticut, Storrs, of New York, S. Moore, of 
 Pennsylvania, and M'Lane, of Delaware, designed to annul or expunge 
 the offensive clause — all of which were rejected. 
 
 On the 2d of February, Mr. Clay, anxious to make a last effort to 
 settle the question, moved to refer the senate's resolution to a commit- 
 tee of thirteen. The committee was appointed, Mr. Clay being chair- 
 man, who, on the 10th, reported an amendment, admitting Missouri on 
 condition that the state never pass a law excluding from the state any 
 persons the citizens of any other state of the union; and upon the 
 assent of the legislature of Missouri to this condition, communicated to 
 the president on or before the fourth Monday in November next, he was 
 to proclaim the fact ; and the admission of the state was to be there- 
 upon complete. The question, after a long debate in committee of the 
 whole, was taken on the amendment, (Feb. 12,) and decided in the neg- 
 ative, 64 to 73 ; and, after rejecting a motion of Mr. Storrs to postpone 
 the subject indefinitely, the question was taken, in the house, on concur- 
 ring with the committee of the whole in its disagreement to the report 
 of the select committee, and by a vote of 83 to 86, the house refused to 
 concur ; and the amendment of the select committee was agreed to. But 
 on taking the question on ordering the resolution to a third reading, a 
 few members being absent, it was lost, 80 to 83. So the whole resolu- 
 tion, with the amendment, was rejected. 
 
 The next day, (13th,) Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, moved to 
 amend the journal of yesterday's proceedings, by striking therefrom the 
 order "that the clerk acquaint the senate with the decision of the house," 
 that he might move a reconsideration of the decision ; and the motion was 
 agreed to. The question on reconsideration was decided in the affirma- 
 tive, 101 to 66. But the question on ordering the resolution to be 
 engrossed and read a third time, was lost, 82 to 88. 
 
 In the house, on motion of Mr. Clay, on the 20th, a committee was 
 appointed to meet a committee on the part of the senate, to consider 
 and report on the expediency of providing for the admission of Missouri, 
 &c. On the 26th of February, Mr. Clay, the chairman of this com- 
 mittee, reported a resolution, providing " that Missouri shall be admit- 
 ted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, upon the 
 fundamental condition, that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth sec- 
 tion of the third article of the constitution submitted on the part of said 
 
ADMISSION OF MAINE AND MISSOURI. 319 
 
 state to congress, shall never be constnied to authorize the passage of any 
 law, by which any citizen of either of the states of this Union shall be 
 excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to 
 which such citizen is entitled under the constitution of the United 
 States." And the legislature was required, by a public act, to declare 
 the assent of the state to this condition, and to transmit to the presi- 
 dent of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday of Novem- 
 ber next, an authentic copy of the act ; and upon the public announcement 
 ^f this fact by the president, the admission of the state was to be con- 
 sidered complete. 
 
 The resolution had its several readings the same day, and was 
 passed ; ayes, 87 ; noes, 81. It was sent to the senate, and concurred 
 in by that body on the 28th, 28 to 14. 
 
 Thus was consummated a measure which, in respect to the excitement it 
 produced, and its influence upon our national destiny, has no parallel in the 
 history of our government. The whole country was agitated. In anticipa- 
 tion of a renewal of the application of Missouri for admission into the 
 union, public meetings were held iq Boston, New York, Trenton, Philadel- 
 phia, Baltimore, and many other places ; and the question of slavery — its 
 effects upon the public prosperity, the power and duty of the general govern- 
 ment in relation to it, and the means of preventing its extension, were dis- 
 cussed. Resolutions deprecating the introduction of slavery into new 
 states were adopted ; and memorials to congress, remonstrating against the 
 admission of Missouri with a constitution permitting slavery, were exten- 
 sively circulated. The legislatures of several states also passed resolutions 
 on the subject, asserting the right of congress to require of new states the 
 prohibition of slavery as a condition of their admission into the union, 
 and requesting their senators and representatives in congress to oppose 
 the admission of any state with a constitution permitting slavery. The 
 states whose legislatures expressly declared the constitutional power of 
 congress to impose the terms of admission, were New York, New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, and Delaware. 
 
 Nor was the excitement less intense in the southern than in the north- 
 ern states. Alarmed by the attempt made at the preceding session of 
 congress to impose upon Missouri the restriction of slavery as one of 
 the terms of her admission into the union, active exertions were made 
 to counteract the anti-slavery influence at the north which would again 
 be brought to bear upon congress. Resolutions were passed in several 
 of the slave states, declaring that congress had no power to prescribe to 
 the people of Missouri the terms and conditions on which they should 
 be admitted into the union, and that congress was bound in good faith 
 to admit them upon equal terms with the existing states. 
 
320 .,., THE, AMEEICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTEE XXIY. 
 
 THE FINANCES. THE TARIFF OF 1824. SPEECHES OF CLAY AND "WEBSTER. 
 
 The 18th congress commenced its first session December 1,1823.; 
 Mr. Clay, who was again a member of the house of representatives^ wag 
 chosen speaker by 139 votes against 42 given for Mr. Barbour, speaker 
 of the last congress. 
 
 The message of the president, delivered the next day, presented the 
 state of public affairs in greater detail than was usual on such occasions. 
 Among the subjects noticed was the favorable condition of the public 
 finances; the balance that would remain in the treasury on the 1st of 
 January ensuing, being estimated at nearly nine millions of dollars. 
 Of the public debt, the message says: " On the 1st of January, 1825, 
 a large amount of the war debt, and a part of the revolutionary debt, 
 become redeemable. Additional portions of the former will continue to 
 become redeemable annually, until the year 1835. It is believed, how- 
 ever, that, if the United States remain at peace, the whole of that debt 
 may be redeemed by the ordinary revenue of those years during that 
 period, under the provision of the act of March 3, 18lV, creating the 
 sinking fund ; and in that case, the only part of the debt that will 
 remain after the year 1835, will be the seven millions of five per cent. • 
 stock subscribed to the bank of the United States, and the three per 
 cent, revolutionary debt, amounting to thirteen millions two hundred 
 and ninety-six thousand and ninety-nine dollars and six cents ; both of 
 which are redeemable at the pleasure of the government." 
 
 The president also renewed the recommendation to the last congress, 
 of a review of the tariff for the purpose of affording additional protec- 
 tion to manufactures ; and he called the attention of congress to several 
 specified objects of internal improvement, which would require appro- 
 priations of the public money. And as congress had not recommended 
 to the states an amendment to the constitution vesting in the general 
 government a power to adopt and execute a system of internal improve- 
 ment, he suggested that the executive be authorized to enter into an 
 arrangement with the states through which the Cumberland road passes, 
 " to establish tolls, each within its limits, for the purpose of defraying 
 the expense of future repairs." 
 
 Probably the most important measure of congress at this session, was 
 the revision and modification of the tariff. Since 1816, the subject of 
 
THE TARIFF. 321 
 
 maimfactures seems to have received for a few years little attention from 
 congress. The tariff act of that year, protecting few important manu- 
 factures except coarse cottons, afforded but a limited encouragement to 
 the industry of the nation. Manufactures were languishing ; several 
 large establishments were closed ; and in many others great numbers of 
 workmen had been discharged. Agriculture was scarcely more pros- 
 perous. The foreign demand for American grain, which had been kept 
 up by the wars of Europe for a period of about twenty-five years, had 
 nearly ceased with the restoration of peace. This, together with the 
 limited and constantly diminishing home market, had reduced the prices 
 of our surplus bread stuffs below the cost of production and transporta- 
 tion to the sea board. Public meetings were held, and resolutions were 
 passed; associations were formed; and petitions were presented to con- 
 gress for relief. Action was also taken on the subject by the legisla- 
 tures of some of the states, and their representatives were requested to 
 endeavor to procure such modifications of the tariff as should encourage 
 the employment of capital and industry in home manufactures. 
 
 "With a view to this object, a bill was reported in the house of repre- 
 sentatives at the session of 1819-1820, and passed that body, 90 to 69. 
 The bill was defeated in the senate, on a motion to postpone it till the 
 next session, by a vote of 22 to 21. For the reason which will here- 
 after appear, the votes of the several states in the house of representa- 
 tives are here given, as follows : 
 
 Massachusetts, (including Maine:) Ayes, 10; noes, 6; absent, 4. 
 New Hampshire: Noes, 5; absent, 1. Rhode Island: Ayes, 2. Con- 
 necticut: Ayes, 6; noes, 1. Vermont: Ayes, 1; noes, 2; absent, 3. 
 New York : Ayes, 25 ; absent, 2. New Jersey : Ayes, 6. Pennsyl- 
 vania : Ayes, 22; noes, 1. Delaware: Noes, 2. Maryland: Ayes, 1; 
 noes, 5 ; absent, 3. Virginia: Ayes, 1; noes, 15; absent, 7. North 
 Carolina: Ayes, 1; noes, 11; absent, I. South Carolina: Ayes, 1; 
 noes, 6; absent, 2. Georgia: Noes, 5 ; absent, 1. Kentucky: Ayes, 
 4 ; noes, 3 ; absent, 2. Tennessee : Noes, 6. Ohio : Ayes, 6. Indi- 
 ana : Ayes, 1. Illinois: Ayes, 1. Louisiana: Noes, 1. Mississippi: 
 Noes, 1. Alabama: Noes, 1. 
 
 The subject was again brought before congress, at several successive 
 sessions, but without success, until the year 1824. In that year, a bill 
 proposing to increase the duties on imports, after a discussion of more 
 than two months, passed the house, April 16th, by a small majority: 
 yeas, 107; nays, 102. In the senate, some amendments were made 
 to the bill, to which the house disagreed. The difference between the 
 two houses was subsequently settled by a committee of conference. The 
 oill passed the senate, 25 to 22. Of those who voted in the afl&rmative 
 
 21 
 
322 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 were Messrs. Benton, Dickerson, Jackson, Eaton, Johnson, of Kentucky, 
 and Van Buren. Mr. King, of New York, voted in the negative. 
 
 The debate in the house was one of extraordinary interest, and 
 evinced, on the part of those who participated in it, an unusual degree 
 of talent, and extensive knowledge. An attendant upon the discussion, 
 in giving an account of it, said : " Mr. Clay has been the Ajax Telamon 
 of the bill, ably supported by Mr. Tod and many others on difFerent 
 points ; but Hectors were not wanting on the other side to contest the 
 ground, inch by inch." Among the opponents of the bill were Messrs 
 Webster, Hamilton, P. P. Barbour, and Forsyth. 
 
 In this contest for protection, the state of Pennsylvania may perhaps 
 be justly said to have taken the lead. The voice of her citizens 
 expressed in piblic meeting, their petitions to congress, the resolves of 
 her state legislature, and the persevering efforts of her representatives 
 in congress, contributed largely to the success of the measure. The 
 chairmen of the committees on manufactures in both the preceding con- 
 gress and the present, were representatives from that state : Mr. Bald- 
 win in the former, and Mr. Tod in the latter. They were ably sus- 
 tained by Messrs. Buchanan, Ingham, Hemphill, and other colleagaes. 
 
 The following statement of the vote in the house is given that the 
 reader may compare it with that of 1820 : 
 
 Maine : Yeas, 1 ; nays, 6. Massachusetts : Yeas, 1 ; nays, 11. New 
 Hampshire : Yeas, 1 ; nays, 5. Rhode Island : Yeas, 2. Connecticut : 
 Yeas, 5 ; nays, 1. Vermont : Yeas, 5. New York : Yeas, 26 ; nays, 8. 
 New Jersey : Yeas, 6. Pennsylvania : Yeas, 24 ; nays, 1 ; absent, 1. 
 Delaware: Yeas, 1. Maryland: Yeas, 3; nays, 6. Virginia: Yeas, 1; 
 nays, 21. North Carolina: Nays, 13. South Carolina: Nays, 9. 
 Georgia: Nays, 7. Kentucky: Yeas, 11. Tennessee: Yeas, 2 ; nays, 
 7. Ohio : Yeas, 14. Indiana: Yeas, 2 ; absent, 1. Illinois: Yc-as, 1. 
 Louisiana : Nays, 3. Mississippi : Nays, 1. Alabama : Nays, 3. 
 Missouri: Yeas, 1. The speaker, Mr. Clay, being in the chair, did not 
 vote ; and Mr. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Jennings, of Indiana, 
 were absent. Their votes, had they been given, would have increased the 
 yeas to 110. There was a vacancy in the representation from Massachu- 
 setts, which, if it had been filled, would probably have been given in the 
 negative. 
 
 In Niles' Register of the 24th of April, the states are classed thus : 
 
 Navigating and fishing states : Maine, New Hampshire, and Massa- 
 chusetts, 23 (including one for the vacancy in Mass.) against, and 3 for 
 a tariff for the protection of domestic industry. 
 
 Manufacturing states : Rhode Island and Connecticut, 7 for, and 1 
 against. 
 
SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 323 
 
 Crrain grovnng states : Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Peniisyl- 
 rania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, 24 for 
 and 9 against. 
 
 Tobacco planting and grain growing state : Maryland, 6 against 
 and 1 for. 
 
 Cotton and grain growing state : Tennessee, 7 against, and 2 for. 
 
 Sugar and cotton planting state : Louisiana, 3 against. 
 
 The editor adds : " The navigating and fishing states opposed the bill 
 from an apprehension that it would injure commerce ; the grain-growing 
 states supported it from a belief that its passage would benefit agricul- 
 ture ; and the planting states united with the navigating against the bill, 
 for the reason that it would be injurious to agriculture ! On this ground 
 the two last classes are at issue ; but if we deduct the members from the 
 grain growing states, who we may suppose were influenced by other con- 
 siderations than those specially favorable to agriculture, it will appear, 
 that what may be called the agricultural vote on the tariff, was almost 
 two for, to one against it ; that is, 95 grain growing against 57 planting. 
 
 " The unanimity of the navigating states against the wishes of the 
 middle grain growing states, will surprise those who recollect, that the 
 former were indebted to the latter fo« the passage of every law that pro- 
 tected and established their navigation ; such as the discriminating duties 
 on imports and tonnage; the building of certain frigates, &c., ' for the 
 protection of commerce against the Barbary powers;' and, in 1796, for 
 the establishment of a regular navy ' for the protection of commerce in 
 general." And he notices what he calls the consistency of Virginia and 
 the other states. " They opposed these measures, saying : ' Let commerce 
 protect itself — indifferent whether their tobacco and other products 
 were carried in American or foreign vessels. They now say: ' Let manu- 
 factures protect themselves;' and in support of this proposition, use 
 against them precisely the same arguments that were used thirty years 
 ago against navigation." 
 
 The following sketch of the speech of Mr. Clay in favor of the tariff, 
 and of that of Mr. Webster against it, presents the principal arguments 
 on both sides of the question. 
 
 Mr. Clay commenced by alluding to the general distress, which, he 
 said, was indicated by the diminished exports of native produce, by our 
 reduced foreign navigation and diminished commerce ; by the accumula- 
 tion of grain wanting a market ; by the alarming diminution of the cir- 
 culating medium ; by the numerous bankruptcies among all classes of 
 society ; by a universal complaint of the want of employment and a con- 
 sequent reduction of the wages of labor ; by the reluctant resort to the 
 perilous use of paper money ; and above all, by the depressed ralue of 
 
324 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 all kinds of property, which had, on an average, sunk nearly fifty per 
 cent, within a few years. 
 
 The cause of our unhappy condition, he said, was found in the fact, 
 that, during near'v the whole existence of the government, we had 
 shaped our industry, our navigation, and our commerce, in reference to 
 an extraordinary war in Europe, and to foreign markets which no longer 
 existed. The revival of commerce and navigation, and the extension of 
 ao-ricultural and other branches of industry in that country, had destroyed 
 the demand for our navigation, our commerce, and the produce of our 
 industry. The altered state of Europe he regarded as the cause of exist- 
 ing evils. The greatest want of civilized society, is a market for its 
 surplus products of labor. Both a foreign and a home market were 
 desirable ; but the latter was most important. The object of the bill 
 was to create the latter, and to lay the foundation of a genuine Ameri- 
 can policy. Foreign nations could not,- if they would, take our surplus 
 produce. Our population doubled in about twenty-five years ; theirs in 
 about one hundred years. If, therefore, as was presumed, the increase 
 of production and consumption was in the ratio of the increase of popu- 
 lation, our power of production would increase in a ratio four times ae 
 great as their capacity for consumptijDn. 
 
 But if they could, they would not receive our agricultural produce, so 
 far as it comes into collision with their own. They reject all our great 
 staples which consist of objects of human subsistence, and receive only 
 those raw materials essential to their manufactures, with the exception 
 of tobacco and rice, which they can not produce. 
 
 Both the inability and policy of foreign nations, then, forbid our reli- 
 ance upon the foreign market for the surplus produce of American labor. 
 This statement was confirmed by experience. The amount of all our 
 exports of domestic produce, during the year ending September 30, 1796, 
 was $40,764,097. Estimating the increase at four per cent, per annum, 
 (the ratio of the increase of our population,) the amount of the exports 
 of the same kinds of produce, during the last year, ought to have been 
 $85,420,861 ; but it was only $47,155,408. During the five years from 
 1803 to 1&07, inclusive, the average amount of native produce annually 
 exported, was $43,202,751. At the rate of increase suggested, the 
 amount ought to have been, during the last year, $77,766,751, instead 
 of $47,155,408. 
 
 Descending into particulars, there was still less cause for satisfaction. 
 The export of tobacco in 1 79 1 , the year of the largest exportation of that 
 article, was 12,428 hogsheads. The export which ought to have been 
 last year 266,332 hogsheads, was only 99,009. In 1803, we exported 
 1,311,853 barrels of flour; last year, instead of 2,361,333, we exported 
 
SPEECHES OF CT.AY AND WEBSTER. 325 
 
 only 756,702 ; and of this amount 150,000 were sent to South America. 
 But this demand was temporary, growing out of the existing war. Of 
 Indian corn the export last year was 749,034 bushels, or about one-fifth 
 of what it should have been, and a little more than one-third of what it 
 was in 1803. The exports of beef and pork also, instead of having 
 increased, were much less than they were twenty years ago. Rice had 
 only slightly advanced. Cotton alone showed a considerable increase. 
 "But whilst the quantity was augmented, its value was diminished. The 
 quantity last year exceeded that of the preceding year, nearly 30,000,000 
 pounds ; yet the value was less by more than $3,500,000. In 1790, the 
 capacity of our country to produce this article was scarcely known. 
 Were this article subtracted from the mass of our exports during the 
 last year, the value of the residue would be only about $27,000,000. 
 
 The distribution of the articles of export was also shown. Of the 
 $47,155,408 to which they amounted last year, the three articles, cotton, 
 rice, and tobacco, produced chiefly at the south, alone amounted to 
 $23,549,177. The portion of our population engaged in their culture, 
 probably did not exceed two millions. Thus, less than one-fifth of the 
 whole population of the United States produced upwards of one-half, 
 nearly two-thirds of the entire value of the exports of the last year. 
 
 Was the foreign market likely to improve ? Europe would not aban- 
 don her own agriculture to foster ours. The present value of our ex- 
 ports might be maintained in future ; but to continue in the existing pur- 
 suits of agriculture without creating a new market, must augment the 
 quantity of our produce, and lessen its value in the foreign market. Cot- 
 ton, as well as other articles, would be thus affected. Our agricultural 
 is our greatest interest ; and to advance it, we should contemplate it in 
 all its varieties of farming, planting and grazing. Can nothing be done 
 to invigorate it ? Exclusive dependence on the foreign market must 
 lead to still severer distress. Still cherishing the foreign market, let us 
 create a home market to give farther scope to the consumption of the 
 produce of American industry. Let us withdraw the support we give to 
 foreign industry, and stimulate our own. It is a prominent object of 
 wise legislators to multiply the vocations and to extend the business of 
 society, by the protection of home interests against foreign legislation. 
 
 A home market is necessary to secure not only a just reward for 
 agricultural labor, but a supply of our wants. If we can not sell, we 
 can not buy. That portion of our population, (four-fifths, as we have 
 Been,) which produces comparatively nothing that foreigners will receive, 
 has nothing wherewith to purchase from foreigners. It is better, there- 
 fore, to buy the domestic fabric at a higher nominal price, than to buy 
 the foreign for which we have nothing to give in exchange. The 
 
326 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Buperiority of the home market consists, {\.)m its greater steadiness and 
 certainty ; (2) in the creation of reciprocal interest ; (3.) in its greater 
 security ; and (4.) in an ultimate increase of consumption, and conse- 
 quently of comfort, from increased quantity and reduced prices. 
 
 To illustrate the benefits of this domestic policy, suppose that 
 500,000 persons are now employed abroad in fabricating, for our con- 
 sumption, those articles with which, by the operation of this bill, it is 
 intended to supply ourselves. These persons are, in effect, subsisted by 
 us ; but the means of their subsistence are drawn from foreign agricul- 
 ture. If they were transported to this country, the demand in the article 
 of flour alone required for their subsistence, would be about 900,000 
 barrels, which exceeds the entire quantity exported the last year. But 
 if we should thus employ this number of our own citizens, instead of 
 foreigners, the beneficial effects upon the farming interest would be 
 nearly doubled. By directing so many hands to other pursuits, the pro- 
 ductions of agricultural labor would be greatly diminished. This 
 diminution of the quantity alone would increase their proportional 
 value ; but this value would be still farther enhanced by the home market 
 created. 
 
 The great desideratum in political economy is, so to apply the aggre- 
 gate industry of a nation as to produce the greatest amount of wealth. 
 Labor is the source of wealth ; but it is not natural labor only. The 
 fundamental error of the gentleman from Virginia, (P. P. Barbour,) in 
 deducing, from the sparseness of our population, our unfitness for the 
 introduction of the arts, consists in not duly appreciating the power of 
 machinery. Such are the improvements in machinery, that the propor- 
 tion of the value given to many fabrics by natural labor is so inconsider- 
 able as to be scarcely worth calculating. Hence, manual labor and the 
 price of wages are of less account than they were in former times. For 
 example : Asia, formerly, by the density of her population and the low- 
 ness of wages, laid Europe under tribute for many of her fabrics. Now 
 Europe, Great Britain in particular, reacts upon Asia, and throws back 
 upon her countless millions of people the products of artificial labor, in- 
 finitely cheaper than they can be manufactured by the natural exertions 
 of that portion of the globe. It is to the immense power of her 
 machinery that Britain is indebted for her enormous wealth. According 
 to reliable estimates, her artificial or machine labor is equal to that of 
 200,000,000 able bodied laborers ; which gives to her a power to create 
 wealth ten times greater than that of the United States. Facts will 
 ehow that these views are not imaginary. 
 
 The revenue of the United Kingdom reached, in 1822, the vast 
 amount of £55,000,000 sterling, or nearly $245,000,000 ; eleven times 
 
SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 327 
 
 that of Uio United States during the same year. The prosperous con- 
 dition of her commerce equally denotes her immense riches. The 
 average of three years' exports ending in 1789, was upwards of 
 £13,00r,000 sterling, and of her imports, £17,000,000. The average of 
 the exports for three years ending in 1822, was £40,000,000, and of im- 
 ports £36,000,000 ; showing a balance of trade in her fevor of 
 £4,000,000, or about $20,000,000. Thus, from the time of the estab- 
 lishment of our constitution, have the exports of that kingdom been 
 tripled, and mainly by the power of machinery. The average of her 
 tonnage during the most flourishing period of the war, was 2,400,(*00 
 tons. Its average during the three years, 1819, 1820, and 1821, was 
 2,600,000 tons. 
 
 A glance at some of the articles of her manufactures, said Mr. Clay, 
 would aid us in comprehending the nature of the sources of her riches. 
 The amount of cotton fabrics exported during the most prosperous year 
 of the war, was about £18,000,000 sterling. In 1820, it was 
 £16,600 000 ; in 1821, £20,500,000 ; in 1822, £21,639,000 ; orupwards 
 of $96,000,000. The total amount of her imports of cotton wool from 
 all foreign parts, was £5,000,000 sterling. After supplying the consump- 
 tion of fabrics within the country, she gives, by means of her industry, 
 to this cotton wool a new value, which enables her to sell to foreign 
 nations to the amount of £21,639,000; making a clear profit of about 
 £16,500,000, or more than $73,000,000 ! In 1821, the value of her ex- 
 ports of woolen manufactures was £4,300,000; in 1822, £5,500,000. 
 
 Of the wealth annually produced in Great Britain, the agricultural 
 portion is said, by the gentleman from Virginia, to be greater than that 
 created by any other branch of her industry. But that flows mainly 
 from a policy similar to that proposed by this bill. One-third only of 
 her population is engaged in agriculture; the other two-thirds furnishing 
 a market for the produce of that third. Withdraw this market, and 
 what becomes of her agriculture? 
 
 The protecting policy of Great Britain is adapted alike to a state of 
 war and a state of peace. Self-poised, resting upon her own internal re- 
 sources, possessing a home market carefully cherished and guarded, she 
 is prepared for any emergency. We have seen her coming out of a war 
 of incalculable exertion and long duration, with her power unbroken, her 
 means undiminished. Almost every revolving year of peace has brought 
 with it an increase of her manufactures, of her commerce, and, conse- 
 quently, of her navigation. Constructing her prospe-rity upon the solid 
 foundation of her own protecting policy, it is unaflected by the vicis- 
 situdes of other states. 
 
 What is our condition ? Depending upon the state of foreign powers 
 
328 I'HE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 — confiding in a foreign, to the neglect of a domestic policy — our in 
 terests are affected by all their movements. Their wars, their mis- 
 fortunes, are the source of our prosperity. Our system is anomalous; 
 unfitted either to general tranquility, or to a state of war or peace on our 
 own part. It can succeed only in the rare occurrence of a general war 
 throughout Europe. 
 
 Mr. Clay proceeded to answer the numerous objections that had becD 
 made against the bill. 
 
 1. It was designed to tax one part of the community for the benefit 
 of another. To this it was replied, that no man paid the duty assessed 
 on the foreign article by compulsion. Consumption had four objects of 
 choice: (1.) It might abstain from the use of the foreign article, and 
 thus avoid the tax; or, (2.) employ the rival American fabric; or, (3.) 
 engage iu the business of manufacturing, which the bill is designed to 
 foster ; or, (4.) supply itself from the household manufactures. 
 
 It had been said that the south, owing to the character of a certain 
 portion of its population, could not engage in manufacturing. He did 
 not agree in that opinion to the extent asserted. But if true, ought the 
 interests of the greater and freer part to be made to bend to the condi- 
 tion of the servile part of our population ? And should we persist in 
 the foreign policy, and make all other parts tributary to the planting 
 parts? But although the south should not embark in manufacturing, 
 its interest would be promoted by a new source of supply for its con- 
 sumption, as well as an additional market for its raw material. Now, 
 foreign countries — Great Britain principally — have the monopoly in 
 supplying southern consumption. If this bill should pass, an American 
 competitor would be raised up, and the south would be cheaper and 
 better supplied. 
 
 2. The amount of our exports, it is said, will be diminished ; because, 
 if we do not buy of Europe, she will not buy of us. He had already 
 said, that, except tobacco and rice, we send to Europe nothing but raw 
 materials. The effect of the bill will be to diminish the imports of those 
 articles only which it will enable us to manufacture for ourselves ; leav- 
 ing Europe free to supply us with any other produce of their industry. 
 The export of cotton wool to Great Britain will probably be some- 
 what diminished. He had stated that Britain buys cottor. wool to the 
 amount of £5,000,000 sterling, and sells abroad of the article in a manu- 
 factured state, £21,500,000 ; of which we receive a little upwards of 
 £1,500,000. The residue of £20,000,000 she will continue to sell to 
 other foreign powers, the raw material for which she must obtain jfrom 
 us, because we can supply her cheaper and better than any other coun- 
 try. While, therefore, the diminution of the export of the raw cotton 
 
SPEECHES Of CLAY AND WEBSTER. 329 
 
 would be only as one and a half to twenty, its value would be greatly 
 multiplied by a new application of our industry, and thus increase the 
 amount of our exports. Our cotton manufactures, to a considerable 
 amount, already find a ^ale in foreign markets. 
 
 3. It was objected that the tariff would diminish our navigation. 
 This, though a great interest, and deserving encouragement, was not a 
 paramount interest, and ought to accommodate itself to the state of 
 agriculture and manufactures. There would be no sensible diminution 
 of our present exports to Europe ; and as the new direction given to a 
 portion of our industry would produce new objects of exportation, our 
 foreign tonnage would probably be even increased. But although it- 
 should experience a slight reduction, the increase of our coasting ton- 
 nage, resulting from the greater activity of domestic exchanges, would 
 more than compensate the injury. 
 
 4. It was contended that this measure would diminish our foreign 
 commerce. The new productions, or the value given to old objects of 
 industry, said Mr. C, would give to commerce a fresh spring, a new ali- 
 ment. The foreign commerce had already been extended as far as it 
 could i>e ; the balance of trade was, and had for some time been against 
 us ; and some measure was necessary to render our foreign exchanges 
 more favorable. Mr. Clay was surprised to hear the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) reject, as an exploded fallacy, the idea 
 of a balance of trade. He had not time now to discuss that topic, but 
 would observe, that all nations acted upon the supposition of the reality 
 of its existence, and sought to avoid a trade the balance of which was 
 against them, and to foster that which presented a favorable balance. 
 An unfavorable balance with one nation might be made up by a favor- 
 able balance with other nations ; but the fact of the existence of that 
 unfavorable balance was strong presumptive evidence against the trade. 
 Commerce, it had been said, would regulate itself. But was it not the 
 duty of wise governments to watch its course, and by prudent legisla- 
 tion to stimulate the industry of their own people, and to check the 
 policy of foreign powers ? 
 
 5. An ;ther objection to the tariff was, that it would diminish the 
 public revenue, and compel us to resort to internal taxation to pay the 
 public debt. This objection presupposed a reduction of the importation 
 of the articles subjected to increased duties. It was believed that the 
 augmentation of the duties would compensate for the diminution of the 
 quantities imported. Some articles would continue to be imported ,aa 
 largely as ever. 
 
 6. Again, it was objected, that capital and labor would be forced into 
 aew and reluctant employments, for which we were not prepared, in con* 
 
330 '?HE AMERICAJI SrATESMAN. 
 
 Bequence of the high price of labor. The existing occupaticms were 
 already overflowing with competitors ; and the very object of the bill 
 was to open a new field of business, into which all that should choose 
 might enter. The alleged fact of the high price of wages was not admit- 
 ted. No class of society were sufifering more than the laboring class. 
 This was a necessary eflFect of the depression of agriculture, the principal 
 business of Che community. Able-bodied men could be employed for 
 five to eight dollars a month. He agreed with the gentleman from Vir- 
 ginia, that high wages are a proof of national prosperity ; they differed 
 only in the means of attaining the end. Natural labor is so inconsider- 
 able an element in the business of manufacture, as to render the fact of 
 high wages of small account. It had been foretold that our restrictive 
 commercial policy would disappoint our expectations. But it had been 
 successful ; as was evidtent from the share which our navigation enjoy- 
 ed in the trade with France and the British West India islands. 
 
 7. But it had been said, that, where circumstances are favorable to 
 manufactures, they will arise without protection. If all nations would 
 modify their policy on this axiom, perhaps it would be better toi- tne 
 common good of the whole. But even then, in consequence of natural 
 advantages and a greater advance in civilization and the arts, some 
 nations would enjoy a higher degree of prosperity than others. If 
 asked why unprotected industry should not succeed in a struggle with 
 protected industry, it was sufficient to answer, that the fact had ever 
 been so — that uniform experience evinced that it could not succeed 
 in such an unequal contest. If, however, he were to attempt to par- 
 ticularize causes, he would mention, (1.) the obduracy of fixed habits — 
 the reluctance of men to change their course of business ; (2.) the un- 
 certainty and fluctuation of the home market, when free to an influx of 
 fabrics from all nations ; and (3.) the superior advance of skill and 
 amount of capital which some nations have obtained by the protection 
 of their own industry. 
 
 8. But, it was said, admitting the policy of protection to be expedient, 
 the measure of protection had already been sufficient!; extended. Most of 
 tho existing duties had been laid with a view to revenue, rather than to the 
 encouragement of domestic :') -^ustry. A'...-Ough the incidental effect of 
 them was to promote our manufactures, ,aey fell short of competent 
 protection, and needed a moderate addition. 
 
 9. Again, it was asserted, that the restricting policy was condemned 
 by the wisdom of Europe, and by her most enlightened statesmen. Mr. 
 Clay denied this assertion. The few instances of partial relaxation to 
 which reference had been made, and to which Great Britain had been 
 impelled by interest or necessity, did not prove her abandonment of the 
 
SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. '331 
 
 system. But supposing it to be true, would that prove it duwise for ua 
 to adopt the protecting system? In England its purpose had been 
 Accomplished. It was upon this ground that some of her writers recom- 
 mended its abandonment. Her manufactures having become established, 
 freedom of trade with other nations whose arts were yet in their infancy, 
 would, it was supposed, only give wider scope to British industry and 
 enterprise. It would extend the consumption of British produce to 
 other countries. She had not, however, adopted the theories of philo- 
 sophical writers, which, wherever adopted, brought with them impover- 
 ishment and ruin. Spain afforded a striking proof of the sad effects 
 upon a nation, of its neglecting the care of its own internal industry. 
 Her prosperity was greatest when the arts, brought there by the Moors, 
 flourished most in that kingdom. Then she received from England her 
 wool, and returned it in a manufactured state ; and then England was 
 least prosperous. 
 
 10. It was objected, also, that the manufacturing system tended to 
 the accumulation of large capitals in a few hands, and the consequent 
 corruption of public morals. This objection would eqvally apply to 
 every lucrative business. Immense fortunes had been acquired by com- 
 merce at the north, and by planting at the south. The laws of distribu- 
 tion in this country, and the absence of the English rule of primogeni- 
 ture, would check the accumulation of large fortunes; and the extent 
 and fertility of our lands were a sufficient safeguard against excess in 
 manufactures, and against the oppression, by capitalists, of the laboring 
 classes of the community. The best security against the demoralization 
 of society was the constant and profitable employment of its members. 
 
 11. And still another objection was, that the bill was unconstitu- 
 tional. Whether an attempt was made to provide for internal improve- 
 ments ; or to protect American industry against foreign rivalry, the 
 constitution stood in our way. This constitution must be a singular 
 instrument ! It seemed to have been made for any other people than 
 our own. Revenue was doubtless the principal object of the power to 
 lay duties and imposts. In executing this power, however, the duties 
 might be so laid as to secure domestic interests. But the power ** to 
 regulate commerce with foreign nations" is unlimited. It implies the 
 power to admit or exclude any article of trade, or to prescribe the terms 
 of its admission. Under this power laws had been passed entirely pro- 
 hibiting all intercourse with foreign nations. And these laws — embar- 
 goes — had received the approbation of men who now denied to congress 
 the right to exercise this power for the purpose of protection. 
 
 Mr. Webster considered the picture of distress drawn by Mr. Clay 
 88 unwarranted by the real condition of the country. He admitted that 
 
332 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 there was a considerable depression of prices, and in some degree a stag- 
 nation of business ; but in the eastern states, where he was most ac- 
 quainted, the means of living were accessible and abundant, and labor 
 was well rewarded. Profits, indeed, were low ; in some pursuits of life, 
 very low : but he had not seen any proofs of extraordinary distress. 
 
 In judging of this question, even from the proofs to which reference 
 had been made, they would probably come to a conclusion different from 
 that which had been drawn. Our exports, for example, although less 
 than in some years, were not, last year, much below an average formed 
 from the exports of a series of years. The speaker had taken the 
 extraordinary exports of the year 1803, and made them the basis of 
 (ialculating the amount which they ought to have reached, in order to 
 exhibit an increase corresponding to the increase of our population. Of 
 the article of flour, there was an export that year of 1,300,000 barrels; 
 but the next year it fell to 800,000, and the next to 700,000 barrels. 
 But it was not to be expected that the increase of agricultural exports 
 would keep pace with the increase of population. It was against all 
 experience. 
 
 As m iins of judging of th'3 general condition of the people, Mr. 
 Webster mentioned the quantity of means of subsistence consumed, or 
 the quantity of the comforts of life enjoyed; the progress of internal 
 improvements; and the increasing amount annually paid for purposes of 
 education. In some parts of the country, he admitted, there was a great 
 (legi*ee of pecuniary embarrassment, arising from the difficulty of paying 
 debts contracted when prices were high. The depression of prices he 
 ascribed to the restoration of a state of peace. The wars in Europe 
 and our own country, had caused a great demand for the commodities of 
 trade, the prices of which had been raised from the lowest to the highest 
 extreme. The large issues of bank paper had contributed to this result. 
 A depreciated currency existed in a great part of the country ; depre- 
 ciated to such an extent as to raise the exchange between the center and 
 the north as high as 20 per cent. The bank of the United States had 
 been instituted to correct this evil ; but for certain causes, it did not, for 
 some years, bring back the currency to a sound state. This depreciation 
 was so much added to the nominal prices of commodities; and these 
 high prices seemed to those who looked only at the appearance, to indi- 
 cate prosperity. At length prices fell, and from the effects of this faU 
 the country had not yet fully recovered. 
 
 In seeking a remedy for existing .evils, Mr. Webster said, we were 
 bound to see that there was a fitness in the measures proposed ; and 
 aefore we adopted a system that professed to make great alterations, we 
 should look carefully to each leading interest of the community, and see 
 
SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 333^ 
 
 how it mi^ht be affected by our proposed legislation. Our commerce 
 was not enjoying that rich harvest which fell to its fortune during the 
 European wars. Still, it seemed capable of recovering itself in some 
 measure from its depression. The shipping interest had suffered still 
 more severely ; and it was astonishing that the navigation of the United 
 States should sustain itself. Without government protection, it chal- 
 lenged competition with the whole world ; and, in spite of all obstacles, 
 it had yet been able to maintain 800,000 tons in the employment of 
 foreign trade. This was done, not by protection and bounties, but by 
 unwearied exertion, by extreme economy, by that resolute spirit which 
 relies on itself for protection. The navigation of the country was essen- 
 tial to its honor and its defense. Yet, in this hour of its depression, it 
 was proposed to lay upon it new and heavy burthens. 
 
 In discussing the proposed duty on tallow for the benefit of the oil 
 merchants and whalemen, strong statements had been made of the 
 importance of that portion of our shipping employed in the whale fishery. 
 But the same bill proposed a severe tax upon that interest for the bene- 
 fit of the iron manufacturer and the hemp grower. So that the tallow 
 chandlers and soap boilers were to be sacrificsd to the oil merchants, that 
 these again may contribute to the manufacturers of iron and the growers 
 of hemp. 
 
 In the next place, what was the condition of our home manufactures ? 
 Did they need farther protection ? He was in favor of protecting 
 domestic industry ; all domestic industry was not confined to manufac- 
 tures. Agriculture, commerce, and navigation, were all branches of the 
 same domestic industry ; and the question was, whether the proposed new 
 encouragement to particular manufactures was necessary, and whether it 
 could be given without injustice to other branches of industry. One 
 great object proposed was the increase of the home market for the con- 
 sumption of agricultural products ; but what provisions of the bill were 
 expected to produce this, was not stated. Some increase of home market 
 might follow from the adoption of the bill ; but all its provisions had 
 not equal tendency to produce this effect. Its provisions should there- 
 fore be singly and severally examined. Some of them were probably 
 acceptable to the general sense of the house. These might be passed 
 into a law, and others left to be decided upon their own merits. 
 
 Mr. Webster then adverted to some other general topics. Much had 
 been heard of the policy of England ; and her example had been urged, 
 as proving, not only the expediency of encouragement^ and protection, 
 but also of exclusion and prohibition. He had the other day remarked, 
 ihat more liberal notions were becoming prevalent on this subject; that 
 the policy of restraints and prohibitions was getting out of repute, ap 
 
334 rhE AMERICAN felATtSMAN. 
 
 the true nature of comraerce became better understood ; and that the 
 most distinguished public men were most decided in their, reprobation 
 of the restri'Jtive principle. But it had again been declared, that the 
 English government still adhered to its old doctrines ; and that, although 
 journalists, theorists, and scientific writers advance other doctrines, the 
 practical men, the legislatures, the government, are too wise to follow 
 them. It had even been hinted, that the promulgation of liberal opinions 
 was intended only to delude other nations into the folly of liberal ideas, 
 while England retained to herself the benefits of the old system. 
 
 He had never said that prohibitory laws did not exist in England ; 
 but the question was, did she owe her prosperity to these laws ? He 
 ventured to say, that such was not the opinion of public men now in 
 England; and the continuance of the laws, even without alteration, 
 would not be evidence that their opinion was not as he had represented 
 it. The laws having existed long, and great interests having been built 
 up on the faith of them, they could not now be repealed without great 
 inconvenience. Becaiise a thing had been wrongly done, it did not fol- 
 low that it could now be undone ; and for this reason prohibition and 
 monopoly were suffered to remain in the English system. Mr. W. here 
 read extracts from speeches of several members of parliament in favor 
 of the general principle of unrestricted trade. One of the speakers 
 observed, that he believed England had risen to her present greatness, 
 " not in consequence of her present system, but in spite of it." 
 Another remarked, that " the name of strict prohibition might, in com- 
 merce, be got rid of altogether; but he did not see the same objection 
 to protecting duties, which, while they admitted the introduction of com- 
 modities from abroad, similar to those which we ourselves manufactured, 
 placed them so much on a level as to allow a competition between them." 
 
 Protection, when carried to the point recommended, seemed to him 
 (Mr. W.) destructive of all intercourse between nations. We wore 
 urged to adopt the system upon general principles. He did not admit the 
 general principle; freedom of trade was the general principle, and 
 restriction the exception. And it was for every state, taking into 
 view its own condition, to judge of the propriety, in any case, of making 
 an exception, constantly preferring, as all wise governments would, not 
 to depart, without urgent reasons, from the general rule. 
 
 He next spoke of the warehouse system, usually called in this coun- 
 try, the system of drawback. We seemed averse to the extension of 
 this principle. England, on the contrary, appeared to have carried it 
 to the extreme of liberality. The present opinions and practice of her 
 government, however, had been attained by slow degrees. The transit 
 system was commenced about the year 1803 ; but the first law was par- 
 
SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 335 
 
 tial and limited. It admitted the importation of raw materials for 
 exportation ; but it excluded almost every sort of manufactured goods. 
 This was done for the same reason that we proposed 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. 
 But reflection or experience had induced the British government to con- 
 sider all such means of influencing foreign markets as nugatory ; since 
 nations will supply themselves from the best sources : and the true 
 policy of all producers, whether of raw materials or of manufactured 
 articles, was, not vainly to endeavor to keep other venders out of mar- 
 ket, but to conquer them in it, by the quality and the cheapness of their 
 goods. The present policy of England, he said, was to invite the 
 importation of commodities, 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, 
 except tea, may be brought from any part of the world, in foreign as 
 well as British ships, warehoused, and again exported at pleasure, with- 
 out any duty or government charge whatever. 
 
 Mr. W. also noticed the recent proposition in parliament to abolish 
 the tax on imported wool. It was observable, he said, that those who 
 supported this proposition, gave the same reasons as had beeu ofi"ered here, 
 within the last week, against the duty which we proposed on the same 
 article. They said their manufacturers required a cheap and coarse 
 wool for the supply of the Mediterranean and Levant trade ; and without 
 a more free admission of the wool of the continent, that trade would fall 
 into the hands of the Germans and Italians, who would carry it on 
 through Leghorn and Trieste. While there was this duty on foreign 
 wool to protect the wool growers of England, there was, on the other 
 hand, a prohibition on the exportation of the native article, in aid of the 
 manufacturers. The opinion seemed to be gaining strength, that the 
 true policy was to abolish both. Whether, therefore, the present policy 
 of England were right or wrong, wise or unwise, it could not, he thought, 
 be quoted as authority for carrying farther the restrictive system, in 
 regard either to manufactures or trade. 
 
 On the subject of the " balance of trade," Mr. W. dissented from the 
 popular notion, that because the imports of a nation exceeded its exports ; 
 in other words, if it buys more than it sells, the balance of trade is 
 unfavorable. He maintained, that the excess of imports over exports 
 usually showed the gains, not the losses of trade, because the value of 
 the goods imported was augmented by the labor of transportation. The 
 difi"erence between the value of the imports and exports consisted of the 
 profits of commerce, and the earnings of navigation. It was clear, that, 
 
335 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 if the value of the commodities imported in a given case, did not exceed 
 the value of the outward cargo with which they were purchased, tho 
 voyage was unprofitable. According to the doctrine of the balance of 
 trade, although one individual or all individuals gain, the nation loses ; 
 while all its citizens grow rich, the country grows poor. 
 
 These notions had their origin in mistaken ideas of the true nature 
 of commerce. Commerce was not a gambling between nations for a 
 stake, to be won by some and lost by others. It might be carried on to 
 the mutual advantage of all parties. Individuals made interchanges to 
 the benefit of both. So nations producing difierent commodities, might 
 exchange with each other, and both profit by the exchange. It did not 
 follow, therefore, that our receiving from any country more of her pro- 
 ducts than she received of ours, was to us a losing trade. 
 
 Connected with this topic was another which had been brought into 
 the debate; an evil much complained of — the exportation of specie. 
 Gentlemen had imputed the loss of market at home to a want of money, 
 and this want of money to the exportation of the precious metals. The 
 India and China trade had been denounced, because the products of 
 those countries were purchased with gold and silver. This opinion was 
 without just foundation. These articles were of use, and articles of 
 merchandise, with this additional circumstance, that they were made, by 
 the general consent of nations, the standard by which the value of all 
 other merchandise was to be estimated. There might be too much or 
 too little of them in a country at a particular time, as there might be 
 of any other articles. When the market was overstocked with them, 
 their exportation became as proper and as useful as that of other com- 
 modities, under similar circumstances. There was no more cause for 
 repining when the dollars received from South America were sent to 
 other countries than when coffee and sugar took that direction. We 
 often deceived ourselves by attributing to a scarcity of money thaj 
 which is the result of other causes. 
 
 A member from Pennsylvania had represented the country full of 
 every thing but money. The agricultural products, so abundant in that 
 state, would not sell for money. But they would sell for money as 
 quick as for any other article that happened to be in demand. They 
 would sell for money as easily as for coff"ee or for tea, at the prices which 
 properly belong to those articles. The mistake was in imputing to the 
 want of money what arises from want of demand. Men do not buy 
 wheat because they have money, but because they want wheat. To 
 decide whether money is plenty or not, that is, whether there is a largo 
 portion of capital unemployed or not, when the currency is metallic, wo 
 must look not only to the prices of commodities, but also to the rate of 
 
i 
 
SPEECHES or CLAY AND WEBSTER. 337 
 
 interest. A low rate of interest, a facility of obtaining money on loans, 
 a disposition to invest in permanent stocks, all of which are proofs that 
 money is abundant, do not infallibly denote a state of the highest pros- 
 perity. They often show a want of employment for capital ; and the 
 accumulation of specie shows the same thing. We have no occasion for 
 the precious metals as money, except for the purpose of circula- 
 tion, or rather of sustaining a safe paper circulation. And when- 
 ever there is a prospect of a profitable investment abroad, all the 
 gold and silver, except what these purposes require, will be exported. 
 So if a demand existed abroad for sugar and coffee, whatever amount 
 of these articles might exist in the country beyond the wants of its own 
 consumption, would be sent abroad to meet that demand. 
 
 The high rate of exchange, too, had been referred to as a proof that 
 we were on the downward road to ruin. The speaker, (Mr. Clay,) him- 
 self had adverted to that topic; and he, (Mr. W.,) feared such high 
 authority might give credit to opinions clearly unfounded, and leading to 
 wrong conclusions. Exchange on England, before the late rise, had been 
 about seven and a half per cent, advance. What did this prove? No- 
 thing, but that funds were wanted in England for commercial opera- 
 tions, to be carried on there or elsewhere. It did not necessarily show that 
 we were indebted to England. Even if it did prove that a balance was 
 due England, at the moment, it would not explain to us whether our 
 commerce with that country had been profitable or unprofitable. But it 
 was not true that the real price of exchange was seven and a half per cent, 
 advance ; nor, indeed, that there was any advance at all. ft was not true 
 that merchants would give such an advance, or any advance, for money 
 in England, more than they would give for the same amount, in the same 
 currency, here. If there were a real difference of seven and a half per 
 cent., money would be immediately shipped to England : because the 
 expense of transportation would be far less than that difference. 
 
 The true state of exchange between the two countries, was to be 
 ascertained by looking at their currencies, and by comparing- the quanti- 
 ties of gold and silver which they respectively represented. The Eng- 
 lish standard of value was gold. Ours was gold and silver at a fixed 
 relation to each other. But our estimate of silver was higher, in pro- 
 portion to gold, than England and most other nations give it : conse- 
 qiuently silver, a legal currency with us, remained here, while gold had 
 gone abroad ; verifying the universal truth, that, if two currencies 
 of different values are allowed to exist, the cheapest will fill up the 
 whole circulation. For the gold that would suffice to pay here a debt 
 of a given amount, we could buy in England more silver than would be 
 necessary to pay the same debt here ; and from this difference in the 
 
 22 
 
ggg THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 value of silver arose wholly, or in a great measure, the apparent differ- 
 ence in exchange. The Spanish dollar was selling in England for four 
 shillings and nine pence slj^rling per ounce, equal to one dollar and six 
 cents By our standard, the same ounce was worth one dollar and six- 
 teen cents ; being a difference of about nine per cent. Hence if the 
 nominal advance on English bills did not exceed nine per cent., the real 
 exchange woiild not be against this country ; in other words, it did not 
 show that there was any pressing or particular occasion for the remit- 
 tance of funds to England. 
 
 Mr. Webster proceeded to state some objections of a more general 
 nature to the course of the speaker's observations, He had argued the 
 question as if all domestic industry were confined to the production of 
 manufactured articles. Some other gentleman had spoken of the price 
 paid for every foreign manufactured article, as so much given for the en- 
 couragement of foreign labor, to the prejudice of our owt. But was it 
 not the product of our own labor as truly as if we had manufactured it 
 ourselves ? One man makes a yard of cloth at home ; another raises 
 agricultural products, and buys a yard of imported cloth. Both are the 
 earnings of domestic industry ; and the only questions arising in the case 
 are two: (1.) Which is the best mode, under all circumstances, of ob- 
 taining the article ? (2.) How far should this question be decided by 
 government, and how far left to individual discretion ? 
 
 It had been asked what nations had ever attained eminent prosperity 
 without encouraging manufactures. He asked, in reply, what nation had 
 ever reached the like prosperity without promoting foreign trade. These 
 interests were closely connected, and it should be our aim to cause them 
 to flourish together. Most of our revenue being collected by duties on 
 imports, we could, without exceeding the bounds of moderation, give 
 great advantages to those manufactures which we might think it most use- 
 ful to promote at home. But he objected to the immoderate use of the 
 power ; by which labor would be diverted from occupations in which it 
 was profitably employed, to others in which it would be poorly rewarded. 
 He apprehended many would be deprived of their employments ; and 
 they would find the prices of the commodities they needed, enhanced, in 
 any of the alternatives the speaker had presented. He had told us, 
 they might, if they chose, continue to buy the foreign article. But the 
 price has been raised. They might use the domestic article. The price 
 of that also has been increased. I.et ttem then supply themselves with 
 their own fabric. But how could the agriculturist make his own iron, or 
 the ship owner grow his own hemp ? 
 
 He objected also to the speaker's reasoning, that he had argued the 
 question as if manufactures were now, for the first time, to receive en- 
 
SPEECHES OF CLAY AND WEBSTER. 339 
 
 couragement. He had adopted the modes of expression used elsewhere, 
 and asked if we would give our manufacturers no protection. The real 
 question was, not whether duties should be laid^ but whether they should 
 be augmented. It was forgotten that iron and hemp, for example, 
 already paid a burdensome duty ; yet, from the general tenor of the 
 speaker's observations, one would infer that we had hitherto taxed our 
 own manufactures rather than fostered them by taxes on those of other 
 countries. 
 
 The poverty of Spain had been attributed to the want of protection 
 to her own industry. That it was owing to bad government and bad 
 laws was true. But these very laws were bad because they were re- 
 strictive. If prohibition were protection, Spain would seem to have had 
 enough of it. Nothing could exceed the barbarous rigidity of her colo 
 nial system, or the folly of her early commercial regulations. Unen 
 lightened and bigoted legislation, the multitude of her holidays, miser- 
 able roads, and restrictive laws, he believed had been the principal 
 causes of the bad state of her productive industry. And any partial 
 improvement in her condition had been the result of relaxation. 
 
 Mr. Webster next went into an examination of the bill as to its 
 probable effects upon some of the great interests of the country ; and 
 first, as to the foreign trade. It was lamentably true, as the speaker had 
 stated, that there had been a falling off in the tonnage employed in that 
 trade. What did the bill propose for relief ? Nothing but new burdens 
 It proposed to diminish its employment, and at the same time to aug 
 ment its expense by subjecting it to heavier taxation. The shipping in- 
 terest, as appeared from a statement he had submitted to the committee, 
 paid annually more than half a million of dollars in duties on articles 
 used in the construction of ships ; to which it was proposed to add nearly 
 fifty per cent. 
 
 Some of the clauses of the bill Mr. W. approved ; to others he 
 strongly objected ; and most of all, to that which proposed to raise the 
 duty on iron, an article of great importance to the shipping interest, 
 which he represented. The annual consumption of the article had been 
 estimated at 50,000 tons ; the duty on which, at $15 per ton, amounted 
 to $750,000 ; increasing by so much the price of an absolute necessary 
 of life. It was now proposed to raise the duty to $22,50 per ton, which 
 would be equal to $1,125,000 on the whole annual consumption. The 
 only mitigation of this burthen imposed for the benefit of the producers 
 of the article, was in the prospect that the price of iron would be re- 
 duced by this domestic competition after the importation should be pro- 
 hibited. But it was easy to show that it would not fall ; and the result 
 would be, that the $1,125,000 would be constantly augmented by tlie in 
 
340 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 creased consumption of the article, to support a business that could not 
 support itself. It was of no consequence to the argument that this sum 
 would be expended at home : so it would be if the people were taxed to 
 support any other useless and expensive establishment. 
 
 The price of iron at Stockholm was $53 ; to which add the duty of 
 $15, and as much more for freight, insurance, «&c., and the cost would be 
 $83 in the American market. But the price at the mine in which it was 
 produced, was only about $40 per ton ; so that the present duty, with 
 the expense of transportation, already gave the American manufacturer 
 an advantage of 100 per cent. Why, then, could not iron be manufac- 
 tured at home ? The answer was to be found in the different prices of 
 labor. These were higher here than in any other civilized state ; and 
 this fact was the greatest of all proofs of general happiness. We had 
 been asked whether we would allow to the serfs of Russia and Sweden 
 the benefit of making iron for us. He would inform the gentleman that 
 these serfs did not earn more than seven cents a day. And he asked 
 whether we had any labor in this country that could not be better em- 
 ployed than in a business yielding to the laborer only seven cents a day. 
 There was no reason for saying that we would work iron because we had 
 mountains that contained ore. He said the true inquiry was, whether 
 we could produce the article at the same, or nearly the same cost as that 
 at which we could import it. The reason why our citizens should not be 
 compelled to manufacture our own iron was, that they were far better 
 employed. It was an unproductive business ; and they were not poor 
 enough to be obliged to follow it. 
 
 The effect of the bill in its operation on hemp, was also considered. 
 The aggregate amount of duties on the hemp and iron used in the con- 
 struction of a vessel of 359 tons burthen, was stated to be $1056 ; and, 
 with the contemplated increase, it would be $1400. While we were pro- 
 posing to add new burthens to the shipping interest, our great commer- 
 cial and maritime rival was pursuing a very different line of policy. It 
 was the sentiment of the government of England, that the first of all 
 manufactures was the manufacture of ships ; and very important regu- 
 lations favorabls to this interest had been adopted within the last year. 
 
 Mr. W. concluded by saying, that there were some parts of the bill 
 which he highly approved ; that in others he acquiesced ; but that those 
 to which he had stated his objections appeared to him so destitute of all 
 justice, so burthensome and so dangerous to that interest which had 
 steadily enriched, gallantly defended, and proudly distinguished us, that 
 nothing could prevail upon him to give the bill his support. 
 
ELECTION OF MR. ADAMS. 341 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 ELECTION OF MR. ADAMS. THE ALLEGED COALITION DE fWEEN ADAMS AND 
 
 CLAY. PROPOSITIONS FOR RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 
 
 The presidential election of 1824 was one of deep and general interest 
 throughout the union. The names of at least six candidates had been 
 presented : Messrs. Adams, Crawford, Jackson, Clay, Calhoun, and 
 Clinton. The names of the two last, however, were subsequently with- 
 drawn. 
 
 The practice which had prevailed since 1804, of making nominations 
 by the republican members of congress, had become unpopular. The 
 original and legitimate object of a caucus was to enable the friends of 
 certain principles or measures to concentrate their suffrages. For such 
 purpose a caucus had become unnecessary. All the candidates were 
 regarded as republicans, and as holding to the same general principles. 
 Old party lines, as respected measures of public policy, had become 
 obliterated. The people were not so much divided upon measures, as 
 in the choice of men. And when political contests are merely for men, 
 caucuses are likely to become instruments of corruption and intrigue. 
 It was also objected, that, as the public sentiment in some of the states 
 had designated certain individuals as candidates, the members of a con- 
 gressional caucus might defeat the wishes of their constituents. And 
 although it was desirable to avoid a resort to the house of representa- 
 tives for the election of a president, the candidates were so numerous, 
 and the attachment of the people to their respective favorites was so 
 firm, as to preclude the belief that a caucus nomination would at all 
 increase the chances of an election by the people. The object of a 
 caucus was the nomination of Mr. Crawford ; which had few advocates 
 beyond the circle of his particular friends. 
 
 Not only was the public feeling on this subject expressed in meetings 
 of the people ; formal action was taken upon it by the legislatures of 
 several of the states, whose decisions were communicated to their repre- 
 sentatives in congress. The newspapci* press, too, took an active part 
 in the discussion. A leading paper opposed to a caucus, was Niles' 
 Register. The Niitional Intelligencer, the Albany Argus, and the 
 Richmond Enquirer, w6re among its prominent advocates. 
 
 A caucus, or, as it was termed, " a meeting of the republican mem- 
 bers of congress," was held on the 14th of February, 1824. Of the 
 258 members, only 68 attended. The number in attendance being so 
 
342 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 small, a motion was made to adjourn to the 20th of March ; but, a 
 majority being opposed to the adjournment, the meeting proceeded to 
 ballot for a candidate for president. Of the 68 votes given, Wm. H 
 Crawford received 64 ; John Quincy Adams, 2 ; Andrew Jackson, 1 ; 
 and Nathaniel Macon, 1. For vice-president, Albert Gallatm received 
 57 votes. 
 
 From a brief history of congi 5ssional caucuses in Niles' Register, 
 (vol. XXV, pp. 244, 258,) the following facts appear : 
 
 In February, 1800, " certain federalists" — members of congress, it is 
 presumed — held a meeting in the senate-chamber to consult on matters 
 relating to the ensuing presidential election. This caucus was de- 
 nounced in the Philadelphia Aurora, a republican paper, as a "jacobin- 
 leal conclave;" for which, and for other statements, its editor, William 
 Duane, was arrested, and brought to the bar of the senate to answer 
 for his " false, defamatory, scandalous, and malicious assertions," &c. 
 Soon after, there was a meeting of a few members, who pledged them- 
 selves to the support of Messrs. Jefferson and Burr. This meeting is 
 said to have been caused by a complaint on the part of northern repub- 
 licans, that Mr. Burr had not been duly supported by the party at the 
 south, in 1797. 
 
 The first " regular republican caucus" appears to have been held on 
 the 25th of February, 1804. Its chief object was to fix upon a candi- 
 date for vice-president. Mr. Jefferson, however, was named for reelec 
 tion, and George Clinton for vice-president. 
 
 On the 19th of January, 1808, a meeting of the republican membera 
 of congress to noniinate candidates for president and vice-president, was 
 called by Stephen R. Bradley, a senator from Vermont. The circular in 
 which the call was made commenced thus : " In pursuance of the powers 
 vested in me, as president of the late convention of the republican mem- 
 bers of both houses of congress, I deem it expedient," &c. The meeting 
 was to be held on the 23d of January, 1808. The issuing of this call in 
 this mandatory style, was indignantly denounced by several members as 
 a usurpation of power ; and a large portion of the members refused to 
 attend; unwilling, as was remarked, " to countenance, by their presence, 
 the midnight intrigues of any set of men who may arrogate to them- 
 selves the right, (which belongs only to the people,) of selecting proper 
 persons to fill the important offices of president and vice-president." 
 
 The meeting was attended, however, by ninety-four members of both 
 houses — only one from the state of New York. Mr. Madison was 
 nominated with apparent unanimity, though Mr. Monroe had been sup- 
 ported, out of doors, by a strong party of men, among whom were some 
 who were unfriendly to the p jlicy of Mr. Jefi"erson. These differences 
 
ELECTION OP MR. ADAMS. 343 
 
 in the republican party grew to such extent, as almost to produce the 
 political ejection of Mr. Monroe; a fate actually esperieuced by De 
 Witt Clinton four years afterward, for permitting his name to be used 
 against that of Mr. Madison. Through the eiforts of Mr. Jefferson and 
 others, who deprecated a rupture in the party in the state of Virginia, 
 a reconciliation was at length effected. 
 
 The next congressional caucus was held on the 1 8th of May, 1812, 
 at which 82 members attended ; the whole number of republican mem- 
 bers of both houses being 133. All the votes given at this caucus were 
 for Madison. The caucus of 1816 was held on the 16th of March, and 
 was attended by 118 out of the 141 republican members. Mr. Clay, of 
 Kentucky, and Mr. Taylor, of New York, offered resolutions declaring 
 it inexpedient to proceed to a nomination; but the proposition was 
 negatived. Mr. Monroe received 65 votes, and Mr. Crawford, 54. In 
 1820, no caucus was held — there being no organized opposition to the 
 republican party. 
 
 As had been apprehended, the nomination made by the caucus in 
 1824, failed of securing to Mr. Crawford that advantage which former 
 nominees had derived from regular republican nominations. So odious 
 had this system become, that the nomination was believed to have actu 
 ally diminished rather than increased his strength as a candidate. 
 
 The whole number of votes of the electoral colleges, was 261 ; of 
 which there were given for Jackson 99, Adams 84, Crawford 41, Clay 37. 
 John C. Calhoun received for vice-president 182 votes, against 78 for aP 
 others. The electors having failed to elect a president, that dut^^ 
 devolved upon the house of representatives ; the election to be madi 
 from the three candidates having the highest numbers of votes, and th< 
 vote to be taken by states. The election by the house took place on thi 
 9th of February, 1825, immediately after the canvass of the electora> 
 vote. Mr. Adams received the votes of 13 states, General Jackson 7 
 states, and Mr. Crawford 4 states. Mr. Adams having a majority of the 
 states, he was declared elected for four years from the 4th of March, 1 825. 
 
 A committee appointed by the house for that purpose, informed Mi 
 Adams of his election, and reported the fact to the house the next day, 
 with the following answer : 
 
 " Gentlemen : In receiving this testimonial from the representativee 
 of the people and states of this union, I am deeply sensible of the circum- 
 Btances under which it has been given All my predecessors in the high 
 Btation to which the favor of the house now calls' me, have been honored 
 with majorities of the electoral voices in their primary colleges. It haa 
 been my fortune t: be placed, by the divisions of sentiment prevailing 
 among our countrymen on this occasion, in competition, friendly and 
 
344 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 honorable, with three of my fellow-citizens, all justly enjoying, in emi- 
 nent degrees, the public favor ; and of whose worth, talents, and seivices 
 no one entertains a higher and more respectful sense than myself The 
 names of two of them were, in the fulfillment of the provisions of the 
 constitution, presented to the selection of the house, in concurrence with 
 my own ; names closely associated with the glory of the nation, and one 
 of them further recommended by a larger minority of the primary elec- 
 toral BuflFrages than mine. 
 
 " In this state of things, could my refusal to accept the trust thus dele- 
 gated to me, give an immediate opportunity to express with a nearer 
 approach to unanimity, the object of their preference, I should not hesi- 
 tate to decline the acceptance of this eminent charge, and to submit the 
 decision of this momentous question again to their determination. But 
 the constitution itself, has not so disposed of the contingency which would 
 arise in the event of my refusal ; I shall therefore repair to the post 
 assigned me by the call of my country, signified through her constitu- 
 tional organs ; oppressed with the magnitude of the task before me, but 
 cheered with the hope of that generous support of my fellow-citizens, 
 which, in the vicissitudes of a life devoted to their service, has never 
 failed to sustain me — confident in the trust that the wisdom of the legis- 
 lative councils will guide and direct me in the path of my ofl&cial duty, and 
 relying, above all, upon the superintending providence of that Being ' in 
 whose hand our breath is, and whose are all our ways.' 
 
 " Gentlemen : I pray you to make acceptable to the house, the assur- 
 ance of my profound gratitude for their confidence, and to accept your- 
 selves my thanks for the friendly terms in which you have communicated 
 to me their decision." 
 
 John Quincy Adams was inaugurated as president of the United 
 States, on the 4th of March, 1825. The senate being in session, the 
 president immediately nominated his cabinet officers : Henry Clay, of 
 Kentucky, for secretary of state ; Richard Rush, for secretary of the 
 treasury ; James Barbour, of Virginia^ for secretary of war. The nomi- 
 nations of the two last named gentlemen were unanimously confirmed 
 that of Mr. Clay, for reasons which will soon appear, was warmly opposed. 
 The vote was 27 in favor of his appointment, and 1 4 against it. Samuel 
 L. Southard, of New Jersey, wa<i continued secretary of the navy ; Wil- 
 liam Wirt, of Virginia, then attorney-general, was also continued in 
 office. The postmaster-general was not then a cabinet officer. The in- 
 cumbent, John M'Lean, was retained in that office. 
 
 With a cabinet composed of men so able and distinguished, it might 
 be supposed that the new administration had commenced under the most 
 favorable auspices, and could not fail to attain a high degree of popular- 
 
ALLEGED COALITION BETWEEN ADAMS AND CLAl. 345 
 
 Ity. It had, however, scarcely entered upon itg career, before thure were 
 unerring indications of a determined opposition. This opposition, so 
 early formed, could not have been based upon the acts of the administra- 
 tion. It had its origin chiefly in the disaffection of the friends, of the 
 unsuccessful candidates, increased, if not wholly produced, by the sus- 
 picion of Mr. Adams having obtained his election by a bargain with Mr. 
 Clay and his friends, who, it was alleged, had voted for him with the 
 understanding that, in case of his election, Mr. Clay was to receive the 
 appointment of secretary of state. 
 
 The friends of General Jackson, having expected the votes of the 
 western members for their candidate, expressed their indignation at the 
 course of these members, and declared Messrs. Adams and Clay to have 
 been parties to a " corrupt coalition" which had thwarted the will of the 
 people. The election was soon followed by an excitement, which, for 
 intensity and bitterness, has rarely been exceeded in this country. This 
 important affair, involving as it does, the character of some of our most 
 distinguished public men, deserves more than a passing notice. 
 
 A few weeks prior to the election by the house of representatives, there 
 appeared in the Columbian Observer, published in the city of Philadel- 
 phia, a letter purporting to have been written by a member of the house 
 of representatives belonging to the Pennsylvania delegation, and impli- 
 cating the conduct of Mr. Clay in regard to the pending presidential 
 election. The letter says : " For some time past, the friends of Clay 
 have hinted that they, like the Swiss, would fight for those who would 
 pay best. Overtures were said to have been made by the friends of 
 Adams to the friends of Clay, offering him the appointment of secretary 
 of state for his aid to elect Adams. And the friends of Clay gave this 
 information to the friends of Jackson, and hinted that, if the friends of 
 Jackson would offer the same price, they would close with them. But 
 none of the friends of Jackson would descend to such mean barter and 
 sale. * * * It is now ascertained to a certainty, that Henry Clay has 
 transferred his interest to Mr. John Q. Adams. As a consideration for 
 this abandonment of duty to his constituents, it is said and believed, 
 should this unholy coalition prevail, Clay is to be appointed secretary 
 of state." 
 
 This letter was followed by '.' A. Card" from Mr. Clay, repelling the 
 accusation, pronouncing the member, whoever he might be, " a bas6 and 
 infamous calumniator," and holding him " responsible, if he dared un- 
 veil himself, to all the laws which govern and regulate the conduct of 
 men of honor." Whereupon, in " Another Card," George Kremer 
 acknowledged the authorship of the letter, and declared himself ready 
 to prove the statements therein contained. 
 
346 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Clay, on the same day, (February 3,) called the atiention of the 
 house to the subject, and reipested an investigation of the charges. A 
 committee was accordingly appointed for this purpose, although not untiA 
 after tjvo days' debate. On the 9th, the committee reported, that Kremer 
 had declined appearing before them to give any evidence or explanation 
 touching the charges against the speaker, alleging that he could not do 
 80 without appearing either as an accuser or a witness ; both of which he 
 protested against. The committee, if they had known any reason for the 
 investigation, would have asked for power to send for persons and papers; 
 but having no such knowledge, they only laid before the house the letter 
 of Mr. Kremer to the committee. 
 
 On the 25th of February, Mr. Kremer appeared in an address to his 
 constituents, stating the grounds of his charges against Mr. Clay ; among 
 which were, (1.) Mr. Clay's disregard of the instruction of the legislature 
 of Kentucky to vote for Gen. Jackson, contrary to his well known recog- 
 nition of the right of the people to instruct their representatives, and of 
 the obligation of the representative to obey the known will of his consti- 
 tuents. (2.) He and his friends had, through the whole canvass for the 
 presidency, been decidedly hostile to Mr. Adams' election. (3.) He had 
 persuaded western members friendly to Gen. Jackson to remain uncom- 
 mitted, and to agree to go together, before determining on the candidate 
 they would finally support. (4.) A member from Kentucky had observed to 
 him (Kremer) that if Jackson should be elected, Adams, it was said, would 
 remain secretary of state ; and desired to know, if Clay and his friends 
 should aid in electing Jackson, what Jackson would do for Kentucky. 
 (5.) The office of secretary of state had been offered to him, and he had 
 agreed to accept it. 
 
 On the appearance of this letter in the Washington City Gazette, 
 William Brent, a member from Louisiana, published in the National 
 Journal a statement, confirmed by two other gentlemen who were pre- 
 sent, that, on the day of the debate on the proposition to refer Mr. 
 Clay's communication respecting Mr. Kremer's card to a committee, he 
 heard K. declare that he never intended to charge Mr. Clay with cor- 
 ruption or dishonor in his intended vote for Mr. Adams ; or that he had 
 transferred, or could transfer, the votes or interest of his friends. This 
 statement of Mr. Brent, together with certain other reasons, induced 
 the belief, that he was not the writer of the communications bearing his 
 signature ; and that he had been made an instrument for furthering the 
 designs of others. Indeed, in an address " to the public," it was stated 
 by Mr. F. Johnson, of Kentucky, on the authority of Mr. Crowninshield, 
 of Massachusetts, in whose presence the acknowledgment had been 
 made, that Mr. K. ha^ not written the letter of the 25th of January 
 
ALLEGED COALITION BETWEEN ADAMS AND CLATc. 347 
 
 Mr. Clay, under date of March 26, 1825, through the National Jour- 
 nal, addressed the people of the congressional district he had represented, 
 in vindication of the course he had taken in the election. He said, the 
 fact that one of the three candidates returned had received a plurality 
 of the electoral votes, gave him no claim to the support of the house. 
 The will of the 99 could not righfully control the remaining 162, nor 
 any one of them : although it was a consideration which the house was 
 called upon to weigh in making up its judgment. The precarious state 
 of Mr. Crawford's health, the small number of votes he had received, and 
 the impracticability of his election, were conclusive reasons against him. 
 As between Gen. Jackson and Mr. Adams, the consideration of plurality 
 was of less weight, and overbalanced by that of the superior fitness of 
 the latter. 
 
 The resolutions of the Kentucky legislature requesting the delegation 
 from that state to vote for Gen. Jackson, though entitled to respect, 
 were not to be regarded as binding. The legislature, though speaking 
 in behalf of the people, had had no means of ascertaining their wishes 
 since the electors were chosen, when they had decided against the gene- 
 ral. Besides, he had received directly^ from many of his constituents, 
 an expression of their disapprobation of the request of the legislature, 
 with instructions to vote agreeably to his own judgment. 
 
 That he had not been in favor of Mr. Adams' election when the con- 
 test was before the people, was true. Neither was he in favor of the 
 election of Gen. Jackson or Mr. Crawford. But during his whole ac- 
 quaintance with Mr. Adams, there had been no interruption to the 
 courtesies and hospitalities of social intercourse. He (Mr. Clay,) was 
 said to be under a public pledge to expose some reprehensible conduct 
 of Mr. Adams in the negotiation at Ghent. The letter which he had 
 published in 1822, adverting to the controversy between Mr. Russell 
 and Mr. Adams, did not justify such a conclusion. He had ascribed to 
 both parties, and particularly to Mr. Adams, " some errors, (no doubt 
 unintentional,) both as to matters of fact and matters of opinion, in re- 
 gard to the transactions at Ghent, relating to the navigation of the 
 Mississippi, and certain liberties claimed by the United States in the 
 fisheries, and to the part he (Mr. Clay,) bore in these transactions;" and 
 promised " at some future period to lay before the public a narrative of 
 those transactions as he understood them." As to the time of executing 
 this promise, he claimed for himself the exclusive right to judge. He 
 had never given Gen. Jackson or his friends any reason to expect his 
 support ; and no one ought to have been disappointed by his not having 
 voted for him. 
 
 The 1st sessim of the 19th congress, and the first under Mr. Adams 
 
348 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 administration,commencedoii the 5th of December, 1825. In the senate, 
 the administration had a decided majority. In the house of representa- 
 tives, the majority, if, indeed, there was any, was small, as was indicated 
 by the vote on the choice of speaker ; John W. Taylor, of New York, 
 having been elected on the second ballot, by 99 votes against 94 for all 
 other candidates. By the union, however, of the friends of Gen. Jackson 
 and Mr. Crawford, in both houses, it was found difficult — in some cases 
 impossible — to carry the measures of the administration. 
 
 The introduction of certain extraordinary questions into both branches 
 of congress, prevented the consideration of several important measures 
 suggested in the president's message. One of these extraordinary sub- 
 jects was a proposition, by Mr. Benton, to amend the constitution 
 respecting the election of president and vice-president ; suggested, doubt- 
 less, by the result of the recent election. The mode proposed was by a 
 direct vote of the people, in districts. 
 
 Mr. Benton also reported (March 1, 1826,) in favor of an amendment 
 of the constitution, making members of congress ineligible to any civil 
 office under the general government, during the presidential term m 
 which they shall have served. Also as chairman of a select committee 
 appointed " to inquire into the expediency of reducing the patronage of 
 the executive government," he made a report, (May 4,) stating it as the 
 conclusion of the committee, that the amount of patronage now exer^ 
 cised by the president, might and ought to be reduced by law, and pre- 
 senting six bills for that purpose : (1.) A bill to regulate the laws of the 
 United States, and of public advertisements. (2.) A bill to secure in 
 office the faithful collectors and disbursers of the revenue, and to dis- 
 place defaulters. (3, 4, and 5.) Bills to regulate the appointment of 
 postmasters, cadets, and midshipmen. (6.) A bill to prevent military 
 and naval officers from being dismissed the service at the pleasure of the 
 president. 
 
 The appointment, by Mr. Adams, of Mr. Clay and several other mem- 
 bers of congress to important offices, and the withdrawing of the pat- 
 ronage of the printing of the laws from some of the newspapers opposed 
 to the administration, and bestowing it upon others that supported it, 
 will sufficiently explain the object of these two last mentioned reports. 
 
 The people alone being competent to change the constitution, the 
 committee say : " Not being able to lay the axe at the root of the tree, 
 they (congress) must go to pruning the limbs and branches. Not being 
 able to reform the constitution in the election of president, they must go 
 to work upon his powers, and trim down these by statutory enactments, 
 wherever it can be done by law, and with a just regard to the efficiency 
 of the government. • * * They (the committee) have only touched 
 
PROPOSITIONS FOR RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 349 
 
 in fcur places, the vast and pervading system of federal executive pat- 
 ronage : the press — the post-office — the armed force — and the appoint- 
 ing power. They are few, compared to the whole number of points 
 which the system presents ; but they are points vital to the liberties of 
 the country. The press is put foremost, because it is the moving power 
 of human action ; the post-office is the handmaid of the press ; the armed 
 force its executor ; and the appointing power the directress of the whole. 
 If the appointing power was itself an emanatio/i of the popular will — if 
 the president was himself the officer and the org^n of the people — there 
 would be less danger in leaving to his will the sole direction of all these 
 arbiters of human fate. But things must be taken as they are ; states- 
 men must act for the country they live in, and not for the island of 
 Utopia; they must act upon the state of facts in that country, and not 
 upon the visions of fancy. In the country for which the committee act, 
 the press, with some exceptions, the post-office, the armed force, and the 
 appointing power, are in the hands of the president, and the president 
 himself is not in the hands of the people. The president may, and in 
 the current of human affairs, will be, against the people; and, in his 
 hands, the arbiters of human fate must be against them also. This will 
 not do. The possibility of it must be avoided. The safety of the peo- 
 ple is the ' supreme law;' and to insure that safety, these arbiters of 
 human fate must change position, and take post on the side of the 
 people." 
 
 By the first of these bills, the selection of newspapers for the publica. 
 tion of the laws, then made by the secretary of state, was to be made in 
 each state by its senators and representatives in congress. The second 
 bill required the president, in all nominations to fill vacancies, occasioned 
 by the exercise of the president's power to remove from office, to state 
 to the senate his reasons for the removal. And the offices of all collec- 
 tors and disbursers of public moneys who should fail to account for the 
 same, were to be vacated. Postmasters whose emoluments exceeded a 
 certain sum, were to be appointed by the president and senate. Cadets 
 and midshipmen were to be taken, one of each from each congressional 
 district in the state, and the two corresponding to the number of senators, 
 from the state at large. Officers in the army and navy were not there- 
 after to hold their offices " during the pleasure of the president," but 
 " during good behavior." 
 
 Mr. Tazewell having moved the printing of an extra number of the 
 report and bills, Mr. Kandolph said he "hoped the largest number 
 would be printed that had been printed of any document during the pre- 
 sent session." He wished the number to be equal to that of a certain 
 document which he called " a message to the house to announce an eleo 
 
350 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tioneering arrangement;" alluding, as is supposed, to the message on 
 the proposed Panama mission. Mr. R. said : " Though he had little 
 faith in the strength of the virus of the executive poison which was 
 attempted to be instilled into the public mind, he wished the antidote to 
 proceed with it, j9an^«ssM." Accordingly 6,000 copies were ordered 
 printed. 
 
 The bills were at the same time ordered to a second reading ; but no 
 farther action appears to have been taken upon them at that session, 
 except to lay them on the table, on the motion of Mr. Macon, who had 
 collected the facts and matured the subject, but whose ill health pre- 
 vented his entering into the discussion of it. 
 
 From the unusual number of candidates for the presidency for more 
 than a year before the election of 1824, it was apprehended that there 
 would be no election by the presidential electors. To prevent an ulti- 
 mate resort to the house of representatives, as well as to secure a uni- 
 form mode of choosing electors in the several states, numerous attempts 
 were made in congress to propose to the states certain amendments to 
 the constitution. Also bills were introduced into the legislatures of 
 several states in which electors were chosen by the legislature, proposing 
 to place the election in the hands of the people. 
 
 In the legislature of New York, a bill for this purpose passed the 
 assembly, but was negatived in the senate. The defeat of the bill pro- 
 duced general dissatisfaction, which was plainly expressed at the next 
 election of members of the legislature. In accordance with the will of the 
 people, indicated by the return of a majority to both houses in favor of 
 the proposed change, an electoral law was passed at the next session. 
 This law, however, did not prescribe the mode of choosing the electors, 
 but provided for submitting to the people, at their next annual election, 
 (in 1825,) the question, whether the electors should be chosen by general 
 ticket, or singly in the several congressional districts. The district sys- 
 tem was adopted ; but after the next presidential election, it was 
 changed to the general ticket sjstem, for the purpose of securing to the 
 state an undivided vote in the election of president. 
 
 Propositions to amend the constitution were renewed at the next ses- 
 sion. Among the plans submitted, was that of Col. Bent:n, just alluded 
 to, proposing, (1.) A uniform mode by districts. (2.) The president 
 and vice-president to be elected by a direct vote of the people. (3 ) In 
 case no candidate had received a majority of the votes first given, a 
 second election was to be held and conducted as the first ; the choice to 
 be made from the two candidates having received the highest numbers 
 of votes for the same office. Thts plan was very elaborately and ably 
 argued in the report. 
 
PROPOSITICNS FOR RETRENCHMENT ANE REFORM. 351 
 
 Choosing by electors, it was said, enabled the majority to impress the 
 minority into their service, put it into the power of a few to control the 
 election, and enabled the populous states to consolidate their votes, and to 
 overwhelm the small ones. Electing by legislative ballot, took the elec- 
 tion out of the hands of the people, left it with a preexisting body 
 chosen for a different purpose, and enabled the dominant party in the 
 legislature to bestow the vote of the state according to their own sense 
 of duty or private interest. Whereas, the district system gave to every 
 state, and to the several sections of the state, due weight in the elec- 
 tion. Besides, it was a mode of election in which either electors might 
 be used, or a direct vote might be given by the people. 
 
 The advantages expected from the institution of electors, the report 
 continued, had never been realized. It was the intention of the framers 
 of the constitution to provide an independent body of men, chosen by 
 the people from among themselves, on account of their superior discern- 
 ment, virtue, and information, who should be left to make the election 
 according to their own will. But the electors were not the independent 
 body they were intended to be : they had no discretion. Candidates 
 were selected by the people ; and the electors were mere agents, and in 
 a case where no agency was necessary. If, on the other hand, they were 
 really independent, such independence was incompatible with the safety 
 of the people. As was well known, they were oftener selected for their 
 devotion to a party and electioneering tact, than for excellence of charac- 
 ter. Hence the propriety of giving to the qualified electors a direct 
 vote in the election of president and vice-president. 
 
 A direct election, it was also said, accorded better with the theory 
 of our government. The principle that the mass, upon whom the laws 
 operated, should elect those who make the laws, was equally applicable 
 to those who execute the laws, and especially in the case of the president, 
 who, in executing them, has at his command, not only the army and the 
 navy, but the judiciary, and numerous other officers of his own appoint- 
 ment. The apprehension, on the part of the framers, that a popular 
 election of president would be too tumultuous, and likely to be attended 
 with violence, was without foundation. The state elections, at which the 
 highest state officers and representatives in congress, had for nearly forty 
 years been chosen directly by the popular vote, afforded no cause of 
 alarm. Our liberties had far more to fear from indifference and a neglect 
 of the elective franchise, than from excesses of violence. The la^t elec- 
 tion was eminently adapted to excite the feelings of the people ; yet not 
 one-half of the voters of the United States had been got to the polls. 
 
 The committee laid down these axioms: To prevent corruption 
 (I.) Multiply the voters. (2.) Keep the candidates from among them 
 
352 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 (3.) Avoid preexisting bodies of electors. To prevent violence ana, 
 avoid coalitions, separate the electors. The plan of the committee, the 
 report said, had been brought to the test of each of these axioms, and 
 found to abide them. The voters would consist of millions, and could 
 not be corrupted ; they would be scattered over the territory of the whole 
 confederation, and could not hold intercourse with the candidates ; they 
 would vote at several thousand different places on the same hours of the 
 day, and could neither fight nor coalesce ; they were not a preexisting 
 body, in the sense of the objection, for that term applied only to small 
 selected bodies. 
 
 Notwithstanding numerous and rarioua amendments were moved in 
 congress for several successive sessions, no proposition of amendment to 
 be submitted to the states, at any time received the sanction of both 
 '. ■■■«es. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 THE PANAMA MISSION. 
 
 One of the principal topics of discussion at the session of 1 825-26, 
 was the " Panama Mission," so called from the proposition to send com- 
 missioners to a congress of the southern republics which was to assemble 
 at Panama. This subject was thus alluded to in the annual message of 
 the president : 
 
 " Among the measures which have been suggested to them by the new 
 relations with one another, resulting from the recent ghauges of their 
 condition, is that of assembling at the isthmus of Panama, a congress, 
 at which each of them should be represented, to deliberate upon objects 
 important to the welfare of all. The republics- of Colombia, of Mexico, 
 and of Central America, have already deputed plenipotentiaries to such 
 a meeting, and they have invited the United States to be also represented 
 there by their ministers, The invitation has been accepted ; and minis- 
 ters on the part of the United States will be commissioned to attend ac 
 those deliberations, and to take a part in them, so far as may be compat- 
 ible with that neutrality, from which it is neither our intention, nor the 
 desire of the other American states, that we should depart." 
 
 The first suggestion of the proposed congress was ascribed to Bolivar 
 a conspicuous leader in the South American revolution, and for.severa. 
 years president of Colombia, one of the southern republics ; and who, ic 
 
THE PANAMA MISSION. 353 
 
 1823, invited Mexico, Peru, Chili, and Buenos Ayres to send delegates to 
 Panama, with the design of forming a confederacy, for the purpose, as 
 was by some alleged, of providing for a successful resistance to Spain, 
 and for giving security to their independence. Appreciating the interest 
 felt by the people of the United States for their southern neighbors iu 
 their revolutionary struggle, and the early recognition of their independ- 
 ence by our government, they extended the invitation to the United 
 States. Verbal conferences on the subject had been held with the secre- 
 tary of state, by the ministers of Mexico, Colombia, and Central 
 America, at Washington ; and in November, the invitation was formally 
 given in letters to Mr. Clay ; and several subjects were named as being 
 deemed proper for the consideration of the congress. 
 
 la his answer to the ministers of Me:^ico and Colombia, Mr. Clay 
 says : " In your note, there is not so exact a compliance with the condi- 
 tions on which the president expressed his willingness that the United 
 States should be represented at Panama, as could have been desired. It 
 would have been, perhaps, better, if there had been a full understanding 
 between all the American powers who may assemble by their representa- 
 tives, of the precise questions on which they are to deliberate ; aed that 
 some other matters respecting the powers of the deputies, and the organ- 
 ization of the congress, should have been distinctly arranged prior to the 
 opening of its deliberations. But as the want of the adjustment of these 
 preliminaries, if it should occasion any inconvenience, could be only pro- 
 ductive of some delay, the president has determined, at once, to manifest 
 the sensibility of the United States, to whatever concerns the prosperity 
 of the American hemisphere, and to the friendly motives which have ac- 
 tuated your government in transmitting the invitation which you have 
 communicated. He has, therefore, resolved, should the senate of the 
 United States, now expected to assemble in a few days, give their advice 
 and consent, to send commissioners to the congress. Whilst they will 
 not be authorized to enter upon any deliberations, or to concur in any 
 acts inconsistent with the present neutral position of the United States 
 and its obligations, they will be fully empowered and instructed upon all 
 questions likely to arise in the congress, on subjects in which the nations 
 of America have a common interest." 
 
 On the 26th of December, the president sent to the senate a confi- 
 dential message, stating some of the reasons for accepting the invitation, 
 and nominating Richard C. Anderson, of Kentucky, and John Sergeant, 
 of Pennsylvania, as commissioners, and William B. Rochester, of New 
 York, as secretary of the mission. He again disclaimed the intention 
 either " to contract alliances, or to engage in any undertaking or project 
 
 of hostility to any other nation." He believed s'jch a meeting would 
 
 23 
 
354 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 afford a favorable occasion for establishing a more liberal as well as a 
 more stable commercial intercourse than had been enjoyed, and principles 
 which should govern their conduct as belligerents and neutrals in time 
 of war. It might also be advisable to settle the question, whether the 
 security of republican institutions did not require the parties to prevent 
 any European power from establishing a colony within the borders of the 
 parties — a principle announced by Mr. Adams' predecessor, and generally 
 known as the " Monroe doctrine." 
 
 The appointment of committees was, by a rule of the senate, devolved 
 upon the vice-president, as president of that body; and in constituting 
 the committee on foreign relations, to whom the subject was referred, 
 Mr. Calhoun had selected a majority of its members from the opponents 
 of the administration. 
 
 The committee, on the 16th of January, reported adversely to the 
 proposed mission. It was called a new and untried measure ; and they 
 saw no cogent reasons for departing from the established policy of the 
 government. The objects of the congress should have been more partic- 
 ularly stated and defined, and tlie manner of their accomplishment more 
 distinctly marked out. The committee took exception to several of the 
 subjects of discussion mentioned by the different ministers, but to which 
 the president had made no allusion. Nor did they consider the object 
 of establishing the principles of a commercial intercourse as justifying 
 a participation in the proposed congress. If the nations were wrong iu 
 supposing that their former commercial policy had been most conducive 
 to their own interests, " the task of exhibiting their errors might be 
 much better performed by particular discussions with each separately, 
 than by general demonstrations made to all, assembled as a congress." 
 They also questioned the authority of the government to enter into any 
 negotiation with foreign nations for the purpose of settling or promul- 
 gating, either principles of internal policy, or mere abstract propositions, 
 as parts of public law. 
 
 After an examination of all the reasons for the proposed mission, and 
 the objects contemplated by it, the committee concluded their report 
 with the resolution, " That it is not expedient, at this time, for the 
 United States to send any ministers to the congress of American nations 
 assembled at Panama." 
 
 A debate immediately ensued, in which the resolution was supported 
 by Messrs. Ilayne, Woodbury, White, Van Buren, Berrien, Dickerson, 
 Benton, and Randolph ; and opposed by Messrs. Robbins, F. Johnson, 
 Holmes, and others. Many of the speeches were of great length, and 
 the debate, as a whole, has seldom been surpassed in point of ability, in 
 that body. It was con' 'nued until the 1 4th of March, when the resolu- 
 
THE PANAMA MISSION. 355 
 
 tion was negatived, by a vote of 19 to 24. The nominations were then 
 confirmed by about the same vote ; and the injunctions of secrecy were 
 removed from the journal. 
 
 The concurrence of the house of representatives being necessary in an 
 act appropriating the money for carrying the mission into effect, the sub- 
 ject was referred in that body to the committee of foreign relations, who. 
 on the 25th of March, 1825, made a report in favor of the mission. In 
 the opinion of the committee, the congress of Panama had been impro- 
 perly compared with that of the allied sovereigns of Europe, It was 
 neither a meeting of sovereigns, nor a government or branch of a govern- 
 ment. It had, therefore, no legislative power ; nor could its members, 
 by their acts, bind each other, or the governments which they represented. 
 They were mere diplomatic agents, having power only to discuss and nego- 
 tiate, whose conclusions werfe subject to the ratification of some organic 
 body at home. Besides, it was expressly stipulated in the treaties be- 
 tween these new republics, that the meeting at Panama should " not 
 affect the national sovereignty of the contracting parties, in regard to 
 their laws, and the establishment and form of their respective govern- 
 ments." 
 
 With respect to the constitutional objection, they perceived in the con- 
 stitution no restriction on the appointment of foreign ministers by the 
 proper authority. The objection erroneously assumed, that the congress 
 was a government, or part of a government, or a confederacy of govern- 
 ments. The United States therefore would not enter into a confedera 
 tion, or form a union with foreign powers, by sending ministers to treat 
 with them. 
 
 The objection that the subjects of discussion, the powers of the minis- 
 ters, and the rules of the congress, were not sufficiently settled, was 
 deemed of little weight. The principal topics to be discussed had been 
 stated ; and as the power of the ministers was expressly restricted to 
 that of negotiation ; and as they were to be bound by no decision of tho 
 congress without their own consent, a minute detail on the points abovn 
 mentioned was of no great importance. 
 
 Nor did the committee think our attendance would endanger our 
 neutrality. Having acknowledged the independence of the new repub- 
 lics, we had already established our right to treat them as free and 
 independent states. They were at war with Spain. The allies of Spain 
 were taking no part in the war. Great Britain, the most powerful of 
 those allies, had acknowledged the independence of several of these states, 
 ind established diplomatic relations with them. These acts of the United 
 States and Great Britain, not only weakened Spain as a belligerent, bui 
 directly violated her colonial laws; yet she submitted to them. If, then, 
 
356 THE AMERICAN STAIESMAN. 
 
 our recoguition of the independence of her revolting colonies, and oux 
 tralin'^ with them in contravention of her colonial laws, was no breach 
 of neutrality, there could be none in our attendance at the proposed 
 
 congress. 
 
 To the objection that we might become involvea in an entangling 
 alliance with the new states, it was answered, that the project of such 
 alliance was expressly disclaimed by the president; that the congress was 
 not a government with which we could form an alliance ; that any agree- 
 ment entered into must be submitted to the constitutional ratifying pow- 
 ers at home ; and that an entangling alliance was no more likely to 
 result from this mission than from any mission to any power. Indeed, 
 an alliance might be more easily formed with a foreign sovereign, parti- 
 cularly an absolute one, who was himself competent to form an alliance, 
 than could be done by our ministers to Panama, who would be accredited 
 to other ministers no more competent than our own to pledge their gov- 
 ernments. The committee farther observed, that the new republics 
 being at war with the same enemy, and being in alliance with each other, 
 an alliance with one of them would be as entangling as an alliance with 
 them all. Hence, the reason that would forbid our attending the con- 
 gress, would require us to withdraw our diplomatic connection with these 
 
 states. 
 
 The mission had been objected to as novel and unprecedented. Because 
 the establishment of several new republics at once was an unprecedented 
 event, it did not follow that theii^ subsequent acts or ours should be called 
 novel and unprecedented. It was natural that these states should hold 
 diplomatic conferences with each other, and with neighboring nations which 
 had important relations with them. Similar meetings of friendly states 
 had frequently been held. In principle, our meeting at the congress 
 would not be without precedent. The negotiations in 1782, which 
 resulted in the treaties of peace between the United States, France, and 
 G-reat Britain, were of the nature of the conferences of diplomatic agents. 
 On the principle that every act must have an exact precedent, the most 
 important measures of our government could never have been adopted. 
 
 The proposed congress had been likened to that of the allied sovereigns 
 of Europe (the " Holy Alliance"). But the pernicious character of the 
 European congress consisted not in their assembling and treating 
 together, but in the character of the governments and the objects to be 
 effected. The objections to a congress of despotic powers, wielding the 
 force of large standing armies, and concerting measures for violent inter- 
 ference in the internal affairs of other states, and especially to prevent 
 the establishment of free institutions, did not hpld against a congress of 
 republics governed by written laws and elective magistrates. 
 
THE PANAMA MTSSIOIf. 357 
 
 Having cdnsidered the principal objections to the measure, and en- 
 deavored to show that it was consistent with our international policy, the 
 committee considered the subjects of discussion, which, they said, by the 
 terms of the invitation, as well as from the nature of the case, were to 
 extend to all subjects of importance : (1.) To the new states, as among 
 each other. (2.) Or, as between them and Spain. (3.) Or of import- 
 ance directly to us, in our connection with them. Each power might 
 propose for discussion or negotiation any subject it pleased ; except that 
 the United States, as was understood, were to engage in no discussion 
 inconsistent with neutrality. 
 
 The importance, to us, of the relations of the new states to each other, 
 arose from their proximity to the United States. One of them, (Mexico,) 
 had an immense landed frontier on our territory, and, with tAvo others, 
 laid on those waters into which the great internal communications of the 
 United States were discharged. With all of them we had important 
 connections. Of the eight or nine independent states, formed out of the 
 late Spanish and Portuguese colonies, seven, viz. : Mexico, Guatemala, 
 Colombia, the Provinces of La Plata, Chili, Peru, and Upper Peru, had 
 adopted republican governments. It was to us a matter of interest how 
 these should stand toward each other. Should they fall into dissensions 
 and wars, the great advantages we had anticipated from their growth 
 and prosperity would not be realized. It would have been as well for 
 us and for themselves, that the mother country had continued to rule 
 them, as that their energies should be wasted in civil wars. Controver- 
 sies arising from rival claims to portions of territory, already existed, 
 and in one instance had resulted in war. It had already become neces- 
 sary to ask an additional appropriation for the naval service, of nearly 
 one hundred thousand dollars, to protect the lives and property of our 
 citizens from the dangers to which, in the progress of this war, they 
 would be exposed. Now, it was expressly provided in the treaties which 
 led to the formation of the congress at Panama, that the ministers there 
 assembled should exercise the office of mediators when such differences 
 should arise. To the work of mediation, the United States would come 
 as the most disinterested party. And if in but a single instance we 
 could avert or terminate a war, it would itself form a sufficient motive 
 for accepting the invitation. 
 
 Upon the subject of the relations of the new states with Spain, our 
 ministers were not only to observe a strict neutrality, but to endeavor 
 to effect a pacification ; an object to us of vast importance. The revival 
 of our languishing commerce with Spain, and its profitable expansion 
 with the new states, could be expected only from the termination of the 
 J^resent contest. 
 
358 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 But the most important subjects of discussion were thd direct inter- 
 ests between the United States and the new republics. With some of 
 them we had no treaties whatever ; and with Mexico, none that was 
 Batisfactory. A conference of the ministers of all these new statea 
 would afford the best opportunity of establishing liberal and uniform 
 relations with all. The United States, the committee said, had long 
 labored to introduce into public law more liberal and equal principles. 
 Our policy respecting the laws of war and trade differed in many points 
 from that of Europe : and these new republics now ask the benefit of 
 our experience in the great school of international politics. To refuse 
 our attendance when urged upon this ground, would be to neglect the 
 fairest opportunity ever afforded of diffusing liberal doctrines of public 
 law. 
 
 In accordance with the views of the committee, they recommended the 
 adoption of the following resolution : Resolved, That, in the opinion 
 of the house, it is expedient to appropriate the funds necessary to 
 enable the president of the United States to send ministers to the con- 
 gress of Panama. 
 
 A bill providing for the necessary appropriations was on the same 
 day, (March 25,) reported by the committee of ways and means. 
 
 The resolution was taken up in committee of the whole, on the 4th 
 of April. The debate commenced on an amendment offered by Mr. 
 M'Lane, of Delaware, proposing to instruct the ministers to attend the 
 congress in a diplomatic character merely, and forbidding them to dis- 
 cuss or consider any proposition of alliance or compact which should 
 bind us to resist interference from abroad with the domestic concerns of 
 the South American governments, or should commit the neutral rights 
 of the United States in regard to any other nations or states. 
 
 Among those who advocated the amendment, were Messrs. M'Lane, 
 Wickliffe, Rives, Hamilton, Buchanan, Hemphill, Ingham, Forsyth, 
 Archer, and Cambreleng; all of whom were opposed to the administra- 
 tion. The amendment was opposed by Messrs. Webster, Everett, 
 Livingston, Buckner, Fr. Johnson, Wurtz, Thompson, and others. All 
 the gentlemen last named were, it is believed, friends of the administrar 
 tion, except Mr. Livingston, of Louisiana. Several other amendments 
 and substitutes were offered in the course of the debate, but they were 
 all rejected. Mr. M'Lane's amendment was slightly modified before the 
 final vote was taken upon it. 
 
 The amendment of Mr. M'Lane was opposed as being an infringement 
 on the constitutional duties of the executive. The constitution vests 
 the executive power in the president ; and the giving of instructions to 
 ministers was an exercise of executive power. The amendment virtu 
 
THE PANAMA MISSION. 359 
 
 ally prescribed such instructions ; and its adoption would be an unau- 
 thorized assumption of power. 
 
 The general principle was also asserted, that the house was bound to 
 carry treaties into effect, irrespective of their expediency ; that the 
 question of expediency was one which the house was not called upon to 
 decide. Such was the opinion of Washington, who, when called on by 
 the house for a copy of the instructions to Mr. Jay, who had negotiated 
 the treaty with Great Britain, stated, as a reason for refusing to comply 
 with the request, that treaties, " when ratified by the president, with 
 the advice and consent of the senate, become obligatory ;" and " that 
 the assent of the house of representatives is not necessary to the validity 
 of a treaty." Congress was morally bound to pay the salaries of the 
 officirs of the government. The appointment of ministers, by whom 
 treaties were made, was also given to the president and senate; and hence 
 was inferred the duty of the house, in the present case, to vote the sal- 
 aries of the ministers who had been constitutionally appointed. 
 
 The proposed restriction upon the ministers in relation to any " pro- 
 position of alliance or compact, binding the United States to resist 
 interference from abroad with tlie South American governments," was 
 the subject of much discussion. *It seems to have been intended to 
 counteract the designs (if any existed) on the part of the executive, to 
 carry into effect the declaration of Mr. Monroe against European colo- 
 nization in America, and against any attempts of tho Allied Powers to 
 extend their system to any portion of tliis continent. One object which 
 Mr. Monroe had in view, was to prevent the occupation of the island 
 of Cuba by any other European power ; an event then not altogether 
 improbable, but which might endanger the safety of the United States. 
 The restriction, it was urged, would place it out of our power to coun- 
 teract such design. The president was known to coincide in this prin- 
 ciple of Mr. Monroe ; and Mr. Clay, in his general instructions to Mr. 
 Poinsett, our minister to Mexico, had requested him to bring to the 
 notice of the Mexican government the message of Mr. Monroe to con- 
 gress, in 1823, in which the declaration was made. 
 
 The advocates of the restriction would not look with indifference ou 
 an attempt by any power to interfere with the independence of these 
 republics, or to control their right of self-government ; but they desired 
 to be left free to adopt such measures as might be thought proper when 
 the crisis should arrive. They denied that the amendment contained 
 instructions, either to the president or to the ministers ; and therefore 
 it did not interfere with the constitutional rights of the executive. The 
 right and the propriety of the house to express its opinion respecting the 
 expediency of uniting in tho. contemplated congress, were asserted ; ae 
 
360 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 also the rigbt to withhold appropriations for the mission. It was held 
 that the constitutional power to do any act, implied a discretionary 
 power to determine its expediency. What rendered the exercise of this 
 power peculiarly proper in the present instance, was, that the question 
 was submitted to the judgment of the house in express terms by the 
 resolution of the committee. 
 
 The debate on the resolution of Mr. M'Lane continued in committee 
 of the whole, until the 20th of April, when the committee reported to 
 the house the resolution of the committee on foreign relations, without 
 amendment. Mr. M'Lane then moved, in the house, the amendment he 
 had offered in committee, which, after several ineffectual motions to 
 amend it, was adopted, 99 to 95. On the next day, the question was 
 taken on the resolution of the committee on foreign relations as amended 
 on motion of Mr. M'Lane, and decided in the negative: ayes, 54; noes, 
 143. 
 
 The bill providing for the expense of the mission was then taken up 
 in committee of the whole, slightly amended, and reported to the house. 
 Mr. M'Duffie moved to strike out the enacting clause, and supported his 
 motion by a long, animated, and violent speech. The motion was lost, 
 61 to 134. On the following day, (April 22,) the bill was passed, 134 
 to 60. 
 
 It is impossible from these several votes to determine precisely the 
 sense of the house upon the different points embraced in the general 
 question. Some of the friends of the administration and of the mission 
 without restriction, had voted for Mr. M'Lane's amendment, regarding 
 it as not hostile to the intentions of the president as expressed in his 
 message. The next day, however, some of them, considering the amend- 
 ment an encroachment on the constitutional rights of the executive, 
 united with those who were opposed to the mission as wholly inexpe- 
 dient, in rejecting the amended resolution. Some probably voted for 
 the bill appropriating the funds, who, though not friendly to the mission^ 
 considered it the duty of the house to make the appropriation without 
 expressing its opinion on the expediency of the mission. Hence it is 
 not certain, either that a majority of the house was in favor of the 
 mission unrestricted, or of asserting a right to give instructions in rela- 
 tion to our foreign policy. The bill was concurred in by the senate, 
 with but three dissenting votes. 
 
 The congress, composed of representatives from Colombia, Peru, Cen- 
 tral America, and Mexico, assembled at Panama on the 22d of June, 
 1826. The United States were not represented. Mr. Anderson, our 
 minister to Colombia, who had been ordered to attend the congress, died 
 on the way ; and the delay caused by the protracted discussion on tht 
 
CONTKOVEBSV WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 361 
 
 subject of the mission, in both houses of congress, prevented the attend 
 ance of Mr. Sergeant. Sufficient time did not remain after the decision 
 of the house to make the necessary preparation for his departure, and 
 to cross the isthmus in time to avoid exposure to the sickness which pre- 
 vailed there at a certain season of the year. 
 
 The congress closed its session the 15th of July; having concluded 
 a treaty of league and perpetual friendship, in which the states not re- 
 presented might join within the year. The congress adjourned to meet 
 Again in February, 1827, at Tacubaya, near the city of Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Poinsett, our minister to Mexico, was appointed commissioner 
 in the place of Mr. Anderson, deceased ; and Mr. Sergeant, with Mr. 
 Rochester, secretary of the mission, departed for Tacubaya in Novem- 
 ber. The congress, however, did not assemble ; owing, it was said, to 
 the internal commotions in Colombia, Peru, and Central America, which 
 had prevented the ratification, by their governments, of the treaties con- 
 cluded at Panama. Until this should be done, it was believed the con- 
 gress would not be resumed : and Messrs. Sergeant and Rochester re- 
 turned the following summer. 
 
 Thus terminated the Panama mission, which, though well intended, 
 and perhaps wise and proper if the congress had been fully attended, 
 was, by the opponents of Mr. Adams, turned to the disadvantage of his 
 administration. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA, IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE 
 
 INDIANS. 
 
 The removal and settlement of the Indian tribes beyond the Missis- 
 sippi, had been repeatedly made the subject of executive recommenda- 
 tion. Mr. Monroe, in a special message, March 30, 1824, called the 
 attention of congress to the subject ; and again on the 27th of January, 
 1825, a few weeks before the close of his administration. In the latter 
 message, the president said : " The great object to be accomplished is 
 the removal of these tribes to the territory designated, on conditions 
 which shall be satisfactory to themselves and honorable to the United 
 States. This can be done only by conveying to each tribe a good title 
 to an adequate portion of laud to which it may consent to remove, and 
 bj providing for it there a system of internal government, which shaU 
 
362 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 protect their property from invasion, and, by the regular progresH of 
 improvement and civilization, prevent that degeneracy which has gene- 
 rally marked the transition from the one to the other state." 
 
 The four principal southern tribes were the Creeks located in Georgia 
 and Alabama, and numbering about 20,000 ; the Cherokees, in Georgia, 
 Alabama, and Tennessee, 9,000 ; the Choctaws, in Mississippi and 
 Alabama, 21,000; and the Chiekasaws, in Mississippi, 3,625. For the 
 removal of the tribes within the limits of Georgia, the president consider- 
 ed the motive peculiarly strong, arising from an existing compact with 
 that state. 
 
 Georgia was the only state having large claims to unoccupied western 
 lands, which did not make an early cession of them to the United States. 
 At length, by a compact between the two governments, Georgia ceded 
 to the United States her right and title to all the lands south of the 
 state of Tennessee, and west of the Chatahoochie river, and a line drawn 
 from the Uchee direct to the Nicojack on the Tennessee river. In con- 
 sideration of this cession, the United States stipulated to pay the state 
 of Georgia $1,250,000, and " to extinguish at their own expense, for the 
 state of Georgia, the Indian title to the lands lying within the limits of 
 that state, as early as it could be peaceably obtained, and on reasonable 
 terms." 
 
 The quantity of land owned by the Creeks at that time within the 
 state of Georgia, was estimated at 10,578,890 acres. By several suc- 
 cessive treaties, the last of which was held in 1821, the United States 
 had procured the cession of 14,748,590 acres. At the date of the com- 
 pact, the Cherokees were in possession of 7,152,110 acres, of which 
 995,310 acres had been acquired by the general government for Georgia. 
 According to the report of the secretary of war accompanying the mes- 
 sage of January 27, 1825, the Creeks still claimed in Georgia, 4,245,760 
 acres; and the Cherokees 5,202,160 acres. And the two tribes claimed 
 in Alabama, 5,995,200 acres. The Cherokees claimed in Tennessee, 
 1,055,680 acres. The Choctaws and Chiekasaws, claimed in Mississippi, 
 15,705,000 acres, and 1,276,976 in Alabama. 
 
 In farther fulfillment of the stipulation of the United States to ex- 
 tinguish the Indian title to lands in Georgia, a treaty was made Feb- 
 ruary 12, 1825, with chiefs of the Creek nation, by which they ceded to 
 the United States their lands in Georgia, and agreed to receive in ex- 
 change for them a like quantity west of the Mississippi on the Arkansas 
 river, and the sum of $400,000 as a compensation for the improvements 
 made on their lands, for their losses and the inconveniences attending 
 their removal, and for obtaining supplies in their new settlement. They 
 •were to remove from their lands in Georgia by the 1st of Sept., 1826^ 
 
CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INPIANS. 363 
 
 The execution of this treaty by Gen, M'Intosh, one of the principal 
 chiefs, and a few others, without the consent of the representatives of 
 the Creek nation, gave great dissatisfaction. Under the policy adopted 
 at an early period, the southern Indians had become in a good measure 
 civilized, and were exchanging their habits of hunting for the pursuits 
 of agriculture. They were therefore averse to any farther sales, and 
 had enacted the punishment of death against any chief who should sanc- 
 tion such a measure. In accordance with this law, M'Intosh and one 
 or two other chiefs were summarily executed for this unauthorized and 
 fraudulent transaction. 
 
 It was this treaty that led to the unhappy controversy between the 
 state of Georgia and the general government. The Indians were deter- 
 mined not to leave their lands ; and the government of Georgia insisted 
 on the fulfillment of the treaty. A special meeting of the legislature 
 was called by Gov. Troup, for the purpose, chiefly, of providing for the 
 survey and appropriation of the territory acquired from the Creeks, 
 The governor, however, took occasion to notice another subject, which 
 from its supposed superior importance, or for other reasons, took pre 
 cedence in the deliberations of the legislature. The language and con^ 
 duct of the governor and the legislature, and especially that of the com 
 mittee to whom the subject was referred, were generally regarded as 
 both ludicrous and reprehensible. 
 
 Mr. King, a senator from New York, had at the preceding session of 
 congress, offered a resolution proposing to appropriate, after the pay- 
 ment of the public debt, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, to 
 aid in the emancipation of slaves, and the colonizing of free persons of 
 color, without the limits of the United States. This resolution had 
 never been called up by the mover, being intended, as was supposed, 
 merely for record as his opinion on the subject to which it related. 
 Similar propositions had been pressed upon the consideration of congress 
 by the legislatures of several slaveholding states. Also Mr. Wirt, of 
 Virginia, attorney-general of the United States, had given an official 
 opinion, that a law of South Carolina, authorizing the imprisonment of 
 colored mariners arriving there, was unconstitutional. 
 
 These acts of Mr. King and Mr. Wirt, were pronounced by the gov- 
 ernor in his message, " officious and impertinent intermeddlings with 
 our domestic concerns." The doctrine of the attorney-general, if sanc- 
 tioned by the supreme court, " would make it quite easy for congress, 
 by a short decree, to divest this entire interest, without cost to them- 
 selves of one dollar, or of one acre of public land. If the government 
 of the United States," said the governor, " wishes a principle established 
 which it dare not establish for itself, a cause is made before the supreme 
 
364 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 court ; and the principle once settled, the act of congress follows ol 
 course. One movement of congress unresisted by you, and all is lest. 
 Temporize no longer — make known your resolution, that this subject 
 shall not be touched by them but at their peril. * * * If this 
 matter, (slavery,) be an evil, it is our own ; if it be a sin, we can implore 
 the forgiveness of it. To remove it, we ask not either their sympathy or 
 assistance. It may be our physical weakness — it is our moral strength. 
 If, like the Greeks and Romans, we cease to be masters, we are slaves. 
 I entreat you most earnestly, now that it is not too late, to step forth, 
 and, having exhausted the argument, to stand by your arms." 
 
 This subject was referred to a select committee, who presented to the 
 house a report responding to the feelings and sentiments of tlie governor. 
 " The hour is come," say the committee, "or is rapidly approaching 
 when the states, from Virginia to Georgia, from Missouri to Louisiana, 
 must confederate, and, as one man, say to the union : " We will no 
 longer submit our retained rights to the sniveling insinuations of bad 
 men on the floor of congress — our constitutional rights to the dark and 
 strained construction of designing men upon judicial benches ; that we 
 detest the doctrine, and disclaim the principle, of unlimited submission 
 to the general government. * * * 
 
 " Let our northern brethren, then, if there is no peace m anion, if 
 the compact has become too heavy to be longer borne, in the name of all 
 the mercies, find peace among themselves. Let them continue to rejoice 
 in their self righteousness ; let them bask in their own elysium, while 
 they depict all south of the Potomac as a hideous reverse. As Athens, 
 as Sparta, as Rome was, we will be : they held slaves; we hold them. 
 Let the north then form national roads for themselves; let them guard 
 with tariffs their own interest ; let them deepen their public debt until 
 a high-minded aristocracy shall arise out of it. We want none of all 
 those blessings. But in the simpRcity of the patriarchal government, we 
 would still remain master and servant under our own vine and our own 
 fig tree, and confide for safety upon Him, who of old time, looked down 
 upon this state of things v.nthout wrath." 
 
 The committee concluded their report with two resolutions, declaring 
 their concurrence in the sentiments of the governor, and for the support 
 of their determination to •' stand by their arms," pledging their lives, 
 their fortunes, and their sacred honor; and requesting the governor to 
 forward copies of the resolutions to the governors of the several states, 
 and to their own senators and representatives in congress. 
 
 On the next day, (June 7,) another message was communicated, in 
 which the governor again adverted to the resolutions of the state legis- 
 latures on the subject of slavery, and the acts of the individuals beford 
 
CONTROVERSY WITH OEORGIA ^REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 365 
 
 mentioned ; complained of the efforts that had been made to render 
 unavailing the guaranties of the constitution ; and concluded thus : 
 
 " The attorney-general, representing the United States, says before 
 the supreme court, in a ripe and splendid argument, that slavery, being 
 inconsistent with the laws of God and nature, can not exist. Do we 
 want more ? or shall we wait until the principle being decided against 
 us, the execution issues, and the entire property is bought in from the 
 proceeds of our public lands ? This is left to your decision. The 
 United States can choose between our enmity and our love; and when 
 you offer them the choice, you perform the last and holiest of duties. 
 Thay have adopted a conceit ; and if they love that more than they love 
 us, they will cling to it and throw us off ; but it will be written in your 
 history, that you did not separate from the household without adopting 
 the fraternal language : choose ye«this day between our friendship and 
 that worthless idol you have set up and worshiped." 
 
 The object of Grov. Troup in his endeavors to excite apprehensions at 
 the south of a meditated attempt on the part of the general government, 
 to divest them of their slave property, and to produce insurrections, the 
 reader is left to conjecture. 
 
 But to return to the subject of the Indian difficulties. The attempt, 
 by Georgia, to survey the Indian territory, was resisted by the Creeks ; 
 and the president ordered the projected survey to be abandoned, until 
 the time prescribed by the treaty for their removal. And Gen. Gaines, 
 who had been ordered to the scene of the disturbances, and required to quell 
 them by force, if necessary, or, in the event of hostilities having sub- 
 sided, to make peace upon just principles, and prevent farther acts of 
 retaliation or violence, informed Gov. Troup in a letter, (June 14,) that 
 he was authorized to state to the Indians, that the president had 
 required a postponement of the survey. The governor promptly replied, 
 that the laws of Georgia were already extended over the ceded country, 
 and, of course, that it was his duty to execute them; and that the 
 statutory provisions on the subject would be found in the late act " to 
 dispose of and distribute the lands lately acquired from the Creek 
 nation." 
 
 Gen. Gaines had been requegied (June 13) to inform the government, 
 without delay, of Gov. Troup's desire that the line between Georgia and 
 Alabama should be run as early as possible. The latter declared his 
 intention immediately to apprise the governor of Alabama to run the 
 line between the two states, and ask his consent and cooperation ; and 
 said: '* If that consent and cooperation be refused, we will proceed to 
 run the line without them ; as we will also proceed, in due time, to 
 make the survey of the lands within our limits, disregarding aiiy objta • 
 
366 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 cles which may be opposed from any quarter." He said the government 
 had issued its order upon false information of its agent, (Col. Crowell,) 
 and thus reiterated his determination : " It is for you, therefore, to bring 
 it to the issue ; it is for me only to repeat, that, cost what it will, the line will 
 be run, and the survey executed. The government of Georgia will not 
 retire from the position it occupies to gratify the agent of the hostile 
 Indians; nor will it do so, I trust, because it knows that, in conse- 
 quence of disobedience to an unlawful mandate, it may be very soon 
 recorded, that 'Georgia was.' " 
 
 A few days after. Gov. Troup received a letter from the war depart- 
 ment, dated June 15, 1825, saying, if the government of Georgia should 
 undertake the project of surveying the lands ceded to the United States 
 by the Creeks in the treaty of the Indian Springs, before the expiration 
 of the time specified for the removal of the Indians, it would be wholly 
 upon its own responsibility ; and that the government of the United 
 States would not, in any manner, be responsible for any consequences 
 which might result from that measure. 
 
 In his reply of June 25, the governor said : " If it is intended that 
 the government of the United States will interpose its power to prevent 
 the survey, or if only it means, that omitting its constitutional duty it 
 will not pacify the Indians, and make safe the frontier, while the ofiicers 
 of Georgia are in peaceful fulfillment of their instructions, * * * iu 
 either event, the president may rest content that the government of Geor- 
 gia cares for no responsibilities in the exercise of its right, and the exe- 
 cution of its trust, but those which belong to conscience and to God, who, 
 thanks to him, is equally our God as the God of the United States." 
 For the right of making the survey before the time at which the Indians 
 were to give up the possession, the governor relied on the consent ob- 
 tained from the party that executed the treaty. 
 
 Gen. Gaines, on the 10th of July, 1825, informed Gov. Troup that 
 the chiefs of both parties had assured him that they would remain at 
 peace with each other, and in no case injure the citizens of the United 
 States ; there would, therefore, be no occasion for calling into service 
 any of the military force of that state. And in this letter the general 
 inclosed the certificate of William Edwai'ds and Joseph Marshall, (the 
 latter an interpreter of the council of chiefs of the M'Intosb party,) 
 stating, that, in answer to the request for permission to survey the 
 land, M'Intosh had said he could not grant it, but would call the chiefs 
 together, and lay it before them, which was never done. The governor, 
 in proof of his having obtained such consent, referred to a letter of 
 Gen. M'Intosh, saying : " If the general government and the agent of 
 the Creek nation, with the party he influences make no objection or op" 
 
CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 367 
 
 position to running or surveying the land, myself and the chiefs and the 
 Indians who were in favor of the treaty, do not object — we give our 
 oonaent." 
 
 But admitting the treaty to have been lawfully executed, and the 
 alleged consent to have been fully given, it was held that such consent 
 could not confer the right claimed by Georgia. The sovereignty of the 
 soil was ceded to the United States : therefore Georgia could not law- 
 fully bargain with the chiefs for the right of survey, without the assent 
 of the United States. Nor could the general government itself grant 
 the right in question, before the expiration of the period within which 
 the removal was to take place ; until which time, the United States were 
 bound to protect the Indians "against the encroachments, hostilities, 
 and impositions of the whites and all others." 
 
 Gen. Gaines, who had met the chiefs of the M'Intosh party, and after- 
 ward, at Broken Arrow, the hostile party, with a view to the adjustment 
 of differences, as before mentioned, had found, as he said, the reputed 
 hostile party to consist of all the principal chiefs, and forty-nine fiftieths 
 of the whole of the chiefs, head men and warriors of the nation, and 
 considered them as in fact the Creek nation, and altogether free of the 
 spirit of hostility ascribed to them. They objected to the treaty, alleg- 
 ing that it was fraudulent, entered into contrary to the law and will of 
 the nation, and by persons not authorized to treat, and refused to acqui- 
 esce in it. 
 
 These facts and allegations having been communicated to the govern- 
 ment, Mr. Barbour, secretary of war, under date of July 21, informed 
 Gov. Troup that they were considered as presenting a question beyond the 
 cognizance of the executive, and would be referred to congress ; and that 
 the faith of the United States being pledged to protect the Indians from 
 encroachment till the time of their removal, the president had directed 
 him " to state distinctly to his excellency, that, for the present, he will 
 not permit the survey to be made." Mr. Barbour also informed Geu. 
 Gaines of the president's determination, and intimated the possibility 
 of " a collision, by overt acts, between the executive of the union and 
 that of a state," however " repugnant to the feelings of the president;" 
 adding: "If Gov. Troup shall persevere in his declared purpose of 
 surveying the land against the repeated remonstrances of the department, 
 it will present one of the most unfortunate events which have yet occur- 
 red in our history." 
 
 It may be proper here to state, that Col. Crowell, against whom, as 
 Indian agent of the government, certain charges had been preferred by 
 Gov. Troup, and whose agency had been suspended until an examination 
 could be had, was acquitted, and restored to the duties of his agency 
 
368 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 In the course of the correspondence between Gen. Gaines and Gov. 
 Troup, some altercation took place. The ill-natured letters of the gov- 
 ernor drew from the general a reply marked more strongly with sarcasm 
 and invective, than with the qualities which usually distinguish diplo- 
 matic communications. This letter, dated duly 28, and addressed to the 
 governor through the Georgia Journal, was followed by a note to the 
 general, (August 6,) directing him to forbear farther intercourse with 
 the government of Georgia, and informing him that his conduct would 
 be represented to the president. 
 
 A long letter, (August 7,) was accordingly addressed to the president, 
 animadverting upon the conduct and correspondence of Gen. Gaines, 
 and preferring an extraordinary accusation, in the most exceptionablb 
 language, against the president himself. After having charged Gen. 
 Gaines with " indiscretion, intemperance, deliberate disrespect, and the 
 outrage of all decency," he adds : " The general is correct in one of his 
 positions; and, being in the right himself, he puts you in the wrong, ^d 
 60 conspicuously, that you stand on the insulated eminejice^ mi ahnost 
 'solitary advocate for making and hrealdng treaties^ 
 
 Gen. Gaines was accused, among other things, of having used his influ- 
 ence against Gov. Troup, who was a candidate for reelection. Associat- 
 ing with the general for crimination other representatives of the govern- 
 ment, he repeats the charge of " a most insulting interference with our 
 local politics," and imputes to them " arrogance, self-sufficiency and a 
 haughty and contemptuous carriage toward all the constituted authori- 
 ties of the state;" adding as follows . " Now, sir, suffer me in conclu- 
 sion to ask if these things have been done in virtue of your instructions, 
 expressed or implied, or by authority of any warrant from you what- 
 soever ; and if not so, whether you will sanction and adopt them as your 
 own, and thus hold yourself responsible to the government of Georgia.'' 
 
 On receiving the letter from the department of July 2 1 , declaring so 
 decidedly the intention of the president to prevent intrusions upon the 
 Indian territory, and to refer the treaty to congress, the governor con- 
 cluded to defer the execution of his purpose. In his answer, (August 
 15,) he says : " Until the will of the legislature of Georgia is expressed, 
 no measures will be taken to execute the survey. The executive of 
 Georgia has no authority, in the civil war with which the state is 
 menaced, to strike the first blow, nor has it the inclination to provoke 
 it." He still insisted, however, on the right to make the survey, pro- 
 tested against the reference of the treaty to congress, and concluded by 
 saying : " The legislature of Georgia will, on its first meeting, be advised 
 to resist any effort which may be made to wrest from the state the terri^ 
 tory acquired by that treaty, and no matter by what authority that effort 
 
CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 369 
 
 be made. * • * Our right not asserted now, is lost forever. If 
 the legislature shall fail to vindicate that right, the responsibility will 
 be theirs, not mine." 
 
 Gen. Gaines having continued his personal and caustic letters to the 
 governor, the latter (August 31) demanded of the president the arrest 
 and trial of the general according to the articles of war. The president 
 (Sept. 19) informed Gen. Gaines of this demand, and of his decision not 
 to accede to it; but expressed his disapprobation of the writing and pub- 
 lishing of the letters, and enjoined him, " in his future official inter- 
 course with Gov. Troup, to abstain from every thing which may be 
 deemed offensive;" adding, that he regarded the previous charges against 
 him by Gov Troup, and the publicity given to them, as affording a pal- 
 liation of his conduct ; without which, he (the president) would have 
 considered it his duty to yield to the demand. This decision was also 
 communicated to Gov. Troup, with a copy of the letter to Gen. Gaines. 
 
 The interest awakened by this controversy was not confined to this 
 country. The belligerent attitude of Gedl-gia toward the general gov- 
 ernment, was a prominent topic of newspaper remark abroad, and gained 
 for that state and its valorous executive a wide notoriety. Apprehen- 
 sions of a civil war were seriously entertained on the other side of the 
 Atlantic, and a rupture of the union was regarded as among the prob- 
 able consequences. Our government was considered too weak to endure, 
 answering well enough for a small community, but inadequate to the 
 wants of a great and growing nation. A state, thwarted in its interests 
 by the measures of the general government, naturally looked to separa- 
 tion as the remedy. More correct opinions, however, generally pre- 
 vailed even among foreigners. No serious alarm was extensively felt in 
 this country'; how much soever the injury inflicted by this affair upon 
 our national character abroad was to be regretted. 
 
 The executive, having endeavored in vain to obtain the acquiescence 
 of the Creeks to the treaty, and anxious to effect an amicable settlement 
 of the controversy, succeeded, after much effort, in making a new treaty, 
 (January 24, 1826,) which was satisfactory to the Indians, and by which 
 was obtained, with the exception of only a small quantity, all their land 
 lying within the state of Georgia. The treaty was negotiated at "Wash- 
 ington by James Barbour, secretary of war, on the part of the United 
 States, and a delegation of Indians duly authorized by the Creek nation. 
 
 On the 3 1 st of January, it was submitted to the senate for ratifica- 
 tion. At the suggestion of the Georgia senators, and with the view of 
 securing to that state the whole of the Creek lands lying within the 
 same, a new negotiation was entered into, and a supplementary article 
 agreed on, extending two of the lines limiting the former cession, by 
 
 24 
 
370 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 
 
 which the desired object would probably be attained depending on the 
 establishment of the line to be run between Georgia and Alabama. The 
 additional article was communicated to the senate the 31st of March; 
 and, on the 22d of April, the treaty thus amended, having been duly 
 ratified, was proclaimed by the president. 
 
 In the house, the bill " making appropriations to carry the treaty into 
 effect," met with violent opposition from the Georgia members, who re- 
 corded their protest, asserting the validity of the former treaty, denying 
 the right of the president and senate, without the consent of Georgia, to 
 invalidate the right which that treaty secured to her ; and they objected 
 to the new treaty that it did not, by an express provision, cede all the 
 lands of the Creeks in that state, nor require their removal before Jan- 
 uary, 1827. The bill was passed May 9, 1826, by 167 yeas to 10 nays. 
 
 But the controversy was not yet settled. Unwilling to submit to the 
 terms of the new treaty. Gov. Troup (July 24) ordered the surveys to 
 be commenced the first of September, 1826. The commissioners ap- 
 pointed to establish the boundaries between Georgia and Alabama having 
 been unable to agree, the Georgia commissioners proceeded alone to run 
 the line. 
 
 In January, 1827, complaints reached the department, that the Georgia 
 surveyors had passed the line established by the treo,ty, and were survey- 
 ing lands not ceded. The fact was communicated by the president to 
 congress, February 5, with the information that he had ordered prosecu- 
 tions against the intruders for the penalties incurred ; and that if acts 
 of encroachment were not discontinued, the military force would be em- 
 ployed to aid in executing the laws. The subject was referred to a com- 
 mittee in each house. The senate committee concluded their report re- 
 commending a resolution, requesting the president " to continue his exer- 
 tions to obtain from the Creek Indians the relinquishment of any claim 
 to lands within the limits of Georgia." 
 
 The committee of the house, at the close of along report recapitulating 
 the facts relating to the controversy, recommend the adoption of two re- 
 solutions : (1.) " That it is expedient to procure a cession of the Indian 
 lands in the state of Georgia." (2.) " That, until such a cession is pro- 
 cured, the law of the land, as set forth in the treaty of Washington, 
 ought to be maintained by all necessary, constitutional, and legal means." 
 This report was made on the last day of the session ; and there was con- 
 sequently no time for a full discussion of the resolutions. Mr. Drayton, 
 of South Carolina, offered a series of resolutions, declaring that Georgia 
 possessed the right to the soil occupied by the Creeks ; the right herself 
 to extinguish the title to the same, and to legislate for the Indians ; the 
 right to survey the laud ; and that the treaty of the Indian Springs was 
 
CONl'ltOVERSY WITH GEORGIA. REMOVAL OF THE INDIANS. 371 
 
 valid. No other action on the subject was taken, except ordering 6,000 
 copies of the report and accompanying documents to be printed. 
 
 Assurances that efforts would continue to be made by the president to 
 obtain from the Indians a relinquishment of the small remainder of their 
 unceded lands in Gi-eorgia, and that the opening of fresh negotiations had 
 been prevented by the delay in fixing the dividing line between Gi-eorgia 
 and Alabama, seem in a measure to have repressed, for a time, the hostile 
 feelings of Grov. Troup toward the executive. But on his being officially 
 apprised of the president's determination, expressed in his message to 
 congress on the 5th of February, to employ force, if necessary, in ex- 
 ecuting the laws, his hostility revived ; and, in a letter to the department, 
 February 17, declares his purpose " to resist, to the utmost, any military 
 attack from the government of the United States," and that measures 
 for such resistance were in progress. " From the first, decisive act of hos- 
 tility," says the letter, " you will be considered and treated as a public 
 enemy, and with the less repugnance, because you, to whom we might 
 constitutionally have appealed for our own defense against invasion, are 
 yourselves the invaders ; and what is more, the unblushing allies of the 
 iavages, whose cause you have adopted." 
 
 On the same day, the attorney and solicitors general of the state were 
 ordered to take the proper measures to effect the liberation of any sur- 
 veyors that had been or might be arrested, by any civil process, under 
 the authority of the general government, and to bring to justice the 
 persons concerned in such arrestation. Major-generals were also re- 
 quired to issue orders to hold in readiness their regiments and battalions 
 to repel any hostile invasion of the territory of the state. 
 
 Measures of resistance, however, appear to have been suddenly ar- 
 rested. A few days after the governor's defiatory letter to the secretary 
 of war, he addressed a letter to the Georgia delegation in congress, ex- 
 pressing his pleasure on having just learned, that, since the communica- 
 tion of the secretary of war of the 29th of January, informing him of 
 the intended employment of force to expel the surveyors, the president 
 had taken measures to procure the residue of the Indian lands. The 
 letter bears indications of having been written with subdued feelings. It 
 says : " You are at liberty to state to the councils before whom you 
 represent the interests and rights of this state, that the governor of 
 Q-eorgia has never entertained the idea of resorting to military force to 
 counteract measures of the government of the United States, but on 
 the occasion where it was deemed better in honor, in conscience, and in 
 4uty, to sacrifice every thing we hold dear, than unresistingly to submit." 
 
 The governor was not pleased with the reference of the question to 
 the supreme court. He said : " It will be for the government of Georg.'a 
 
372 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ultimately to submit, or not, to the decision of that tribunal." He did 
 iiot consider the supreme court the constitutional arbiter in controversies 
 involving rights of sovereignty between a state and the United States. 
 He complained of the wrong, cruelly inflicted, of having been charged 
 with seeking a dissolution of the union, and concluded with the hope of 
 success to the contemplated negotiation, and an amicable adjustment of 
 difficulties, wishing them to " make use of this disclosure and explana- 
 tion" in endeavoring to promote the peace and harmony which ought 
 always to subsist between the states and the United States, in which he 
 assures them none can feel deeper concern than himself. The controversy 
 was at length concluded, about the first of January, 1828, by a tivaty for 
 the purchase of their remaining strip of land in Georgia. 
 
 The policy recommended in the message of Monroe to which we have 
 alluded, of effecting the removal of the Indian tribes beyond the Missis- 
 sippi, seems not to have been lost sight of by the succeeding administra- 
 tion. In compliance with a request from the committee on Indian affairs, 
 Mr. Barbour, the secretary of war, on the 3d of February, 1826, trans- 
 mitted to the chairman of that committee, the project of " a bill for the 
 preservation and civilization of the Indian tribes within the United 
 States," with a report elucidating its purposes. The secretary in this 
 admirable report, deplores their threatened extinction ; recognizes their 
 appeals to our compassion ; and recommends the adoption of a just and 
 humane policy as due alike to the Indians and to the character of our 
 nation. The following paragraphs from this report will be read with 
 interest : 
 
 " It is the province of history to commit to its pages the transactions 
 of nations. Posterity look to this depository with intense interest. The 
 fair fame of their ancestors, a most precious inheritage, is to them equally 
 a source of pride, and a motive of continued good actions. But she per- 
 forms her province with impartiality. The authority she exercises in 
 the absence of others, is a check on bad rule. The tyrant and the 
 oppressor see, in the character of their prototypes, the sentence posterity 
 is preparing for them. Which side of the picture shall we elect ? for the 
 decision is left to ourselves. Shall her record transmit the present race 
 to future generations, as standing by, insensible to the progress of the 
 desolation which threatens the remnant of this people ? or, shall these 
 unfriendly characters give place to a generous effort which shall have 
 been made to save them from destruction ? While deliberating on this 
 polfimn question, I would appeal to that high Providence, whose delight 
 is justice and mercy, and take counsel from the oracles of his-will, revealed 
 to man, in his terrible denunciations against the oppressor. 
 
 " In reviewing the past, justice requires that the humane attempts of 
 
CONTROVERSY WITH GEORGIA REMOVAL OF THE INLIANS, 373 
 
 the federal government, coeval with its origin, should receive an honor, 
 ahle notice. That they hare essentially failed, the sad experience of 
 every day but too strongly testifies. If the original plan, conceived in a 
 spirit of benevolence, had not been fated to encounter that as yet una- 
 bated desire to bereave them of their lands, it would, perhaps, have real- 
 ized much of the hopes of its friends. So long, however, as that desire 
 continues to direct our councils, every attempt must fail. A cursory 
 review is all that is necessary to show the incongruity of the measures 
 we have pursued, and the cause of their failure. 
 
 " Missionaries are sent among them to enlighten their minds, by 
 imbuing them with religious impressions. Schools have been established 
 by the aid of private as well as public donations, for the instruction of 
 their youths. They have been persuaded to abandon the chase — to 
 locate themselves, and become cultivators of the soil. Implements of 
 husbandry and domestic animals have been ptesentod them, and all 
 these things have been done, accompanied with professions of a 
 disinterested solicitude for their happiness. Yielding to these tempta- 
 tions, some of them have reclaimed the forest, planted their orchards, 
 and erected houses, not only for their abode, but for the administra- 
 tion of justice, and for religious worship. And when they have so 
 done, yoii send your agent to tell them they must surrender their 
 country to the white man, and recommit themselves to some new desert, 
 and substitute, as the means of their subsistence, the precarious chase 
 for the certainty of cultivation. The love of our native land is implanted 
 in every human bosom, whether he roams the wilderness or is found in 
 the highest state of civilization. This attachment increases with the 
 comforts cf our country, and is strongest when these comforts are the 
 fruits of our own exertions.' We have imparted this feeling to many of 
 the tribes by our own measures. Can it be matter of surprise that they 
 hear, with unmixed indignation, of what seems to them our ruthless pur- 
 pose of expelling them from their country thus endeared ? They see that 
 our professions are insincere ; that our promises have been broken ; that 
 the happiness of the Indian is a cheap sacrifice to the acquisition of new 
 lands ; and when attempted to be soothed by an assurance that the 
 country to which we propose to send them is desirable, they emphatically 
 *sk us : ' What new pledges can you give us that we shall not again be 
 exiled when it is your wish to possess these lands ?' It is easier to state 
 than to answer this question. A regard to consistency, apart from (ivery 
 other consideration, requires a change of measures. Either let him 
 retain and enjoy his home, or, if he is to be driven from it, abstain from 
 cherishing illusions we mean to disappoint, and thereby make him to feel 
 more sensibly the extent of his loss. " 
 
I 
 
 374 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The bill prepared by the secretary provided, (1.) A country to be 
 procured west of the Mississippi, and beyond the states and territories, 
 for their future and permanent residence ; the right to the soil and pro 
 tection against the intrusion of white settlers to be guarantied to them. 
 (2.) Their removal by individuals, or by portions of tribes, if the whole 
 tribes were unwilling to remove. (3.) Establishing and maintaining a 
 territorial government by the United States for their protection and 
 civilization. (4.) If circumstances should ultimately justify it, the 
 extinction of tribes and their amalgamation into one mass, and a distri- 
 bution of property among the individuals, instead of its being held in 
 common by a tribe. (5.) The condition of those that remain to be left 
 unaltered. 
 
 No definitive action, however, was had upon this bill ; nor was any 
 proposition for the removal of the Indian tribes adopted during the 
 administration of Mr. Adams. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 RUSSIAN AND BRITISH CLAIMS ON THE PACIFIC COAST. OCCUPATION OF 
 
 COLUMBIA RIVER. PUBLISHING THE LAWS. 
 
 Portions of the coast on the Pacific ocean, north of the 42d degree 
 of north latitude, were claimed by the United States, Russia and Great 
 Britain. But prior to the treaty of the 5th of April, 1824, between the 
 United States and Russia, the territorial boundaries of neither of the 
 claimants had been established. 
 
 By a resolution of the house of representatives, February 16, 1822, 
 the president was requested " to communicate to the house, whether anj 
 foreign government had claimed any part of the territory of the United 
 States on the coast of the Pacific ocean, north of the 42d degree of lati- 
 tude, and whether any regulations had been made by any foreign powers 
 afi"ecting the trade on that coast," &c. In compliance with this resolu- 
 tion, the president, on the 15th of April, communicated the correspond- 
 ence between our government and the governments of Russia and Great 
 Britain. 
 
 Pierre de Poletica, Russian minister at Washington, on the II th of 
 February, 1822,^iad transmitted to Mr. Adams, secretary of state, a 
 printed copy of a regulation adopted by the Russian American company, 
 and sanctioned by the emperor. This regulation interdicted the approach 
 of all vessels except Russian, within one hundred Italian miles of the 
 
RUSSIAN AND BRITISH CLAIMS ON THE PACIFIC COAST. 375 
 
 ehore of any territory claimed by that government, and assumed a right 
 to the territory as far south as the 51st degree of north latitude. This 
 territorial claim, as well as the right to exclude our vessels from the 
 shore beyond the ordinary distance, to which territorial jurisdiction 
 extends, our government was unwilling to concede. 
 
 Mr. Adams, in reply, said it had been expected that the boundary 
 would have been arranged by treaty. And he asked explanations of the 
 grounus of such claim and regulations, upon principles generally recog- 
 nized by the laws and usages of nations. 
 
 It was answered, that Russia based her territorial claims upon dis- 
 coveries ; the first of which was dated back to the time of the emperor, 
 Peter I. Captain Behring made his first voyage of discovery in 1728. 
 In his second expedition, 1741, discoveries were made as far south as 
 the 49th degree of north latitude ; and establishments were soon after 
 formed by Russians along the coast. In 1799, the emperor, Paul I, 
 granted to the Russian American company their first charter, which gave 
 them the exclusive possession of the coast from the 55th degree to Beh- 
 ring's strait, and permitted them to extend their discoveries south, and 
 to form establishments, provided they did not encroach upon territory 
 occupied by other powers. 
 
 The treaty by which Spain ceded the Floridas, and certain territory 
 west of the Mississippi, gave to the United States all that belonged te 
 Spain north of the 42d degree, but did not define the northern boundary. 
 
 From the foregoing facts it appeared, that the rights of Russia speci- 
 fied in the regulations of the Russian American company, rested on the 
 three bases required by the general law and usage of nations: (1.) The 
 first discovery. (2.) First occupation. (3.) Peaceable and undisputed 
 possession for more than fifty years. As Spain never had a title to ter- 
 ritory beyond the line assigned for the limits of the Russian possessions, 
 and as the United States had no other title than that acquired by the 
 treaty of the 22d of February, 1819, above mentioned, the establishment 
 of this line could not interfere with the just claims of the United States. 
 The 51st degree had been selected, as being the mean point between the 
 Russian establishment at New Archangel, under the 57th degree, and 
 the American colony at the mouth of the Columbia river, under the 
 46th degree. 
 
 The prohibition of foreign vessels for so great a distance, was but a 
 measure of prevention, and was directed against foreign adventurers who 
 were not content with exercising an illicit trade on the coast, injurious 
 to the rights of the Russian American company, but furnished arms and 
 ammunition to the natives, exciting them likewise to resistance and re- 
 volt against the authorities in the Russian possessions. A majority of 
 
376 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 these adventurers had been American citizens. Possessing territory 
 also on the Asiatic side of the Pacific from the strait to the 45th degree 
 of north latitude, Russia might exercise the rights of sovereignty over 
 the whole sea, north of the 51st degree ! 
 
 Mr. Adams dissented from the principle upon which Russia had ex- 
 tended her claim to the 51st degree, viz., that it was equidistant from 
 New Archangel and the mouth of the Columbia river. Since the limits 
 prescribed by the emperor Paul to the Russian American company were 
 fixed at the 55th degree, no settlement had been made justifiying any 
 claim to territory south of that point. New Archangel, it was said, too, 
 was not situated on the continent, but was a small settlement upon a 
 small island, in latitude 57. With regard to the prohibition upon foreign 
 vessels, Mr. A. said the vessels of the United States, had, during our 
 existence as an independent nation, freely navigated those seas, and the 
 right to navigate them was a part of that independence. Respecting 
 the absurd suggestion that Russia might have made a close sea of the 
 Pacific because she claims territory on both shores, he thought it suffi- 
 cient to say, that the distance from shore to shore in latitude^5 1 , was 
 4,000 miles ! Nor could the United States admit the justice of the 
 reason assigned for the prohibition. The right of our citizens to trade 
 with the aboriginal natives beyond the territorial jurisdiction of other 
 nations even in arms and munitions of war, was as clear and indisput- 
 able as that of navigating the seas. And if any well founded charge had 
 ever been made against our citizens for a violation of that right, it 
 would have received the most pointed attention of the government. 
 
 The Russian minister, in reply, adduced new arguments to establish 
 the claims of his government to the 51st degree. The great extent of 
 the ocean did not invalidate the right to make it a close sea. The im- 
 perial government, however, had never taken advantage of that right. 
 As to the right claimed for our citizens of trading with the natives with- 
 out the limits of Russian jurisdiction, his government did not think of 
 limiting it; but if it should be extended beyond the 51st degree, it 
 would meet with difficulties for which the American owners must accuse 
 their own imprudence ! 
 
 The negotiation, at the request of the imperial government, was sub 
 eequently transferred to St. Petersburgh, where a treaty was concluded 
 the 5th of April, 1824, by our minister, Henry Middleton, and Count 
 Nesselrode. By this treaty, the boundary line was established at 54 
 degrees 40 minutes north latitude. The citizens of the United States 
 were not to resort to any point where there was a Russian establishment 
 without permission of the governor or commander : and the subjects of 
 Russia were under similai restrictions as to American establishments. 
 
OCCUPATION OF COLUMBIA RIVER. 377 
 
 And for the term of ten years, the vessels of both parties were to have free 
 admission into the interior seas, gulfs, harhors, and creeks upon the 
 coast, for the purposes of fishing and trading with the natives. 
 
 Mi". Monroe, in his annual message to congress, December 7, 1824, 
 recommended the establishment of a military post at or near the mouth 
 of the Columbia river, to protect our increased and increasing fisheries 
 on the Pacific. A bill for this purpose was accordingly introduced into 
 the house, with an additional provision, directing the president to open 
 a port of entry in the territory, and empowering him to appoint a gov- 
 ernor, judges and other officers for the territory. These provisions 
 were, however, struck out of the bill. The establishment of a territorial 
 government was considered premature ; and the opening of a port of 
 entry, and the consequent demand of duties from British traders, would 
 interfere with the treaty with Great Britain, by which a free and open 
 trade was guarantied to both powers for a certain term of years. This 
 gave rise to a discussion, in congress, of the claims of Great Britain on 
 the north-west coast. 
 
 It was held that Great Britain had no just claim to any part of the 
 territory. Spanish navigators had first discovered the coast as far as 
 the 58th degree of north latitude. The claim of Spain, founded on first 
 discovery, became ours by the treaty of the 22d of April, 1819. We 
 had claimed the country before the war of 1812, as had also Russia and 
 England. But their titles were mere pretenses. Our government had 
 Bent out Lewis and Clark to explore the country ; and soon after, our 
 fur traders took possession near the mouth of the Columbia or Oregon 
 river, and in 1810 built there the little town called Astoria. After the 
 commencement of the war, the British traders, aided by the Indians, 
 drove our traders from the country, and held it until the treaty of 
 Ghent, when, according to the stipulation of that treaty, it was restored. 
 Possession was taken by Mr. Prevost, agent of the United States, who 
 also took possession of the British post near the bay ; the English set- 
 tlers, however, protesting against our right to take it. 
 
 Immediately after the departure of Mr. Prevost, the British flag was 
 again hoisted, and the country occupied as British territory. This oc- 
 curred a few days before the treaty of London was signed, Oct. 20, 1818. 
 By the provisions of that treaty, the territory claimed by either party, 
 within its waters, was to be free and open, for "ten years, to the vessels, 
 citizens and subjects of the two powers; but the treaty was not to be 
 eonstrued to the prejudice of the claim of either party. 
 
 The establishment of a military post to occupy the country, was urged 
 as necessary to enable us to preserve our claim. At the end of ten 
 years, Great Britain might insist on the parties being put back to their 
 
378 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 former condition , and although holding by wrong, yet being in actual 
 possession, when the treaty was concluded, she might represent our rights 
 during the joint occupancy as a mere lease; and neglecting to reoccupj 
 the country, we should lose an important advantage in hereafter treating 
 to reclaim it. Great commercial advantages, too, it was believed, would 
 be gained by the occupation of the country. It would enable us to com- 
 mand the trade of China, and other parts of eastern Asia, and the north 
 Pacific. A military post at the mouth of the Columbia river, with 
 trading houses in the territory, would command the fur trade ; and the 
 fur trade and traders would command the Indians, and be the surest 
 means of preserving peace with them. 
 
 Fears had been expressed that our confederacy might become too 
 widely extended. Although the federative system was well adapted for 
 the government of an extensive nation, there were limits which it would 
 not be safe to pass. Our system might properly include all who had a 
 mutual interest in being united. To carry it farther, would weaken the 
 bond of union, and endanger the confederacy. But what might be the 
 fate of the federation if extended beyond the Stony Mountains, or what 
 might be the condition of the people of Oregon centuries hence, was not 
 a matter of immediate concern. Posterity would know how to take care 
 of itself, and to provide for its own dangers. 
 
 To induce the settlement of the Oregon territory, a section had been 
 inserted in the bill, granting land to the settlers. This section was 
 struck out, and the bill, (Dec. 23,) passed the house, 113 to 57. In 
 the senate, the bill was taken up for consideration on the 25th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1825, and, without a discussion of its merits, laid on the table 
 until the next day, when the consideration was resumed. It was sup- 
 ported by Mr. Barbour, in a short speech, which was followed by one 
 of greater length from Mr. Dickerson. 
 
 Upon the question of the title of the United States to the territory 
 proposed to be settled, the speakers did not essentially differ. Mr. 
 Barbour said, the very full exposition of our claim given by the Ameri- 
 can plenipotentiary to the court of St. James, (Mr. Hush,) left but little 
 for him to add on this point. By a comparison of that state paper with 
 the counter statement of the representative of that court, the claim of 
 Great Britain, as to the territory on the Oregon, was without founda- 
 tion. He believed we had in the spirit of friendship and forbearance, 
 made a sacrifice to Russia of five degrees of our just claim, and in the 
 same spirit had been willing to make an equal sacrifice to Great Britain ; 
 and he hoped she would close with the terms proposed. The United 
 States could yield no farther : consequently, our claim must be held as 
 unquestionable many degrees to the north of the proposed settlement. 
 
OCCUPATION OF COLUMBIA RIVER. 379 
 
 Mr. Barbour, recurring to the pretensions of the European nations to 
 portions of this territory, said, Spain, under whom we claimed, had 
 unquestionably the undivided credit of first discovery, and so far the 
 best title , to which she superadded the grant of the head of the Christian 
 world, in the person of the Pope : and however ridiculous the latter 
 might now seem, it was at that time respected by the civilized world. But 
 this respect had yielded eventually to cupidity; and the other nations of 
 Europe had proceeded to appropriate such portions as accident or cir- 
 cumstances enabled them to do, in opposition to the claims and the 
 protests of Spain. 
 
 In favor of the proposed establishment, Mr. B. mentioned its obvious 
 advantage to our navigating interest in time of peace. It would furnish 
 a friendly asylum for our vessels in an otherwise strange, distant, and 
 perhaps hostile region. It would also be valuable as a depot for inter- 
 nal commerce, and highly advantageous in the event of war. 
 
 With reference to the apprehended dangers of an undue extension of 
 our empire, Mr. Barbour said : " Fifty years ago, and the valley of the 
 Mississippi was like the present condition of the country of the Oregon. 
 It is now teeming with a mighty population — a free and happy people. 
 Their march onward to the country of the setting sun, is irresistible. I 
 will not disguise, that I look with the deepest anxiety on this vast exten- 
 sion of our empire, and to its possible effects on our political institutions. 
 Whatever they may be, however, our forefathers decided the experiment 
 should be made. * « * Our advance in political science has already 
 cancelled the dogmas of theory. We have already ascertained, by the 
 happy combination of a national and state governments, but above all, by 
 a wise arrangement of the representative system, that republics are not 
 necessarily limited to a small territory ; and that a government, thus 
 arranged, produces not only more happiness, but more stability and more 
 energy, than those the most arbitrary. Whether it is capable of indefi- 
 nite extent, must be left to posterity to decide. But in the most unfa- 
 vorable result, a division, by necessity, from its unwieldy extent — an 
 event, I would devoutly hope, afar off — we even then can console our- 
 selves with the reflection, that all the parts of the great whole will have 
 been peopled by our kindred, carrying with them the same language, 
 habits, and unextinguishable devotion to liberty and republican institu- 
 tions." 
 
 Mr. Dickerson, in opposition to the bill, said, that our having acquired 
 this territory, and the march of population being toward that region, 
 imposed upon congress no obligation to provide for its occupation or 
 population, unless the interests of the United States should require it. 
 As yet, we had extended our laws to territories only that were to become 
 
380' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 states of the union, Oregon could never become one of the United 
 
 States. 
 
 The bill was opposed also as being inconsistent with our treaty with 
 Great Britain, by which any portion of the country claimed by either 
 party, should, with its harbors and other navigable waters, be free and open 
 to the vessels and citizens of the two powers. Although we thought our 
 claim incontestible to the 49th degree, Great Britain had already ex- 
 tended her settlements to the Columbia river, and had set up a pretense 
 of claim to the territory north of the Columbia to its mouth. It was not 
 for congress to ascertain or limit the extent of the claim. The treaty 
 recognized a claim to some undefined part of the territory; and until after 
 its expiration in 1 828, it would be improper to take possession of this terri- 
 tory by military force, or to establish a port of entry, as was proposed 
 by the bill. 
 
 The president — so the bill provided — was to cause a fort to be erected 
 on either the left or the right bank of the river, aa he should deem expedi- 
 ent, and to cause the Indian title to be extinguished to a tract of land 
 thirty miles square, or 900 square miles, including the fort. This tract 
 ought to include both banks of the river, and a considerable portion of 
 territory claimed by the British government. As yet, that government 
 had done nothing to contravene the provisions of the treaty; but would 
 they quietly see us take possession of the country, erect fortifications, 
 purchase the Indian title to a large tract of land, and establish ports of 
 entry ? The joint occupation was intended to prevent disputes ; but the 
 measure proposed would lead to immediate collisions. If we were enti- 
 tled to the whole of the territory, let all peaceable means be employed 
 to obtain our rights, before we attempted to enforce them by military 
 occupation. If the two governments would make a perpetual treaty, to 
 take no farther possession of that territory than might be necessary for 
 trading with Indians, they would do more for the cause of humanity 
 than had been done in the present age. 
 
 Nor did he, (Mr. D.,) think the measure was required at this time for 
 the protection of our shipping and our commerce. He contended that 
 neither as a colony nor as a state, could that country be of any essential 
 benefit to the union ; he therefore thought it inexpedient to adopt any 
 measure for its occupation and settlement. He repeated the declaration, 
 that Oregon would never become a member of the union ; and he under- 
 took to show the difficulty if not the impossibility of obtaining from it 
 a representation in congress. 
 
 Estimating the distance from the mouth of the Columbia river to 
 Washington at 4,650 miles, a member of congress from the state of Ore- 
 gon must travel, going to and returning from the seat of government, 
 
PUBLISHING THE LAWS. 381 
 
 9,300 miles. Supposing him to travel at the rate of 30 miles per day, 
 and allowing for Sundays, 350 days of the year would be required to go 
 and return. This would allow him a fortnight to rest himself at Wash- 
 ington before commencing his journey home. As a considerable part of 
 the way was over rugged mountains, covered the greater portion of the 
 year with a great depth of snow, he thought traveling at the rate of 30 
 miles per day a hard duty. Yet a young, able-bodied senator might 
 travel from Oregon to Washington and back, once a year ; but he could 
 do nothing else. He might come more expeditiously, however, by water 
 round Cape Horn, or through Behring's Strait, round the north coast of 
 this continent to Baffin's Bay, thence through Davis's Strait to the At- 
 lantic, and so on to Washington. It was true, he said, this passage had 
 not yet been discovered, except on our maps ; but it would be as soon as 
 Oregon would be a state. 
 
 Mr. Dickerson concluded by moving that the bill be laid on the table; 
 and the motion was carried : ayes, 19 ; noes, 17. 
 
 On the 1st of February, 1827, a resolution was offered by Mr. Saun- 
 ders, of North Carolina, calling upon the secretary of state for a list 
 of the newspapers in which the laws were directed to be published 
 during the years 1825, 1826, and 1827, designating the changes which 
 had been made, and stating the reasons for each change. This resolu- 
 tion gave rise to a debate, marked no less distinctly by its party char- 
 acter, than by the acrimonious feeling of members. It was intended as 
 an animadversion upon the conduct of the secretary of state, who, it 
 was alleged, had, from personal and political motives, made certain 
 changes in newspapers selected to publish the laws and public adver- 
 tisements. 
 
 This exercise of the power of patronage was broadly reprobated by 
 the advocates of the resolution. It was calculated to control the free- 
 dom of the press, and to enlist that powerful instrument in the service 
 ^ of the administration. In the distribution of the public printing, the 
 rule should be to retain an individual as printer of the laws, when his 
 employment was desired by upright men of republican principles, and 
 when there were no other reasons than those of a personal or political 
 nature for taking it from him. So to apply the patronage of the gov- 
 ernment as to harmonize eighty-two presses in praising every act of the 
 administration, and to punish them with the loss of patronage if they 
 dared censure its measures, was to form a government press, which was 
 more alarming to the liberties of the people, than the organization of the 
 whole of our standing army formed into a guard of the palace 
 
 The resolution was opposed as useless, so far as regarded the papers 
 employed in 1825 and 1826; information for these years and for 1824 
 
382 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 having been communicated to the house last year. A call for the rea- 
 sons which influenced a public officer in the discharge of a duty assigned 
 him by law, was believed to be without precedent in the annals of legis- 
 lation. The act of 1820 required the secretary to cause laws and 
 treaties to be published in newspapers, not exceeding three in each state 
 and territory, and one in the District of Columbia; leaving it to his 
 discretion to employ one paper to-day and another to-morrow. The 
 power, if abused, could be taken from the secretary, and bestowed upon 
 some other person or persons. But the call for his motives was impro- 
 per and unjust. With equal propriety might the president, or all the 
 heads of departments, be called on for the causes or reasons for their 
 acts, or the mover of the resolution for the reasons which prompted him 
 to offer it. 
 
 It was held to be proper for the secretary to employ his friends rather 
 than his enemies. Mr. Jefferson had acted on this principle. He had 
 removed faithful public ofl&cers on purely political grounds ; and, as in the 
 case of the collector of the port of New Haven, against the wishes of a large 
 majority of the people of the district, as expressed in a memorial to the 
 president. The present administration had not carried the principle so 
 far as had been done by Mr. Jefferson. Of the eighty or more papers, 
 only sixteen had been changed. Of these changes, a number were 
 known to have been made from geographical considerations ; and in four 
 instances, the persons displaced and those appointed were of the same 
 political party. And there might be other changes which had been 
 made from necessity. 
 
 The debate on this subject was continued until the 26th of February, 
 when it was abruptly terminated ; a few days only of the session 
 remaining, and the press of business not permitting a farther discus- 
 sion of the resolution. If the reader will bear in mind the sentiments 
 of the parties to this discussion, he will soon see how easily the opinions 
 ' men and parties aje changed by a reverse of circumstances. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 WEST INDIA TRADE. NAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE. 
 
 The illiberal commercial policy of Great Britain established by her 
 numerous navigation acts, has been the subject of remark in preceding 
 chapters. Although by the conventions (treaties) of 1815 and 1818, 
 reciprocity of commerce had been established between the United States 
 
- WEST INDIA TRADE. 383 
 
 and the territories of Great Britain in Europe, for r period of ten years 
 from the last mentioned date, the exclusion of our vessels from her 
 colonies was continued. Hence an act was passed by congress in April, 
 1818, closing our ports against British vessels arriving from any port 
 or place in any British territory to which our vessels were not admitted. 
 
 But as the portsof those American colonies which had occasionally 
 from interest or necessity, been opened to our vessels, were not consid- 
 ered as included in the act of 1818, an act was passed in May, 1820, 
 extending the interdiction to all her American colonies. This measure 
 was not without effect. The West India colonies had been supplied 
 with our products through the British North American colonies, into 
 which they were admitted, and thence carried in British vessels. But 
 the closing of this channel of trade, through which the West India col- 
 onies had obtained supplies of lumber and provisions, operated with 
 severity upon these colonies. Memorials were addressed to parliament 
 presenting their distress ; and Great Britain was induced to relax her 
 rigorous policy. 
 
 On being informed that parliament was about to open the colonial 
 ports to our vessels, congress passed an act the 6th of May, 1822, in 
 anticipation ; authorizing the president, on satisfactory evidence being 
 given him that those ports had been thus opened, to proclaim the porta 
 of the United States opened to British vessels employed in this trade, 
 under such reciprocal rules and regulations as he might, by such procla- 
 mation, make and publish. In June, the anticipated act of parliament 
 was passed, by which certain enumerated ports were opened to vessels 
 of the United States ; and, in conformity to the act of the 6th of May, 
 the president, on the 24th of August, issued his proclamation, declarinif 
 the ports of the United States open to British vessels coming from those 
 ports in the British West India and North American colonies, with the 
 productions of these colonies. 
 
 As that provision of the act of May, 1822, which gave the president 
 authority to issue his proclamation, was to continue in force only till the 
 expiration of the next session of congress, an act was passed the 1st of 
 March, 1823, continuing the discriminating duties on imposts and ton- 
 nage, but authorizing the president, by proclamation, to remove them on 
 satisfactory proof being given him, that no higher duties were imposed 
 on our vessels and merchandise than on those coming from other places. 
 The proof required by the act not having been communicated to the 
 president, no proclamation was issued. The tonnage upon British ves 
 sels was one dollar per ton ; upon American vessels, six cents, making 
 the discrimination in favor of the latter, ninety-four cents. Great 
 Britain then, by an order in counsil, issued June 17, 1823, imposed a 
 
384 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 retaliatory discriminating tonnage duty of equal amount, ninety-four 
 cents per ton. 
 
 The administration was charged with having needlessly and unjustly 
 provoked Great Britain to this act of retaliation, which, its opponents 
 said, might and ought to have been prevented by the removal of our dis 
 criminating duty. We had therefore no reason to complain of having 
 been met with a duty equal to our own. To this it was replied, that the 
 duty upon British vessels was more than counterbalanced by restrictions 
 and disadvantages imposed upon our trade with the colonies prior to the 
 enactment of this additional burden. It was also claimed, on our part, 
 that American goods as well as the vessels conveying them, should be 
 admitted into the colonies on the same terms as those of Great Britain : 
 and the act of 1823 had accordingly adopted this principle. Great 
 Britain, considering her colonies as integral parts of her empire, insisted 
 that she should not be required to exact duties on goods carried from 
 one British port to another. 
 
 In the hope of effecting an amicable arrangement by treaty, a nego- 
 tiation was opened by our government through our minister at London. 
 But during a suspension of the negotiation, which, however, it was 
 mutually understood, was to be speedily resumed, other acts of parlia- 
 ment were passed, in June and July, 1825, again opening certain colo- 
 nial norts upon new terms and conditions ; but providing that these 
 ports should be closed against any nation which should not accept these 
 terms. Our government did not accept them, for the reasons, as was 
 alleged, that those acts had never been ofl&cially communicated ; that 
 they were so obscure as not to be understood, having received different 
 constructions by the British officers in the different colonies ; and that 
 pledges having been given to resume negotiation, it was deemed expe- 
 dient to await the result of that negotiation, rather than to subscribe 
 implicitly to terms the import of which was not clear, and which the 
 British authorities themselves in this hemisphere were not prepared to 
 explain. 
 
 Immediately after the close of the session of congress in May, 1826, 
 Albert Gallatin was despatched as minister to London, in the hope of 
 effecting a satisfactory arrangement. Notwithstanding Great Britain 
 herself had requested the appointment of an additional minister — Mr. 
 King being unable, from ill health, to conduct the negotiation — two 
 days after Mr. Gallatin's arrival, and before his credentials had been 
 presented, an order in council was issued cutting off all negotiation, and 
 prohibiting all intercourse with her West India colonies from the first 
 day of December following. 
 
 To countervail this rigorous measure, bills similar in their provisions 
 
WEST INDIA TRADE. 385 
 
 were introduced in botli houses of congress at the next session, proposing 
 to shut our ports, after the 30th of September, against all vessels coming 
 from all British colonies or possessions not included in the general 
 treaty, unless the colonial ports should be reopened to our vessels on 
 certain prescribed terms. Neither of the bills, however, became a law. 
 
 The act of March 1, 1823, provided, that if at any time our trade 
 and intercourse with the enumerated colonial ports should be prohibited 
 by Great Britain, proclamation of the fact having been made by the pre- 
 sident, the prohibitory provisions of the acts of 1818 and 1820 were to 
 be revived. Congress having failed to adopt any countervailing mea- 
 sure, the president, on the 17th of March, 1827, made the necessary pro- 
 clamation, and declared the trade and intercourse with the said ports tn 
 be prohibited. 
 
 The West India question had assumed a party character. Our disad- 
 vantages were said to be the result of a niiistaken policy by the adminis- 
 tration and its predecessors. The want of concession, the extravagance 
 of our demands, the rejection of fair overtures from Great Britain, tardy 
 legislation, and an unwarrantable reliance on negotiation, were among 
 the alleged hinderances to a favorable adjustment. But whatever of 
 oeglect or unskillful management might have been justly chargeable to 
 the administration, the previous history of the commercial policy of 
 Great Britain, her persisting refusal to the United States of a fair par 
 ticipation in the colonial trade, and her declining farther negotiation in 
 1826, after a previous pledge to resume it, without giving any other rea- 
 son than was found in the remark of Mr. Canning, that " he would not 
 be drawn into the discussion of a subject that had already been 
 exhausted;" — afforded strong presumptive evidence of her indisposition 
 to arrange the trade with us on equitable terms. 
 
 Ever intent on protecting her navigating interest, the next measure 
 of Great Britain was an act of parliament authorizing the inland intro- 
 duction from the United States into Canada, free of duty, of ashes, 
 staves, lumber, horses, fresh provisions, and sundry other productions, to 
 be thence carried in British vessels to England and the West Indies, as 
 Canadian produce. And the more eflPectually to cripple our navigation 
 and improve her own, the duties on these articles coming from the United 
 States direct, were largely increased, while from Canada they were admit- 
 ted under a very light duty. A letter from a mercantile house in Liver 
 pool received in this country, said : " The object of these arrangements 
 is to monopolize the carrying trade ; and in them is to be found the true 
 secret why the ministry declined to negotiate respecting the West India 
 trade. Although they had pledged themselves to adjust the matter by 
 negotiation in 1824, and renewed the pledge in 1825, in 1826 they deter- 
 
 25 
 
386 THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 mined to cliange their policy ; and the clamors of the shipping inteieet 
 though unjust, urged them into it in an ungracious manner : and if you 
 had accepted their terms, they wquld, when they determined to change 
 the system, have found means to evade the spirit of that act by somo 
 other." 
 
 The expectations, on the part of Great Britain, concerning the effects 
 of this measure, were materially disappointed. Our produce still found 
 a market in the British islands by way of the neutral islands, to which 
 it was transported in American vessels ; and thence it was reshipped to 
 the British islands. Hence our navigation was not very sensibly affected ; 
 and our exports to the West Indies, instead of their having been dimin- 
 ished, were actually increased, notwithstanding the prohibition, though 
 probably not in consequence of it. On the other hand, the Canadians 
 complained that the arrangement had not secured to them the advantage 
 of supplying the West India islands ; and the extra cost of this indirect 
 trade fell upon British consumers. 
 
 This arrangement, however, did not long continue. New treaties were 
 concluded by Mr. Gallatin and the British commissioners at London, 
 the 6th of August, 1827. The ratifications were exchanged at London, 
 April 2, 1828; and the treaties were proclaimed by the president the 
 5th of May following. By these treaties it was provided, that the treaties 
 of 1815 and 1818, which by their terms were limited to a period of 
 ten years from the date of the latter, should be continued for another 
 term of ten years. 
 
 A convention was also concluded, by which the parties agreed to settle 
 the boundary line, by submitting the question to some friendly power for 
 arbitration. The king of the Netherlands was selected as the umpire. 
 His award, which was made in January, 1831, was not satisfactory to 
 the United States. In fact, he did not decide upon the question sub- 
 mitted to him. Instead of deciding between the conflicting claims of the 
 parties, he selected a new line claimed by neither party. Great Britain, 
 having been awarded, though not all she claimed, yet what she most 
 desired — a free communication between her provinces — gave her assent 
 to the decision. The subject was submitted to the senate, in January, 
 1832. That body, after having duly considered the question, advised the 
 president to open a new negotiation for the adjustment of the boundary 
 
 A subject of negotiation between the United States and Great Britain, 
 was the navigation of the river St. Lawrence, commenced before tha 
 close of Mr. Monroe's administration. In his annual message of Decem- 
 ber, 1823, in connection with the subject of the north-eastern boundary, 
 Mr. Monroe says : " It appearing from long experience, that no satisfac- 
 tory arrangement could be formed of the commercial intercourse betwfccu 
 
NAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE. 387 
 
 the United Stitea and the British colonies in this hemisphere by legisia- 
 tive acts, while each party pursued its own course without agreement or 
 concert with the other, a proposal ^as been made to the British govern- 
 ment to regulate this commerce by treaty, as it has been to arrange, in 
 like manner, the just claim )f the citizens of the United States inhabit- 
 ing the states and territories bordering on the lakes and rivers which 
 empty into the St. Lawrence, to the navigation of that river to the ocean. 
 For these and other objects of high importance to the interests of both 
 parties, a negotiation has been opened with the British government 
 which, it is hoped, will have a satisfactory result." 
 
 On the 7th of January, 1828, Mr. Adams, then president, in com- 
 pliance with a resolution of the house of the 17th of December, trans- 
 mitted to that body the correspondence with the government of Great 
 Britain relative to the free navigation of the St. Lawrence. This cor- 
 respondence derives much of its importance from the principle of public 
 law which forms the chief subject of discussion. 
 
 Mr. Adams, secretary of state, in a letter to Mr. Rush, minister at 
 London, in 1823, suggested that the navigation of the St. Lawrence 
 might be claimed by our citizens as a right, which, he thought, might 
 " be established upon the sound and general principles of the law of 
 nature." If the right had not been distinctly asserted in negotiation 
 with the British government, it was because the benefits of it had been 
 tacitly conceded. This right was asserted upon the principles which 
 were asserted when our right to the navigation of the Mississippi was 
 in question. The people had the natural right of communicating with 
 the ocean, by the only outlet provided by nature, from the waters bord- 
 ering upon their shores. It was admitted that the possession of both 
 the shores of a river at its mouth had been held to give the right of ob- 
 structing or interdicting the navigation of it to the people of other 
 nations, inhabiting the banks of the river above the boundary of that 
 in possession of its mouth. But the exclusive right of jurisdiction over 
 a river, Mr Adams said, originated in the social compact, and was a 
 right of sovereignty. The right of navigating the river was a right of 
 nature, preceding it in point of time, and which the sovereign right of 
 one nation could not annihilate, as belonging to the people of another. 
 
 By the act of parliament of June 24th, 1822, the people of the 
 United States enjoyed the navigation from the ocean to Quebec ; and by 
 an act of August 5th, 1822, above that port. But by a discretionary 
 power given to the colonial governments in Canada, the latter of these 
 concessions might be withdrawn, by excepting any of the Canadian 
 ports from those to which our vessels were made admissible by that act ; 
 .CO that our enjoyment of the navigation of this river was contingent 
 
388 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 upon British permission. And the duties imposed by the act upon all 
 those of our exports which could render the trade profitable, were 
 prohibitory. » 
 
 The grounds of our claim wei-e duly presented by Mr. Rush. He 
 urged the consideration also, that " the exclusive right possessed by 
 Great Britain over both banks of this river, had been won for her by 
 the cooperation of the people who now form the United States. Their 
 exertions, their treasure, their blood, were profusely embarked in every 
 campaign of the old Frecch war ; a war which, but for the aid of New 
 England, New York, and Pennsylvania, if no more of tho states, would 
 probably not have terminated when it did, in the conquest of Canada 
 from France. * * * The predecessors of the present inhabitants 
 of those states had borne a constant and heavy burden in that war, and 
 had acquired, simultaneously with the then parent state, the right of 
 descending the stream, on the hypothesis, assumed for the moment, of 
 their not having possessed it before ; a right of peculiar importance to 
 them, from their local position and necessities." Thus a title had been 
 established by joint acquisition. Several quotations from Vattel and 
 Grotius were made in order to sustain the claim of the Uniteci States. 
 
 Mr. Rush, in one of his papers to the British government, said ; 
 " Having seen the grounds of necessity and reason v/pon which the 
 right of so great and growing a population to seek its only natural 
 pathway to the ocean rests, it may be expected that they should 
 be supported by the established principles of international law." He 
 cites Vattel, as follows : " Nature, who designs her gifts for the common 
 advantage of men, does not allow of their being kept from their use when 
 they can be furnished with them, without any prejudice to the proprietor, 
 and by leaving still untouched all the utility and advantages he is capa- 
 ble of receiving from his rights." Again : " Property can not deprive 
 nations of the general right of traveling over the earth in order to have 
 a communication with each other, for carrying on trade and other just 
 reasons." "A passage ought also to be granted for merchandise; and 
 as this may in common be done without inconvenience, to refuse it with- 
 out just reason, is injuring a nation, and endeavoring to deprive it of the 
 means of carrying on a trade with other states." And again : " If 
 neither the one nor the other of two nations, near a river, can prove that 
 it settled first, it is to be supposed that they both came there at the 
 same time, since neither can give a reason of preference ; and in this 
 case the dominion of each will be extended to the middle of the river." 
 Hence, Mr. Rush argued, that, if the settlements, having been made by 
 the two nations at the same time, gave them equal dominion, " by even a 
 stronger reason would simultaneous acquisition confer equality of pass- 
 
NAVIGATION OF THE ST. LAWRENCE. 389 
 
 age." To the same effect from Grotius : " Upon this foundation of com- 
 mon right, a free passage through countries, rivers, or over any part of 
 the sea, which belong to some particular people, ought to be allowed to 
 iho^ie who require it for the necessary occasions of life, whether those 
 occasions be in quest of settlements, after being driven from their own 
 country, or to trade with a remote nation^ " A free passage ought to 
 be allowed, not only to persons but to merchandise ; . . . a permission 
 which, for the interest of society, should be maintained ; nor can it be 
 said that any one is injured by it; for though he may thereby ,be 
 deprived of exclusive g^in, yet the loss of what is not his due, as a mat- 
 ter of right, can never be considered as a damage, or the violation of a 
 claim." 
 
 Hence, our minister claimed, on the ground of paramount interest and 
 necessity to our citizens, and on that of natural right founded on this 
 necessity, a full and free navigation of this river, from its source to the sea. 
 
 The British plenipotentiaries expressed their surprise at the claim of 
 the United States, on the ground of right. It required an enlarged view 
 of what one nation owed in courtesy to another, to justify the British 
 government in entering on the discussion of a claim so novel and exten- 
 sive. A right claimed on one side without qualification, leaves no room 
 for friendly concession on the other. As a concession on the part of 
 Great Britain, for which they expected an equivalent, and as such only, 
 they 'were willing to treat with the United States. They replied at 
 length to the arguments of Mr. Rush, and alleged that he had made a 
 wrong application of the authorities quoted. The right of navigating 
 this river, alleged to be a right of nature, preexistent in point of time, 
 and incapable of annihilation, could be no other than what is generally 
 designated in the law of nations as a perfect right, which is one that 
 exists independent of treaty ; which necessarily arises from the law of 
 nature ; which is common to all independent nations, and can never be 
 denied or violated by any state without a breach of the law of nations. 
 Such was the right to navigate the ocean without molestation in time of 
 peace. Applying these principles, now universally admitted, to the case 
 of the St. Lawrence, the American government maintained that Great 
 Britain, possessing both shores of the river at its mouth, would be no 
 more justified in controlling American navigation on that river, than on 
 the high seas. But falling under the denomination of an imperfect right, 
 it became subject to considerations entirely different. 
 
 The case of the Mississippi, it was said, was not in point. Its naviga- 
 tion had been opened to British subjects by the treaty of 1763, concluded 
 after a war in which Great Britain had been successful. France had 
 made this concession from the same motives as had induced her to cede 
 
390 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Canada to Great Britain. The agreement respecting that river made a 
 part of the general provisions as to the western boundary of the British 
 American possessions, by which the whole left side of the Mississippi was 
 ceded to Great Britain, except the town and island of New Orleans. 
 This reservation had been admitted on the express condition, that the 
 navigation of the whole channel should be open to British subjects. The 
 very fact of its having been thought necessary to insert this stipulation 
 in the treaty, in consequence of France having retained possession of 
 boih banks of the river at a single post, led irresistibly to an inference 
 the reverse of what was maintained by the American plenipotentiary. 
 
 Nor was the right founded upon acquired title conceded by Great 
 Britain. If the liberty of navigating the St. Lawrence, which the people 
 of the United States enjoyed when a part of the British empire, contin- 
 ued to belong to them after their separation from the mother country, 
 the subjects of Great Britain would have an equal right, in common with 
 American citizens, to the use of the navigable rivers of the United States, 
 which they enjoyed when both countries were united under the same 
 government. By the treaty which acknowledged the independence of 
 the United States, a perpetual line of demarkation had been drawn 
 between the two powers, no longer connected by any other ties than those 
 of amity and conventional agreement. The people of the United States, 
 thus separated from Great Britain, could not possibly retain any portion 
 of the sovereignty of the British empire. 
 
 Mr. Gallatin, in September and October, 1827, wrote to Mr. Clay, 
 that the government of Great Britain was still unwilling to entertain 
 any proposition respecting the navigation of the St. Lawrence founded 
 on the right claimed by the United States to navigate that river to the 
 sea ; and he advised, that, whilst the trade with the British West Indies 
 remained interdicted, the intercourse by land or inland navigation with 
 the North American British provinces be left to be regulated by the 
 laws of each country, respectively. The measures of which our citizens 
 had complained, no longer existed. The warehousing system had been 
 extended to the ports of Montreal, Quebec, and St. Johns, and places of 
 deposit were allowed for American produce, free of duty, in case of ex- 
 portation ; which was all that we could, in that respect, ask as a matter 
 of right. The navigation between Montreal and Quebec, either to the 
 sea, or from the sea, could not now be obtained by treaty stipulation 
 without what would be considered a disclaimer of the right. 
 
 Mr. Clay, in his instructions to Mr. Gallatin, having said that the 
 president could not consent to any treaty by which the United States 
 should renounce the right of navigating the St. Lawrence and Great 
 Britain persisting in her refusal to acknowledge this right, the negctia- 
 tion was unsuccessful. 
 
NOMINATION OF GEN. JACKSON. 391 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 NOMINATION OF GEN. JACKSON. MORE OF THE '^COALITION." JACKSON's 
 
 LETTERS ON THE TARIFF AND INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 
 
 Soon after the election of Mr. Adams, it became apparent that he was 
 destined to encounter, alone, in the next presidential campaign, the oppo- 
 sition of his most formidable rival in 1 824. 
 
 As early as October, 1825, Gen. Jackson was nominated by the legis- 
 lature of Tennessee as a candidate for president in 1828. After a long 
 preamble, in which the legislature disclaim being " influenced by the 
 motive of state pride or personal considerations," they resolve, " That 
 Gen. Andrew Jackson, of this state, be recommended to the freemen of 
 the United States, as a fellow-citizen, who, by his numerous and faithful 
 public services in the cabinet and in th6 field, his energy and decision, 
 his political qualifications, and strict adherence to the principles of repub- 
 licanism, merits to be elected to the office of chief magistrate of this 
 union, at the next presidential election." This resolution was said to 
 have been unanimously adopted in one house, and with but one dissent- 
 ing voice in the other. 
 
 On the next day, (October 7,) a series of resolutions was adopted, 
 expressive of the respect and attachment entertained by the legislature 
 towards the general, and of their purpose to receive him in the repre- 
 sentative hall on the day next after his arrival at the seat of government ; 
 and the speakers, on behalf of the two houses, were required to deliver 
 to him addresses, expressing the satisfaction of the legislature in relation 
 to the course he pursued during the pendency of the late presidential 
 election. 
 
 The general arrived at Murfreesborough on the 13th, and the next 
 day he was conducted by a committee of the legislature to the hall, and 
 addressed by the speakers of the two houses ; to which he made an appro- 
 priate reply, and then handed in a resignation of his seat in the senate 
 of the United States. 
 
 He assigned as reasons for his resignation, the fatigue of traveling to 
 and from Washington, and the fact that nothing of great national impor- 
 tance was likely to come before congress, except the proposition to amend 
 the constitution in relation to the election of president. He intimated 
 that he might have thought it his duty to continue in the senate to aid 
 in effecting such alteration. But having been apprised of his nomi- 
 nation, he could no longer hesitate as to the course he should pursue, and 
 
392 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 accordingly asked to be excused from any farther service in the councilg 
 of the nation ; saying, that he " could not consent to urge or encourage 
 an alteration which might wear the appearance of being induced by sel- 
 fish considerations." 
 
 He then proceeded to make some suggestions in reference to the 
 amendment proposed to be made. He thought some new barrior to the 
 encroachments of power was necessary, "There is no truth," he ob- 
 served, " more conclusively stamped upon all the state constitutions, as 
 well as the federal constitution, than that which requires the great de- 
 partments of power, the legislative, judicial, and esecutive, to be kept 
 separate and apart. * # * Gratitude to the founders of our happy 
 government, can not be lessened by honest efforts, on our part, to im- 
 prove, or rather to fortify, the blessings which have been transmitted to 
 us, with such additional safeguards as experience has proved to be 
 necessary. 
 
 " Upon this principle, I venture fully to accord with you in the con- 
 templated change proposed to the constitution ; and indeed would go 
 farthei "With a view to sustain more effectually in practice the axiom 
 which divides the three great classes of power into independent, consti- 
 tutional checks, I would impose a provision rendering any member of 
 congress ineligible to office, under the general government, during the 
 term for which he was elected, and for two years thereafter, except in 
 cases of judicial office; and these I would except for the reason, that 
 vacancies in this department are not frequent occurrences, and because 
 no barrier should be interposed in selecting, to the bench, men of the 
 first talents and integrity." * * * 
 
 " The effect of such a constitutional provision is obvious. By it 
 congress, in a considerable degree, would be free from that connection 
 with the executive department which at present gives strong ground of 
 apprehension and jealousy on the part of the people. Members, instead 
 of being liable to be withdrawn from legislating on the great interests 
 of the nation, through prospects of executive patronage, would be more 
 liberally confided in by their constituents ; while their vigilance would 
 be less interrupted by party feelings and party excitements. Calcula- 
 tion from intrigue or management would fail; nor would their delibera- 
 tion or their investigation of subjects consume so much time. The 
 morals of the country would be improved ; and virtue, uniting with the 
 labors of the representatives, and with the official ministers of the law, 
 would tend to perpetuate the honor and glory of the government. 
 
 " But if this change in the constitution should not be obtained, and 
 important offices continue to devolve on the representatives in congress, 
 it requires no depth of thought to be convinced, that corruption will be- 
 
NOMINATIO.V OF GEN. JACKSON. 393 
 
 come the order of the day ; and that, under the garb of conscientious 
 sacrifices to establish precedents for the public good, evils of serioua 
 importance to the freedom and prosperity of the republic may arise. It 
 is through this channel that the people may expect to be attacked in 
 their constitutional sovereignty, and where tyranny may well be appre- 
 hended to spring up in some favorable emergency. Against such inroads, 
 every guard ought to be interposed ; and none better occurs than that 
 of closing the suspected avenue with some necessary constitutional 
 restriction. We know human nature to be prone to evil ; we are early 
 taught to pray that we may not be led into temptation ; and hence the 
 opinion that, by constitutional provision, all avenues to temptation, on 
 the part of our political servants, should be closed. 
 
 ** As, by a resolution of your honorable body, you have thought pro- 
 per again to present my name to the American people, I must entreat 
 to be excused from any farther service in the senate, and to suggest, in 
 conclusion, that it is due to myself to practice upon the maxims recom- 
 mended to others ; and hence feel constrained to retire from a situation 
 where temptations may exist, and suspicions may arise of the exercise 
 of an influence tending to my own aggrandizement." 
 
 This nomination of Gen. Jackson by the legislature of his own state, 
 was early followed by nominations in other parts of the country. A 
 large portion of the friends of Mr. Crawford, having had a stronger re- 
 pugnance to Gen. Jackson than to any other candidate at the last election, 
 were for a time unwilling to unite with the friends of the latter. There 
 being, however, no hope of succeeding with any other candidate, such 
 union was at length efiiected ; and the organization of the opposition to 
 Mr. Adams may be considered as having been completed early in 1827. 
 
 Although the excitement produced by the union of the friends of 
 Adams and Clay in the election of president had experienced some 
 abatement, the subject had by no means been permitted to slumber. 
 The term, " coalition party," had acquired a common use among the 
 opposition in designating the friends and supporters of the administra- 
 tion. "Coalition" — "bargain" — "corruption" — were as familiar as 
 household words. As electioneering arguments, they had been found too 
 effective not to be employed in the attempt to overthrow the administra- 
 tion. Much of their efficiency was derived from facts and circumstances 
 which furnished at least some apparent ground for the accusation. 
 
 In April, 1827, whether from a design to influence the approaching 
 presidential election, or for some other purpose, the following anonymous 
 letter was published in the Fayetteville (N, C.) Observer: 
 
394 THE AMERICAN STATiSMAN. 
 
 " Nashville, 8th March, 1827 
 " I have just returned from Gen. Jackson's. I found a crowd of 
 company with him ; seven Virginians were of the number. He gave ma 
 a most friendly reception, and urged me to stay some days longer with 
 him. He told me this morning, before all his company, in reply to a 
 question I put to him concerning the election of J. Q. Adams for the 
 presidency, that Mr. Clay's friends made a proposition to his friends, 
 that if they would promise, for him, not to put Mr. Adams into the seat 
 of secretary of state, Clay and his friends would, in one hour, make him, 
 Jackson, the president. He most indignantly rejected the proposition, 
 and declared he would not compromit himself; and unless most openly 
 and fairly made the president by congress, he would never receive it. 
 He declared that he said to them, he would see the whole earth sink 
 under him, before he would bargain or intrigue for it." 
 
 To the statements contained in this letter, persons professing to speak 
 by authority of Mr. Clay, gave a prompt and unequivocal denial, and 
 expressed the belief, that the declarations ascribed to Gen. Jackson had 
 never been made by him. It soon became known, that the author of 
 this letter was Carter Beverley, of Wheeling, Virginia. His veracity 
 being impeached by the above denial, he wrote to Gen. Jackson, (May 
 15,) requesting a written confirmation of the statements in his letter to 
 his friend in North Carolina. The following is an extract from thfl 
 general's reply : 
 
 " Hermitage, June 5, 1827. 
 
 '■'■Dear Sir: — # * * Early in January, 1825, a member of 
 congress of high respectability, visited me one morning, and observed, 
 that he had a communication he was desirous to make to me ; that he 
 was informed there was a great intrigue going on ; and that it was right 
 I should be informed of it. * * * He said he had been inform«.:d 
 by the friends of Mr. Clay, that the friends of Mr. Adams had made 
 overtures to them saying, if Mr. Clay and his friends would unite in aid 
 of the election of Mr. Adams, Mr. Clay should be secretary of state. 
 That the friends of Mr. Adams were urging, as a reason to induce the 
 friends of Mr. Clay to accede to their proposition, that if I was elected 
 president, Mr. Adams would be continued secretary of state, (inuendO; 
 there would be no room for Kentucky.) That the friends of Mr. Clay 
 stated, the west did not wish to separate from the west; and if I would 
 say, or permit any of my confidential friends to say, that, in case I was 
 elected president, Mr. Adams should not be continued secretary of state, 
 by a complete union of Mr. Clay and his friends, they would p*.* an end 
 to the presidential contest in or ^ hour. And he was of opinion it was 
 
MORE OF THE " COALITION.'' 395 
 
 right to fight such intriguers with their own weapons. To which, in 
 substance, I replied, that in politics, as in every thing else, my guide 
 was principle; and, contrary to the expressed and unbiased will of the 
 people, or their eonstituted agents, I never would step into the presi- 
 dential chair ; and requested him to say to Mr. Clay and his friends, 
 (for I did suppose he had come from Mr. Clay, although he used the 
 term of Mr. Clay's friends,) that before I would reach the presidential 
 chair by such means of bargain and corruption, I would see the earth 
 open, and swallow Mr. Clay and his friends, and myself with them. If 
 they had not confidence in me to believe, if I was elected, that I would 
 call to my aid in the cabinet men of the first virtue, talent and integrity, 
 not to vote for me. The second day after this communication, and 
 reply, it was announced in the newspapers, that Mr. Clay had come 
 out openly and avowedly in favor of Mr. Adams. 
 
 '' It may be proper to observe, that, in the supposition that Mr. Clay 
 was privy to the proposition stated, I may have done injustice to him; 
 if so, the gentlemen informing me can explain." 
 
 To these statements, Mr. Clay, in a letter " to the public," dated June 
 29, 1827, and in a speech at Lexington, July 12, gave another unquali- 
 fied denial. In the letter he says : " Gen. Jackson having at last vol- 
 untarily placed himself in the attitude of my public accuser, we are nov/^ 
 fairly at an issue. I rejoice that a specific accusation by a responsible 
 accuser has at length appeared, though at the distance of near two and 
 a half years since the charge was first put forth through Mr. George 
 Kramer. * * * Such being the accusation and the prosecutor and 
 the issue between us, I have now a right to expect that he will substan- 
 tiate his charges, by the exhibition of satisfactory evidence. In that 
 event, there is no punishment which would exceed the measure of mj 
 oflFense. In the opposite event, what ought to be the judgment of the 
 American public, is cheerfully submitted to their wisdom and justice." 
 
 To this the general replied, July 18, in an address "to the public," 
 in which he named James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, as the member 
 of congress by whom the disclosure had been made, and in which, after 
 repeating the conversation as related in his letter to Beverley, and men- 
 tioning some other circumstances, he said : " What other conclusion or 
 inference was to be made, than that he spoke by authority, either of Mr. 
 Clay himself or some of his confidential friends ? The character of Mr. 
 Buchanan, with me, forbids the idea that he was acting on his own re- 
 sponsibility, or that, under any circumstances, he could have been in- 
 duced to propose an arrangement, unless possessed of satisfactory assur- 
 enoes that, if accepted, it would be carried fully into effect. * * • 
 
396 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Still I have not said, nor do I now say, that the proposal made to me 
 was ' with the privity and consent ' of Mr. Clay, nor either have I said 
 that his friends in congress had made propositions to me." 
 
 This brouo-ht out Mr. Buchanan it a letter, August 8, to the editor 
 of the Lancaster Journal. As the truth of the charges of Gen. Jack- 
 son depends essentially for confirmation upon the testimony of Mr, 
 Buchanan, all the more material parts of his letter are here given. Ho 
 says: 
 
 " In the month of December, 1824, a short time after the commence- 
 ment of the session of congress, I heard, among other rumors then in 
 circulation, that Gen. Jackson had determined, should he be elected 
 president, to continue Mr. Adams in the office of secretary of state. 
 Although I felt certain he had never intimated such an intention, yet I 
 was sensible that nothing could be better calculated both to cool the ardor 
 of his friends, and inspire his enemies with confidence, than the belief 
 that he had already selected his chief competitor for the highest office 
 within his gift. I thought Gen. Jackson owed it to himself and to the 
 cause in which his political friends were engaged, to contradict this re- 
 port, and to declare that he would not appoint to that office the man, 
 however worthy he might be, who stood at the head of the most formid- 
 able party of his political enemies." 
 
 Alluding to a conversation he had with Mr. Markley, a representative 
 from Pennsylvania, Mr. Buchanan says : " Mr. Markley adverted to the 
 rumor which I have mentioned, and said it was calculated to injure the 
 general. He observed that Mr. Clay's friends were warmly attached to 
 him, and that he thought they would endeavor to act in concert at the 
 election. That if they did so, they could elect either Mr. Adams or 
 G-en. Jackson, at their pleasure ; but that many of them would never 
 agree to vote for the latter, if they knew that he had predetermined to 
 prefer another to Mr. Clay for the first office in his gift. And that 
 some of th-o friends of Mr. Adams had already been holding out the 
 idea, that in case ne were elected, Mr. Clay might probably be oifered 
 the situation of secretary of state." 
 
 Mr. Buchanan, having suggested that some one ought to call upon 
 General Jackson, and get from him a contradiction of the report, says * 
 " Mr. Markley urged me to do so, and observed, if Gen. Jackson had 
 not determined whom he would appoint secretary of state, and should 
 say that it would not be Mr. Adams, it might be of great advantage to 
 our cause for us so to declare, upon his own authority : we should then 
 be placed upon the same footing with the Adams men, and might fight 
 them with their own weapons. That the western members would 
 naturally prefer voting for a western man, if there were a probability 
 
MORE OF THE " COALITION." 397 
 
 that tlie claims of Mr. Clay to the second office in the government should 
 be fairly estimated ; and that if they thought proper to vote for Gen. 
 Jackson, they could soon decide the contest in his favor." 
 
 Mr. Buchanan, desiring to obtain from Gen. Jackson a contradiction 
 of the report, called on him for that purpose ; informed him of the re- 
 port in circulation, and tcAld him that it might be injurious to his elec- 
 tion ; and that, if he had not determined to appoint Mr. Adams, the re- 
 port should be promptly contradicted under his own authority. Mr. B. 
 in relating the conversation between himself and Gen. Jackson, says 
 farther : " I mentioned, it had already probably done him some injury, 
 and proceeded to relate to him the substance of the conversation which 
 I had held with Mr. Markley. I do not remember whether I mentioned 
 his name, or merely described him as a friend of Mr. Clay. 
 
 " After I had finished, the general declared, he had not the least ob- 
 jection to answer my question ; that he thought well of Mr. Adams, but 
 had never said or intimated that he would, or that he would not, appoint 
 him secretary of state ; that these were secrets he would keep to him 
 self;" and "that if he should ever be elected president, it would be 
 without solicitation and without intrigue on his part. I then asked him 
 if I were at liberty to repeat his answer. He said I was perfectly at 
 liberty to do so to any person I thought proper. * * * I do not recol- 
 lect that Gen. Jackson told me I might repeat his answer to Mr. Clay 
 and his friends ; though I should be sorry to say he did not. 
 
 *' I called on Gen. Jackson solely as his friend, upon my individual 
 responsibility, and not as the agent of Mr. Clay or any other person. 
 Until I saw Gen. Jackson's letter to Mr. Beverley of the 5th ult., and 
 at the same time was informed by a letter from the editor of the llnited 
 States' Telegraph, that I was the person to whom he alluded, the con- 
 ception never once entered my mind that he believed me to have been 
 the agent of Mr. Clay or of his friends, or that I had intended to pro- 
 pose to him terms of any kind for them, or that he could have supposed 
 me to be capable of expressing the opinion, that it was right to ' fight 
 them with their own weapons.' He could not, I think, have received 
 this impression, until after Mr. Clay and his friends had actually elected 
 Mr. Adams president, and Mr. Adams had appointed Mr. Clay secretary 
 ?f state. After those events had transpired, it may be readily conjec- 
 tured in what manner my communication has led him into the mig-take 
 I deeply deplore that such has been its effect." 
 
 A letter from Mr. Eaton, a senator from Tennessee, to the public, 
 (September 1 8,) follows that of Mr. Buchanan. He difi'ers with Mr. B. 
 as to the date of the interview with Gen. Jackson, making it about the 
 •20th of January. He says: " In January, 1825, a few days before it 
 
398 THE AMERICAN STAT^KSMAN. 
 
 had beeu known that Mr. Clay and his friends had declared in favor of 
 Mr. Adams, I was called upon by Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania. He 
 said it was pretty well understood, that overtures were making by the 
 friends of Adams, en the subject of cabinet appointments : that Jackson 
 should fight them with their own weapons. He said the opinion was, 
 that Jackson would retain Adams, and that it was doing him injury. 
 That the general should state whom he would make secretary of state, 
 and desired that I would name it to him. My reply was, that I was 
 satisfied that Gen. Jackson would say nothing on the subject. Mr. B. 
 then remarked : ' Well, if he will merely say he will not retain Mr. 
 Adams, that will answer.' I replied, I was satisfied. Gen. Jackson would 
 neither say who should, or who should not, be secretary of state ; but 
 that he, (Mr. B.,) knew him well, and might talk wi,th him as well as I 
 could. Mr. Buchanan then said, that on the next day, before the general 
 went to the house, he would call. He did so, as I afterwards under- 
 stood." 
 
 Having in his letter spoken of Mr. Markley as " the negotiator" of the 
 bargain, Mr. M., on the 30th of October, replied to Mr. Eaton He 
 said he was called on the latter end of December, 1824, by Mr. 
 Buchanan, who expressed " great solicitude for the election of Gen, 
 Jackson," and " adverted to the rumors which were afloat, that the 
 friends of Mr. Adams were holding out the idea, that in case he should 
 be elected, Mr. Clay would probably be offered the situation of secretary 
 of state ; and that if Gen. Jackson was elected, he would appoint or con- 
 tinue Mr. Adams. I told Mr. Buchanan I thought such a report was 
 calculated to do the general a great deal of injury : and if it were not 
 well founded, it ought to be contradicted ; and mentioned farther, that 
 there was great plausibility in such reports, and that their receiving 
 credit, particularly that which represented Gen. Jackson as having de- 
 termined, if he should be elected, that he would continue Mr. Adams as 
 secretary of state ; as Mr. Adams had been one of his ablest defenders 
 and advocates in his report sustaining Gen. Jackson against the charges 
 which were preferred against him for his conduct in relation to the Sem- 
 inole war. 
 
 " Mr. Buchanan also asked if I had seen Mr. Clay, and whether I had 
 had any conversation with him touching the presidential election. T 
 replied that I had seen him in the house, but had had no conversation 
 with him on that subject, but said I was anxious to get an opportunity to 
 have a conversation with him, as I felt a great anxiety that he should vote 
 with Pennsylvania. Mr. B. replied, that no one felt more anxious, for 
 various reasons, than he did himself; that it was important, not only as 
 it regarded the success of Gen. Jackson's election, that Mr. Clay should 
 
MORE OF THE " COALITION. 399 
 
 go with Pennsylvania, but on account of his ulterior political prospects, 
 declaring that he (Mr. B.) hoped one day to see Mr. Clay president of 
 the United States ; and that was another reason why he should like to 
 see him secretary of state in case Gen. Jackson was elected ; and that if 
 he was certain that Mr. Clay's views were favorable to Gen. Jackson's 
 election, he would take an opportunity of talking to the general on the 
 subject, or to get Mr. Eaton to do so ; that he thought by doing so, he 
 would confer a particular benefit on his country ; and that he could see 
 nothing wrong in it." 
 
 Mr. Markley says, that, at the request of Mr. Buchanan, he agreed to 
 call on Mr. Clay ; but having no favorable opportunity of presenting this 
 subject to him, he had not ascertained which candidate he would support. 
 He says in his letter : " I have no recollection whatever of having urged 
 Mr. B. to see Gen. Jackson, although I concurred in the propriety of 
 his suggestion that he, should call to see him ; nor have I the faintest 
 recollection of any thing being said about fighting Mr. Adams' friends 
 with their own weapons. If any such expressions were used I am very 
 certain it was not by me. From the recollection I have of the conver- 
 sation to which Mr. B. has reference, in his letter to the public of the 
 8th of August last, my impressions are, that the object of his visit 
 that evening, was to urge the propriety of my seeing Mr. Clay, 
 and give him my views of the importance of identifying himself with 
 Pennsylvania in support of Gen. Jackson. I entertained no doubt, that 
 Mr. Buchanan was honestly determined, that no exertions on his part 
 should be wanting, and that he felt confident he could speak with cer- 
 tainty as to the great mass of Gen. Jackson's friends, that in case of his 
 election, they would press upon him the appointment of Mr. Clay as 
 secretary of state. 
 
 " Mr. Buchanan concurred with me in opinion, that Pennsylvania 
 would prefer Mr. Clay's appointment to that of any other person as sec- 
 retary of state ; and from the obligations the general was under to Penn- 
 sylvania, that he would go far to gratify her wishes ; and that therefore 
 he believed the general, if elected, would appoint Mr. Clay." 
 
 The controversy was continued by letters from several other gentlemen, 
 but without essentially changing the aspect of the afiair. 
 
 In December, 1827, Mr. Clay again appeared before the public in 
 * An address containing certain testimonials in refutation of the charges 
 against him, made by Gen. Andrew Jackson, touching the last presiden- 
 tial election." Mr. Clay presents the letters of twenty different mem- 
 bers of congress, embracing all his friends from the western states who 
 voted for Mr. Adams ; and all concur in denying any knowledge of any 
 overture or proposition of the kind mentioned by Gen. Jackson. And 
 
400 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 as Mr. Clay s alleged concealment of his intention to vote for Mr. Adams, 
 until within a few days of the election in the house of representatives, 
 had often been mentioned as a ground for suspicion of a bargain, he adds 
 the letters of several individuals, among whom are John J. Crittenden, 
 James Barbour, and Gen. La Fayettte, (then in this country,) showing 
 that, to all of them, he had, at different times, extending back to an early 
 day in October, declared either his preferences for Mr. Adams, as be- 
 tween him and Gen. Jackson, or his intention to vote for the former. 
 Soon after, a letter to the same effect from Thomas H. Benton was 
 published. 
 
 The only additional testimony we will add, are the declarations of Mr. 
 Adams himself. A few days after the close of his official term, in an- 
 swer to a letter from a committee appointed by a large meeting of citizens 
 in the state of New Jersey, expressing their approval of his administra- 
 tion, and their regret that he had not been continued in office, Mr. Adams 
 made this solemn asseveration : " Before you, my fellow-citizens, in the pre- 
 sence of our country, and of Heaven, I pronounce that charge totally 
 unfounded." And again, on a subsequent occasion, a few years before 
 his death, in an address to a large assembly of his fellow-citizens, he 
 repeated, in substance, this solemn asseveration. 
 
 The views of Gen. Jackson on the protection of domestic industry, 
 expressed in his letter to Dr. Coleman, in 1824, and his support, in the 
 senate of the United States, of the tariff act of that year, had placed him, 
 in the public estimation, among the advocates of a high protective tariff 
 The indications, however, of his receiving, at the approaching election, 
 the almost unanimous support of the southern states, caused suspicion on 
 the part of some of his northern friends, as to his policy on this subject 
 in case of his election. 
 
 In January, 1828, the senate of Indiana, after setting forth, in a pic 
 amble, that Gen. Jackson's friends in the western states advocated hi,, 
 election on the ground of his being friendly to internal improvementa 
 and to a tariff for the protection of American manufactures ; and that 
 in the southern states his election was advocated on account of his oppo- 
 sition to these measures ; in order to ascertain his real sentiments, that 
 they might vote understandingly at the next presidential election, the 
 senate passed the following resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That his excellency the governor be requested to address 
 a respectful letter to general Andrew Jackson, inviting him to state ex 
 plicitly, whether he favors that construction of the constitution which 
 authorizes congress to appropriate money for making internal improve- 
 ment in the several states ; and whether he is in favor of such a system 
 of protective duties for the benefit of American manufactures as will, in all 
 
Jackson's letter on the tarifff, &c. 401 
 
 cases where the raw material, and the ability to manufacture it, exist in our 
 country, secure the patronage to our own manufactures, to the exclusion 
 cf those of foreign countries ; and whether, if elected president of the 
 United States, he will, in his public capacity, recommend, foster, and 
 support the American system." 
 
 This resolution was accordingly communicated by Grov. Ray, who 
 received from the general the following letter • 
 
 " Hermitage, February 2S, 1828. 
 
 " Sir : I have had the honor to receive your excellency's letter of 
 the 30th ultimo, inclosing resolutions of the senate of Indiana, adopted, 
 as it appears, with a view of ascertaining my opinions on certain politi- 
 cal topics. The respect which I entertain for the executive and senate 
 of your state, excludes from my mind the idea that an unfriendly dispo- 
 sition dictated the interrogatories which are proposed. But I will coa 
 fess my regret at being forced, by this sentiment, to depart, in tho 
 smallest degree, from the (ietermination on which I have always acted. 
 Not, sir, that I would wish to conceal my opinions from the people upon 
 any political or national subjects; but as they were in various ways pro- 
 mulgated in 1824,1 am apprehensive that my appearance before the 
 public, at this time, may be attributed, as has already been the case, to 
 improper motives. 
 
 " With these remarks, I pray you, sir, respectfully to state to the 
 senate of Indiana, that my opinions, at present, are precisely what they 
 were in 1823 and '24, when they were communicated, by letter, to Dr. 
 Coleman, of North Carolina, and when I voted for the present tariff and 
 appropriations for internal improvement. As that letter was written at 
 a time when the divisions of sentiment on this subject were as strongly 
 marked as they now are, in relation both to the expediency and constitu- 
 tionality of the system, it is inclosed herein ; and I beg the favor of 
 your excellency to consider it a part of this communication. The occa- 
 sion out of which it arose, was embraced with a hope of preventing any 
 doubt, misconstruction, or any further inquiry respecting my opinion on 
 the subjects to which you refer — particularly in those states which you 
 have designated as cherishing a policy at variance with your own. To 
 preserve our invaluable constitution, and to be prepared to repel the 
 ■invasions of a foreign foe, by the practice of economy, and the cultiva- 
 *tion, toithin ourselves, of the means of national defense and independence, 
 •should be, it seems to me, the leading objects of any system that aspires 
 'to the name of ' American,' and of every prudent administration of our 
 ■government. 
 
 '' '* I trust, sir, that these general views, taken in connection with tho 
 
 26 
 
402 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 letter inclosed, and the votes referred to, will be received as a sufficient 
 answer to the inquiries suggested by the resolutions of the senate. I 
 will further observe to your excellency, that my views of constitutional 
 power and American policy, were imbibed, in no small degree, in the 
 times and from the sages of the revolution; and that my experience has 
 not disposed me to forget their lessons : and, in conclusion, I will repeat, 
 that my opinions remain as they existed in 1823 and '4, uninfluenced by 
 the hopes of personal aggrandizement ; and that I am sure they will never 
 deprive me of the proud satisfaction of having always been a sincere 
 and consistent republican. 
 
 " I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your most obedient 
 Hcrvant, Andrew Jackson." 
 
 The letter to Dr. Coleman was written when he was the first time a 
 candidate for the presidency, and dated at Washington, April 26, 1824. 
 It was published in the Kaleigh (^. C.) Star. As this letter is often 
 referred to in order to show the opinions of £ren. Jackson on the much 
 controverted questions to which it relates, and as his political opinions 
 were, and still are held in high estimation by a large portion of the 
 American people, it is deemed proper to insert here copious extracts 
 from the letter : 
 
 " You ask my opinion on the tariff. I answer, that I am in favor of 
 a judicious examination and revision of it, and so far as the tariff bill 
 before us embraces the design of fostering, protecting, and preserving 
 within ourselves the means of national defense and independence, par- 
 ticularly in a state of war, I would advocate and support it. The expe- 
 rience of the late war ought to teach us a lesson, and one never to be 
 forgotten. If our liberty and republican form of government, procured 
 for us by our revolutionary fathers, are worth the blood and treasure at 
 which they were obtained, it surely is our duty to protect and defend 
 them. * * * Heaven smiled upon, and gave us liberty and indepen- 
 dence. That same Providence has blessed us with the means of national 
 independence and national defense. If we omit or refuse to use the 
 gifts which he has extended to us, we deserve not the continuation of his 
 blessings. He has filled our mountains and our plains with minerals — 
 with lead, iron, and copper ; and given us climate and soil for the grow- 
 ing of hemp and wool. These being the grand materials of our national 
 defense, they ought to have extended to them adequate and fair protec- 
 tion, that our own manufactories and laborers may be placed on a fair 
 competition with those of Europe, and that we may have, within our 
 country, a supply of those leading and important articles, so essential in 
 
THE " WOOLENS BILI " 403 
 
 war. * * * This tariff — I mean a judicious one — possesses more 
 fanciful than real danger. I will ask, what is the real situation of the 
 agriculturalist ? Where has the American farmer a market for his sur- 
 plus products ? Except for cotton, he has neither a foreign or home 
 market. Does not this clearly prove, when there is no market either at 
 home or abroad, that there is too much labor employed in agriculture • 
 and that the channels for labor should be multiplied ? Common sense, 
 at once, points out the remedy. Draw from agriculture this superabun- 
 dant labor; employ it in mechanism and manufactures; thereby creatine 
 a home market for your bread stuffs, and distributing labor to the most 
 profitable account ; and benefits to the country will result. Take from 
 agriculture in the United States, six hundred thousand men, women and 
 children, and you will at once give a home market for more bread stuffs 
 than all Europe now furnishes us. In short, sir, we have been too ion«» 
 subject to the policy of the British merchants. It is time that we 
 should become a little more Americanized; and, instead of feeding the 
 paupers and laborers of England, feed our own; or else, in a short time, by 
 continuing our present policy, we shall all be rendered paupers ourselves. 
 
 " It is, therefore, my opinion, that a careful and judicious tariff is 
 much wanted, to pay our national debt, and afford us the means of that 
 defense within ourselves, on which the safety of our country and liberty 
 depends ; and last, though not least, give a proper distribution to our 
 labor, which must prove beneficial to the happiness, independence and 
 wealth of the community. 
 
 " This is a short outline of my opinions, generally, on the subject of 
 your inquiry; and believing them correct, and calculated to further the 
 prosperity and happiness of my country, I declare to you, I would not 
 barter them for any office or situation of a temporal character, that 
 could be given me." 
 
 These sentiments were, in 1828, common to very large majorities in 
 the eastern, middle, and western states; and but for the declarations 
 of Gen. Jackson on the subject, he would probably have failed of an 
 election. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 THE "woolens bill." HARPaSBURG CONVENTION. TARIFF OF 1828. 
 
 At an early period of the session of 1826-27, a bill was introduced 
 proposing to increase the duty on wool and woolen manufacturea 
 Immediately after the passage of the act of 1824, the English prosecu 
 
404 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ted their business with unusual activity, and flooded our country with 
 their fabrics, which were sold to great profit. Anticipating sufficient 
 protection from that act, and encouraged by the success of British manu- 
 facturers, large investments were made by our citizens in manufactories. 
 The quantity of British goods imported having vastly exceeded the 
 demand, they had been disposed of by forced sales in this country, at a 
 great sacrifice to the foreign manufacturer, and to the very serious 
 embarrassment of the domestic manufacture. Against such a state of 
 things, the latter had no protection ; and memorials on the subject, and 
 petitions for relief, were addressed to congress. 
 
 The inadequacy of the duties consisted in their nature, and in the 
 manner in which they were determined. Being ad valorem duties, or 
 duties laid according to the value of the article, the goods were invoiced 
 at prices below their real value even in England. By this meant, the 
 revenue was defrauded, and protection to our manufacturers was defeated. 
 It was the policy of the British manufacturers, after supplying other 
 markets, to throw their remaining surplus into our markets, to be sold 
 at such prices as could be obtained. And although these prices were 
 sometimes below cost, the loss was more than compensated by the depres- 
 sion of American manufactures, which was to the English manufacturer 
 an object of great importance. 
 
 By the tariff of 1824, the duty on imported woolen goods had been 
 raised 8 per cent., and on wool, 15 per cent. No wool was exported 
 hence to Europe; but more than one- third of the quantity manufac- 
 tured here was imported from European countries, subject to a duty of 
 30 per cent., while the manufacturer enjoyed a mere nominal protection 
 of 33 1-3 per cent, ad valorem ; the duty being virtually determined by 
 the party paying it. It was not to be expected that, in a large manu- 
 facturing country like England, the products of labor would be measured 
 by the exact extent of the demand. The surplus was sent to the United 
 States. By the removal of this surplus from the home market, the 
 English manufacturers had been enabled to maintain high prices on the 
 residue, while the value of all similar goods had been reduced to the 
 injury of the American manufacturer. 
 
 The manufacturers, however, did not ask either for a reduction or an 
 increase of the duty on wool. Nor did they ask for an increase of the 
 ad valorem duty on woolen goods, if regulations existed which should 
 effectually prevent the evasion of the laws. This could be effected only 
 by changing the mode of determining the ad valorem duty, or by adopt- 
 ing a minimum duty, which it was impossible to evade. In many large 
 establishments in New England, half the machinery was said to be idle; 
 and some which had been comj leted was not to be put into operation 
 until it could be done under more favorable auspices. 
 
THE " WOOLENS BILL." 405 
 
 On the 27th of January, 1827, Mr. Mallary, of Vermont, chairman 
 of the committee on manufactures, reported a bill " for the alteration of 
 the acts imposing duties on imports," commonly called the " woolena 
 bill." This bill proposed no change in the nominal rate of duty on 
 woolen manufactures, which was 33 1-3 per cent, ad valorem; but it 
 provided for estimating the duties on what was called the " minimum" 
 principle. 
 
 Goods manufactured in whole or in part of wool, and not exceeding 
 in value 40 cents the square yard at the place whence imported, must be 
 deemed to have cost 40 cents, and charged with the present rate of duty. 
 If the value exceeded 40 cents, and did not exceed $2 50, they must 
 be deemed to have cost $2 50, and charged accordingly; and if they 
 exceeded $2 50, they must be deemed to have cost $4, and charged 
 accordingly. 
 
 Unmanufactured wool, then subject to a duty of 30 per cent., was to 
 be charged, after June, 1828, 35 per cent., and after June, 1829, 40 
 per cent. And all wool exceeding in value 10 cents, and not exceeding 
 40 cents per pound, was to be deemed to have cost 40 cents, and to be 
 subject to these rates of duty. Wool less in value than 10 cents, was, 
 by the act of 1824, 15 per cent., on which no alteration was proposed. 
 
 The division of the house upon this measure was rather of a geogra- 
 phical than of a party character. A large portion of the friends of 
 Gen. Jackson in the northern states, were decided protectionists, amon» 
 whom were M'Lane, of Delaware, and Buchanan and Ingham, of Penn- 
 sylvania. These, gentlemen, however, as well as some of the friends of 
 the administration, were opposed to certain provisions of the bill. As 
 the principal cause of the complaint of the manufacturers was alleged to 
 be the evasion of the duties contemplated by the act of 1824, so high a 
 duty as some goods would necessarily be subject to, under the bill, was 
 not called for. The scale of minimums was not sufficiently graduated : 
 the " strides were too gigantic;" especially that from 40 cents to $2 50. 
 A large proportion of goods ranging between these prices would be 
 prohibited ; and they were of the grade usually consumed by the labor- 
 ing classes. And this prohibition would diminish the revenue. Goods, 
 for example, of a grade costing 50 cents, would be subject, if imported, 
 to the same duty as those entered at $2 50, viz. : 83 cts. Few foods 
 worth less than $2 would be imported. 
 
 At an early period of the discussion, therefore, an amendment was 
 offered, proposing to moderate the scale of minimum valuation, by 
 inserting a minimum of 81 50 between those of 40 cents and §2 50, 
 The friends of the bill as first reported, contended that this amendment 
 would in a great measure, defeat the object aimed at. A great part of 
 
"406 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the goods imported came within the range of $2 ; and the amount 
 excluded, if this minimum should be adopted, would not be an equiva- 
 lent for the evasion of duty on those admitted. 
 
 Mr. Mallary said the bill would not affect the revenue as was appre- 
 hended. The importations would not be essentially diminished. For- 
 eign manufacturers would only be compelled to change the quality of 
 their cloths with reference to these minimums. Instead of sending 
 goods of all grades of prices, they would send but the three grades ot 
 40 cents, $2 50, and $4, or nearly these prices. Some would come in 
 at prices between $3 and $4, and even below $3, and be rated on the 
 minimum of $i. Upon the lower grades the bill would operate more 
 powerfully, as it was designed to do. And although some of these 
 should be excluded, machinery was ready, and standing still, sufficient 
 to supply all parts of the counti-y in ninety days ; so that there was no 
 ground for apprehending a monopoly. 
 
 There was another mode of evading duties. Goods worth $4 the 
 square yard were imported in an unfinished state, invoiced at less than 
 $2 50, sent to one of the foreign finishing establishments, and, at a very 
 small expense, transformed into cloths worth $4. The bill would leave 
 but three points for the appraisers to regard, instead of the hundred, as 
 under existing regulations, and insure the collection of the duties. 
 Thus would the revenue be guarded against fraud, protection secured 
 to the domestic manufacturer, and employment given to the sixty mil- 
 lions of capital invested, and many thousands of industrious citizens. 
 
 The amendment, however, introducing the additional minimum of 
 $1 50, was adopted by a vote of 82 to 30. 
 
 Among those who took an active part in the debate on this bill, were 
 Messrs. Mallary, of Vermont, Dwight and Davis, of Massachusetts, 
 Pearce, of Rhode Island, Bartlett, of New Hampshire, Stewart, of 
 Pennsylvania, Barney, of Maryland, and Storrs, of New York, in favor 
 of the bill ; and Messrs. M'Lane, of Delaware, Ingham and Buchanan, 
 of Pennsylvania, Cambreleng, of New York, Hamilton and Mitchell, 
 of South Carelina, Stevenson, of Virginia, Bryan, of North Carolina, 
 and Wickliffe, of Kentucky, against it. 
 
 The necessity of adopting some regulation to enforce the collection 
 of duties, was generally admitted ; and, with a view to this object, 
 several amendments were proposed by the opponents of the bill as sub- 
 stitutes for thj minimum provision, but without success. 
 
 Mr. M'Lane admitted that the woolen manufacture was suffering a 
 ,evere depression, the cause of which, he said, was well known. The 
 act of 1824 had induced large investments of capital in this branch of 
 manufacture ; and double the usual quantity of domestic woolens had 
 
THE *■' WOOLENS BILL. ' 407 
 
 been thrown into the American market. At the same time, the opening 
 of the trade of the South American states h^d led the British manufac- 
 turers largely to increase their capital to supply that market. Having 
 overestimated the demand, and having been met there by a successful 
 competition on the part of our manufacturers, they soon found themselves 
 in possession of a large surplus, which they sent to this country to be 
 sold at almost any price it would bring. The flourishing state of the 
 woolen manufacture, soon after the passage of the act of 1824, proved 
 the sufficiency of that act as a measure of protection, if its intentions 
 were fulfilled. And he was willing to go to the full extent of it, by 
 substituting a specific for an ad valorem duty. 
 
 The principle of protection also was to some extent discussed. Mr. 
 Stewart, of Pennsylvania, supported the bill from its supposed benefits 
 to agriculture; and he regretted to find himself in opposition to two 
 of his most distinguished colleagues, (Buchanan and Ingham,) with 
 whom he had cooperated in support of the tariff of 1824 ; which, in his 
 judgment, was not more important to the agricultural interest of Penn- 
 sylvania than the bill under consideration. This bill would create a 
 home market for our farmers, which no changes in Europe could afl"ect, 
 and prevent the importation of foreign agricultural produce to the neglect 
 of our own. " For," said Mr. S., " what is the importation of cloth 
 but the importation of agricultural produce? Is not cloth the product 
 of agriculture? Analyse it; resolve it into its constituent elements, 
 and what is it ? Wool and labor. What produces the wool ? Grass 
 and grain. And what supports labor, but bread and meat ? Cloth is 
 composed of the grass and grain that feed the sheep, and the bread and 
 meat that support the laborer who converts the wool into cloth. And 
 is it policy for this country, where seven-eighths of the population are 
 agriculturists, to import annually ten millions of dollars' worth of grass 
 and grain, and bread and meat, converted into cloth ? 
 
 " That the importation of cloth is the importation of agricultural 
 produce, may be regarded as a novel doctrine ; and to assert that thou- 
 sands of tons of grass and corn are annually transported from Ohio and 
 Kentucky to the Atlantic markets, would be considered no less strange ) 
 but it was not less true. It is transported, not in its original shape, 
 but like the cloth, in a changed and modified condition. It is animated 
 — converted into live stock, cattle and horses. Each of these animals 
 carries five or six tons of hay, and fifty or one hundred bushels of core 
 for consumption to the markets of the east, which it is the policy of 
 this bill to sustain and to increase. Hence, it is a bill for the benefit ot 
 agriculture. There is no foundation for the objection that it will tax the 
 farmer and ruin agriculture. This argument has been urged a thousand 
 
408 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 times against this policy. It was urged against the minimunri of twenty- 
 five cents per yard, imposed by the tariff of 1816, upon cotton. What 
 has been the effect of that minimum duty upon cotton ? It afforded 
 effectual protection in that case as it would in this. It has established 
 the manufacture in this country ; and has it taxed the farmer ? No ; 
 it has furnished the country a better fabric for one-half the sum it cost 
 before. Nor is this all : it has supplied a home market to the southern 
 planter for 180,000 bales of cotton, worth $7,000,000. And this market 
 is not only permanent but increasing ; thus verifying every anticipation 
 of its friends, and affording a most triumphant refutation of every ob- 
 jection urged by its enemies. It has furnished facts and experience in 
 opposition to speculation and theory. And similar effects will result 
 from a similar policy in regard to wool." 
 
 In speaking of the advantage of protection to manufactures in creat- 
 ing a home market, Mr. Stewart said, that already the New England 
 ptates had imported, in a single year, 629,000 barrels of flour from the 
 agricultural states for consumption in their manufticturing establish- 
 ments, while all Europe had taken less than 57,000 barrels. The ten- 
 dency of this policy was also, not to create, but to prevent monopolies, 
 and benefit the farmer. It would increase the number of woolen estab- 
 lishments and the quantity of manufactured articles ; and this increased 
 competition would reduce the price of the manufactured fabrics, while 
 the increased demand for the raw material and breadstuffs would as 
 certainly enhance the value of these articles of agricultural produce. 
 
 In illustrating this argument, Mr. S. referred to the woolen establish- 
 ment at Steubenville, which consumed annually 50,000 dollars worth of 
 the agricultural produce of the surrounding country. Now if, by reject- 
 ing this bill, that establishment should be destroyed, what would be the 
 effect on the farmers ? It would not only destroy this market, but in- 
 crease the quantity of agricultural produce, by converting customers 
 into rivals — consumers into producers of agricultural products. But 
 suppose that, by passing the bill, two or three other establishments 
 should Be put into operation in that place, which he stated from personal 
 knowledge would be done ; would this impose a tax on the farmer for 
 the Isnefit of the manufacturer ? Would th.s create monopolies ? Pre- 
 cisely the reverse. 
 
 He also controverted the idea that the encouragement of manufactures 
 was injurious to commerce. He held it to be a sound political axiom, 
 that the prosperity of commerce would always be in proportion to the 
 prosperity of agriculture and manufactures. Commerce was properly 
 called the handmaid of agriculture and manufactures. Her legitimate 
 office was to carry and exchange the surplus productions of one country for 
 
THE WOOLENS BILL. 409 
 
 the money or surplus productioBs of another. Destroy agriculture and 
 manufactures and commerce would be destroyed. 
 
 Nor would this measure diminish the revenue. If less cloth should 
 be imported, the importation of other articles would be increased. The 
 best plan to increase the revenue, was to increase the prosperity of the 
 country — to increase its ability to purchase and consume foreign pro- 
 ductions. He illustrated this by again referring to the establishment at 
 Steubenville, where there were annually consumed imported goods to 
 the value of $30,000, on which were paid duties to the amount of 
 $10,000. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan said he had ever been the friend of what had been 
 called the tariflF policy ; and that the new doctrines of political economy 
 preached in England had no charms for him. They had never been 
 practiced by British statesmen ; and there was much reason to believe 
 they had been manufactured, not for home consumption, but for foreign 
 markets. [The doctrines alluded to by Mr. B. were those of free trade, 
 by the profession of which Great Britain might influence other nations 
 to adopt the policy, while she in practice rejected it.] 
 
 But while he made this avowal of his opinion, he was not ready to go 
 to any length manufacturers might desire, in prohibiting the importa- 
 tion of foreign goods. Other interests had equal claims to protection. 
 He admitted the depressed condition of the woolen manufacture, and the 
 necessity of extending to it additional protection. One principal cause 
 of this depression was, that, since the passage of our tariff of 1824, the 
 British government had reduced the duty on the importation of foreign 
 wool, from six pence sterling to a penny sterling per pound. By this 
 decrease of duty on the raw material, the cost of the manufactured ar- 
 ticle had been diminished, and enabled the English manufacturer to 
 compete with the American manufacturer in our market, with greater 
 advantage than formerly. This cause was permanent in its nature, and 
 would continue, until removed by legislation. The other caus» — that 
 of throwing upon us the surplus of British goods designed for the South 
 American market — was an evil which would soon cure itself. Such 
 fluctuations in trade could not be controlled by legislative provision. 
 What he was now willing to do, was to give the protection fully and 
 fairly intended by the tariff of 1824. The government was pledged to 
 continue this protection. But our manufacturers had in a measure lost 
 it, in consequence of the act of parliament which enabled their foreign 
 competitors to manufacture cheaper than they could do in 1824. He 
 was willing, therefore, to increase the rates of duty sufficiently to coun- 
 tervail the reduction of the British duty on foreign wool ; but he would 
 go no farther. 
 
410 THE AMERICAN STAT£SMAN. 
 
 Mr. Archer, of Virginia, said the strong ground for supporting this 
 bill had been stated by a gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Davis,) 
 who spoke some days ago. It was, that the recent i eduction of the 
 British duty on the import of wool, had in effect ta-ken away a part of 
 the protection which the existing rates of duty were intended to afford 
 and it was estimated that sixteen per cent, increase was necessary to com' 
 pensate for the disadvantage thus occasioned to the American manufac- 
 turer. This argument amounted, in principle, to this, that the di?charge 
 of a foreign tax, was a sufficient reason for our adopting it. We were 
 asked to put on our importation and consumption a new charge equal to 
 the reduction of the British duty on imported wool, for the farther pro- 
 tection of the manufacturers. 
 
 Of the distress of the manufacturing interest he had no doubt. It 
 bad recently received the aid of a tariff; and the administering of this 
 stimulus was always attended with distress. An excess of employment 
 bad been attracted to the favored pursuits ; and the market had become 
 overstocked with their products. Whatever might be the enlargement 
 of a market given by a tariff, it would be glutted, and distress would fol- 
 low. The present distress of the manufacturers, caused or aggravated by 
 the tariff of 1824, was therefore a reason, not for, but against this form 
 of relief, which would in the end produce a wider and more aggravated 
 suffering. 
 
 The only argument by which protection to any particular interest, at 
 the public expense, could be vindicated in justice, did not apply in the 
 present case. It was, that the protection would redeem itself — that the 
 article would eventually be rendered cheaper by the tax. No one would 
 defend a tax merely to favor a particular interest, if there were no ex- 
 pectation that the public would be indemnified. Such it had been said, 
 was the result of protection in the case of coarse cottons. But was it 
 so ? It was true that they were lower than they were when the duty was 
 imposed ; but were they lower than they would have been if they had 
 been left without protection ? If they were as cheap as we could bo 
 supplied with the foreign article, why not repeal the tax ? To this the 
 manufacturers would not consent. For this reason, he did not believe 
 that we did or could successfully compete with others in foreign markets. 
 
 But even if it were true in relation to coarse cottons, it would not h( 
 so in regard to woolens. In the manufacture of these, a smaller pro- 
 portion of the labor was performed by machinery ; and the manv.al labor 
 required was of a more experienced and expensive kind. And for an- 
 other reason : the cost of the raw material entered more largely into the 
 prices of woolens, than into those of cottons. And wool raised at home 
 must always be much higher than that which could be obtained from 
 abroad. Our country was not so favorable for raising sheep as Eng- 
 
THE "woolens bill." 411 
 
 land and other countries. This disadvantage of the greater cost of the 
 raw material could never be avoided, and, taken in connection with the 
 largei proportion of labor required in woolen as compared with cotton 
 goods, was decisive as to the relative cost of the domestic and the foreign 
 fabric. With us, woolens must be a forced fabric, and could never be 
 made as cheap as they could be imported. 
 
 A farther argument in favor of the bill was the enlarged market which 
 the extension of the manufacture was expected to produce. This also 
 Mr. A. denied. There would be no enlargement of the market — no ad- 
 dition to the amount or value of sales — no augmentation of the quanti 
 ty, or enhancement of the prices of the products of other branches of 
 industry. Market could be obtained only in the proportion in which it 
 was given. By purchasing at the north what had been heretofore ob- 
 tained abroad, was surrendering, to just that amount, our present market 
 abroad. It would be merely a transfer of market; for what would be 
 added to the domestic, would ■ be deducted from the foreign market. 
 Markets in the immediate neighborhood of manufactories would be im- 
 proved by their extension : and this had been confounded with a general 
 improvement of the market. The market of the country would, in fact, 
 suffer ; for the whole value of the national exchanges would be reduced 
 in an amount equal to the tax imposed by the bill. 
 
 It had been said, that the revenue would not be diminished. If our 
 money was taken, our understandings ought not to be insulted. On such 
 an argument, he declined comment. And when the revenue had suffered 
 reduction, the resource would be imposts on other imports. 
 
 Much had been heard of the extension of protection to other interests 
 than the manufacturing. How could navigation and commerce be said 
 to be protected when we were holding out a permanent invitation to the 
 removal of all discriminating duties ? By the removal of duties on 
 foreign shipping, our navigation had not been impaired. Scarcely more 
 necessary were duties for the protection of agriculture. Of this, the 
 proof was found in the readiness of our agriculturists to concur in the 
 removal of the protective duties. They not only did not ask, they re- 
 nounced protection, and were willing to annul every duty which wore 
 the semblance of this character. The benefits of the proposed measure 
 would be confined to a small number of persons — capitalists, who had 
 experienced a diminished rate of profits from their business. 
 
 But we are not allowed to extend the remarks of speakers on this bill. 
 Ho far as they embraced the general subject of protection, they do not 
 e8S3ntially differ from those which will be found in the debates on the 
 fcariii bills of 1824 and 1828, in other parts of this work. 
 
 On the 10th of February, the bill passed the house, 106 to 95, and 
 wa3 Bent to the senate, where, for the want of time to act upon it at 
 
412 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 that session, it was laid upon the table, February 28, by the castiug 
 vo^'e of the vice-president. 
 
 Disappointed in their expectations by the defeat of the " woolens bill," 
 the manufacturers early resolved on a renewal of their application to 
 congress for relief. At a meeting of the " Pennsylvania society for the 
 promotion of manufactures and the mechanic arts," held on the 14th of 
 May, 1827, Charles J. Ingersoll presiding, in view of "the depressed 
 state of the woolen manufacture, and of the market for wool, together 
 with its injurious effect on other departments of industry, and on the 
 general welfare," resolutions were adopted calling on the farmers and 
 manufacturers, and the friends of both branches of industry, to hold con- 
 ventions in their respective states, and to appoint at least five delegates 
 from each state, to meet in general convention at Harrisburg, on the 
 oOth day of July, to deliberate on measures proper to be taken in the 
 present posture of their affairs, and appointing a committee of twenty- 
 seven, to frame an address to the citizens of the United States. 
 
 In their address, the committee discussed the policy of protection, and 
 set forth the causes of the depression of the manufacturing interest, and 
 the effect of this depression upon the other great interests of the country. 
 Above 80 per cent, of the population was engaged in the pursuits of 
 agriculture ; and for the large surplus of the produce of the soil, there 
 was no market at home or abroad. The want of a market operated 
 severely upon the middle and western states. Europe no longer wanted 
 their grain and flour, and her ports were closed against them, while 
 these states consumed of the manufactures of Europe to the amount of 
 $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 in value annually. 
 
 To show the effects of the closing of the European ports against our 
 bread-stuffs, the amount of our exports of bread-stuffs during the year 
 1825, were compared with the amount exported while our wheat and 
 flour had a foreign demand. It appeared that, while our population had 
 nearly trebled since 1796, the exports of all the articles produced, ex- 
 clusive of cotton and tobacco, had diminished nearly one-third. The 
 arguments presented by the committee in favor of the desired protection 
 and of the general policy, were substantially the same as those offered 
 in previous discussions of the same subject. 
 
 In pursuance of the call of the " Pennsylvania society for the pro- 
 motion of manufactures," &c., state conventions were held, and delegates 
 appointed to the national convention at Harrisburg. From the pro- 
 ceedings of these state conventions, and the names of the persons who 
 participated in them, there seems to have been greater unanimity at 
 that time among the people of the ncTthern states on the subject of the 
 tariff than at a later period. 
 
HARRISBURG CONVENTION. 413 
 
 The New York state convention was held at Albanj', Jcsso Buel, 
 of Albany, was president of the convention ; and Edmund H. Pendleton, 
 of Dutchess, and David E. Evans, of Genesee, were secretaries. From 
 the published proceedings it appears, that " the convention was address- 
 ed by Col. Young, of Saratoga, Gen. Van Rensselear, of Columbia, and 
 other gentlemen, in support of the purposes for which it had assembled.'' 
 Among the delegates appointed to the Harrisburg convention, were 
 «ome of the most prominent citizens of the state, viz : Eleazer Lord 
 Peter Sharp, Gen. James Tallmadge, Jacob R. Van Rensselaer, Samuel 
 M. Hopkins, Samuel Young, John B. Yates, Alvan Stewart, Victory 
 Birdseye, Enos T. Throop, Francis Granger, Philip Church, and several 
 3thers, together with the officers of the convention. 
 
 A long series of resolutions was adopted, of which we copy the fol- 
 lowing as expressive of the common sentiments of the people, at that 
 oeriod, of the different political parties in the northern portion of the 
 union : 
 
 Resolved^ That agriculture, manufactures and commerce, are social 
 pursuits, and flourish best in the society of each other ; and that equal 
 protection by the government is due to each. 
 
 " Resolved, That as wool and the woolen trade were tht, principal 
 foundation of the prosperity, first of the Netherlands, and afterwards ot 
 England ; so the people of the northern and middle states ought to look 
 to the same article as an unfailing source of wealth to their agricultural, 
 manufacturing, and commercial interests. 
 
 " Resolved J That, inasmuuch as the staple agricultural products of 
 the south, to wit, cotton, tobacco, and rice, are admitted into the porta 
 of Europe without competition in their production in that part of the 
 world ; and while both competition and prohibitory laws operate to ex- 
 clude from European markets the breadstuffs, provisions, and manufac- 
 tures of the northern, middle and western states, we deem it unkind in 
 our southern brethren to oppose the passage of laws which are calculated 
 to create a home market for our agricultural productions, and to promote 
 our national wealth and prosperity." 
 
 There were in the national convention at Harrisburg, 95 delegates 
 from the following ^tates : New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 
 Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. Joseph Ritner, of 
 Pennsylvania, was chosen president ; Jesse Buel, of New York, and 
 Frisby Tilghman, ot Maryland, vice-presidents ; and William Hal- 
 BTED, Jun, of New Jersey, and Redwood Fisher, of Penneylvama, 
 secretaries. 
 
 Committees upon the several most important branches of manufacture 
 
414 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 were appointed, and a committee to draft a memorial to congress : also 
 a committee to prepare an address to the people of the United States. 
 The reports of the different committees form a large volume, embracing 
 a great amount and variety of facts and statistics which were not only 
 in themselves interesting,"but useful to the political economist and the 
 statesman. The memorial and petition to congress contained the project 
 of a tariff of duties upon raw wool and the different kinds and qualities 
 of woolen manufactures, for the consideration of congress. An increase 
 of duty on other articles of manufacture was also recommended. 
 
 The subject of a general revision of the tariff was again brought 
 before congress, on the 31st of December, 1827; and a resolution was 
 adopted authorizing the committee on manufactures to send for ; rsons 
 and papers. The object of granting this power was to enable the com- 
 mittee to ascertain and.report such facts as might be useful in guiding 
 the judgment of the house. On the 31st of January, 1828, the com- 
 mittee made a report, accompanied by a bill " in alteration of the several 
 acts imposing duties on imports ;" and the debate on the same commenced 
 the 3d of March, and terminated on the 22d of AprjJ. 
 
 The committee stated in their report, that, from the evidence relating 
 to the woolen manufacture, the following facts appeared : (1.) This in- 
 terest was laboring under severe depressions. (2.) These depressions 
 were caused, in a great degree, by excessive and irregular importations, 
 and the consequent fluctuation in price. (3.) The prices of wool in 
 England were nearly fifty per cent, less than in this country. (4.) The 
 cost of our wool in most cloths was about one-half of the cost of the 
 fabric. (5.) At the same cost of wool and foreign dying materials, tht 
 manufactured artide could be afforded as cheap in this country as in Eng- 
 land. (6.) The present duty was insufficient ; and to render any reason- 
 able duty effectual, it must be specific instead of ad valorem. 
 
 The committee reported the scale of minimums adopted by the house 
 in the " woolens bill" at the preceding session, except that the minimum 
 $1 50 was reduced to $1 ; and a specific duty was proposed as follows : 
 On cloths falling under the minimum of 50 cents, a duty of 16 cents the 
 square yard ; under that of $1, a duty of 40 cents ; under that of $2 50, 
 a duty of $ I ; and under that of $4, a duty of 40 f)er cent, ad valorem. 
 And a provision was added, charging cloths exceeding $4 in value, aa 
 ad valorem duty of 45 per cent. The committee also reported a modifi- 
 cation of the tariff generally. 
 
 The debate embraced the usual variety of topics. Most of the formfer 
 arguments on the constitutionality and the general effects of the prote> 
 tive system, were reproduced ; and the most opposite opinions were ex- 
 pressed as to thr,^operation of the proposed measure. ■ 
 
!' 1 
 
 TARIFF OP 1828. 415 
 
 Mr. Mallary, chairman of the committee, dissented from the majority 
 on some of the provisions of the bill, especially those relating to wool 
 and woolens, and moved an amendment adopting substantially the pro- 
 visions of the woolens bill of the last session. He expressed his viewa 
 upon the general subject of protection, and upon the merits of the bilL 
 The duty on wool, as proposed by the committee's bill, he deemed highly 
 objectionable. By the act of 1824, the coarse wool from South America, 
 costing 1 cents a pound at the place whence it was imported, was sub- 
 ject to a duty of 1 5 per cent. As this grade of wool was not grown in 
 this country, a higher rate of duty would have raised the price of the 
 cloth, without essentially benefiting the wool grower. On all other wool, 
 the duty was 20 per cent., to be increased 5 per cent, every year, until it 
 should have reached 50 per cent. By the present bill, all kinds of wool 
 were to be charged 7 cents a pound, and in addition, an ad valorem duty 
 of 40 per cent., to be increased to 50 per cent. Since the passage of the 
 act of 1824, manufactories had been built expressly for working this 
 kind of raw material into negro cloths, inferior baizes and flannel, used by 
 the poorer classes ; and the foreign fabric had been almost entirely ex- 
 cluded. The effect of the proposed duty would be to drive the manufac- 
 ture out of the country. 
 
 Another objection to the bill was, that the duties on the raw material 
 were too high in comparison with those on the manufactured article. If 
 the country did not furnish an adequate supply, the deficiency must be 
 made up by importation ; and if the wool unmanufactured were met by too 
 high a duty, it would come in the manufactured state. It was feared 
 that the effect of the bill would be the separation of the wool grower 
 from the manufacturer. Their interests were united. The prosperity 
 of the one was dependent upon that of the other. The manufacturer, 
 relying upon a foreign market for wool, might prosper under a high duty 
 on cloth; but the wool grower was dependent for success upon the manu- 
 facturer. Hence, a system of duties which should operate so adversely 
 upon the latter as to prevent or destroy the domestic market for wool, 
 would be equally detrimental to the former, whatever might be the duty 
 on foreign wool. 
 
 Calculations were made to show that the bill was less favorable to 
 both the manufacturer and the wool grower, than the tariff of 1824. The 
 manufacturer of the coarse fabric, being dependent on the foreign article 
 for supplies of the raw material, would be ruined ; as the American 
 farmer can not afford to grow the coarse wool, worth only eight to twelve 
 cents a pound, instead of that of a quality which would command thirty- 
 five to fifty cents. The foreigner would take the wool which we pro- 
 hibited,' and furnish the fabric, the manufacture of which the An^eriean 
 
416 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 must abandon. And bj throwing the manufacture out of the country, 
 the eflFects of domestic competition would be lost ; and the duty would 
 in reality be a tax on the consumer. 
 
 On the other hand, it was calculated with equal confidence, that the 
 bill would operate equally and favorably upon all classes whose interests 
 were involved in it. The necessity of increasing the duty on coarse 
 wool arose from the fact of its coming in very dirty, losing nearly half 
 its weight in cleaning. But when cleaned, its quality approached so 
 nearly the cheapest grades of domestic wool as to affect them in the market. 
 The specific duty of 7 cents would compel the merchant or manufacturer 
 to import only the cleanest wool. The duty proposed, without greatly 
 advancing the price, would, by checking the importation, create a demand 
 on the American farmer for coarse wool. It was attempted to be shown 
 by arithmetical calculation, that the woolen manufacturer would derive 
 additional protection from the proposed arrangement. 
 
 The late repeal, by Great Britain, of the duty on wool, had been 
 alleged, by our manufacturers, to be one of the means which ena- 
 bled the British to undersell them, and been o^ered as a reason for 
 additional protection. The facts were said to be these : Great Britain 
 had for two hundred years prohibited, under severe penalties, the export- 
 ation of sheep or wool, and allowed the importation at a duty of one cent 
 a pound. The imports of wool from Spain and Germany having become 
 so great in 1819, the wool growers demanded protection, or the privilege 
 of exporting, if the manufacturer were permitted to import : and a dutj 
 of 6d (11 cents) a pound was laid upon wool imported. In 1824, this 
 duty was repealed ; and by the same law, the restriction upon the export- 
 ation was removed. How, it was asked, could this work injury to the 
 manufacturer ? 
 
 With respect to the duty on molasses also, the friends of protection 
 were divided in opinion. The existing duty was 5 cents ; that proposed 
 by the bill 10 cents a gallon. The reasons for the increase were; 
 (1.) The present duty was disproportionate to that on sugar; a gallon 
 of molasses being equal, as a sweetening matter, to eight pounds of sugar, 
 on which was paid a duty of 24 cents. (2.) Much of the article being 
 used for distillation, it came into competition with the grain oi the farmer, 
 for whose protection the increase was necessary. 
 
 The increase was opposed, because, (1.) It was an article of general use 
 among all classes of people, and of which this country could hot furnish a 
 supply. (2.) It would injure our trade with the West Indies. This was 
 the only fair and reciprocal trade of great importance enjoyed by our 
 citizens. The South Carolina doctrine was, " If a nation will not buy 
 it can not sell." It was equally true, that, if a nation can not sell, it 
 
TARIFF OF 1828. 417 
 
 can not buy. Our annual exports thither amounted to $10,000,000 to 
 $18,000,000, consisting chiefly of the productions of the forest and fish- 
 eries. The state of Maine was extensively engaged in this trade. Tlie 
 timber in the forest was of little value. Nearly the whole of its event- 
 ual value was produced by its manufacture and transportation to its proper 
 and only market. The lumber business gave employment to $4,000,000 
 of capital, 14,000 men, and 10,000 yoke of oxen. Of equal or greater 
 importance was the fishing interest. These being products of great bulk 
 and burden, they i*equired a large amount of shipping for their trans- 
 portation. Molasses was the principal article to be had in exchange for 
 lumber and fish : cash could not be procured for them. 
 
 Another effect of this high duty on molasses reported by the majority 
 of the committee, it was feared, would be to exclude the poorer qualities, 
 which were fit only foi' distillation, and, consequently, to advance tlie 
 price in the West India market for the better qualities. Both were sold 
 together; and the better article could not be bought alone without pay- 
 ing a price which would compensate the seller for his loss on the poorer 
 
 Spirits not being considered one of the necessaries of life, the duty on 
 foreign distilled spirits received no material opposition. So also in rela- 
 tion to the proposed duties on iron and the manufactures of iron, the 
 friends of protection were nearly unanimous. The specific duty of 7 
 cents per pound on coarse wool having been reduced to 4 cents, and a 
 few other provisions having been slightly altered, the bill was ordered 
 to a third reading on the 15th of April. 
 
 The next day the bill was read the third time, and on the question of 
 its passage, Mr. Randolph spoke at length in opposition, and concluded 
 by moving its indefinite postponement. Upon this motion another 
 debate arose, in which the merits of the bill and the general system of 
 protection were again discussed. In this discussion, however, few took 
 a part, except the opponents of the protective policy. 
 
 Among the advocates of the bill were Anderson, Buchanan, Forward, 
 and Ingham, of Pennsylvania ; Bates, of Massachusetts ; Barnard, 
 Martin Hoffman, Martindale, Strong and Wright, of New York ; Mal- 
 lary, of Vermont ; Bates, of Massachusetts ; Ingersoll, of Connecticut ; 
 Vinton and Wright, of Ohio. Of those who spoke in opposition, were 
 Alexander, Gilmer, and Randolph, of Virginia ; Anderson and Sprague, 
 of Maine; Gambreleng, of New York ; Drayton, Hamilton, and M'Duf 
 fie, of South Carolina ; Turner, of North Carolina ; Thompson, of New 
 Jersey ; Wickliffe, of Kentucky ; and Wilde, of Georgia. 
 
 The vote on the passage of the bill was taken on the 22d of April, and 
 decided in the affirmative, 105 to 94. 
 
 The spirit of some of the opposing members was strikingly exhibited 
 
 27' 
 
418 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 on taking the question on the title of the bill, which was, " An act in 
 alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports." 
 
 Mr. Wilde moved to amend it by adding the words, " and for the 
 encouragement of domestic manufactures." 
 
 Mr. Randolph opposed the motion, irsisting that domestic manufac- 
 tures were those which were carried on in the families of farmers, in the 
 fabrication of what used to be called Virginia cloth ; and that the bill, 
 if it had its true name, should be called, a bill to rob and plunder nearly 
 one-half of the union, for the benefit of the residue, &c. Let the friends 
 of the bill christen their own child ; he would not stand godfather to it 
 The title was merely ad captandum vulgus ; like the words on the con- 
 tinental money, ridiculed in Smith's verses : 
 
 " Lihertas et natale solum, 
 Fine words indeed ! I wonder where you stole 'em." 
 
 The bill referred to manufactures of no sort or kind, but the manufacture 
 of a president of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Wilde, after a brief reply, in which he assented to Mr. R.'s 
 opinion of the bill, but thought the manufactures in the family ought to 
 be called household manufactures, consented to withdraw his amendment. 
 
 Mr. Drayton then moved to amend the title as follows : strike out all 
 after " An act," and insert, " to increase the duties upon certain imports, 
 for the purpose of increasing the profits of certain manufacturers." After 
 some general remarks on the injurious character of the bill, he stated 
 that the main reason for his desiring to amend the title, was, that a deci- 
 sion might be had on its constitutionality, by an appeal to the supreme 
 court of the United States, on some case which might arise under its 
 operation. This could not be done if the title remained as it now stood. 
 A declaration by the power which enacted the law, that it was intended 
 for the protection of certain manufacturers, would bring up the constitu- 
 tional question, whether congress could increase the duties on imports 
 for such a purpose. 
 
 Mr. Hodges, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the amendment of 
 Mr. Drayton, by adding to it as follows : "And to transfer the capital 
 of the New England states to other states in the union." 
 
 Whereupon Mr. Bartlett moved the previous question on the title. 
 The house sustained the call ; the previous question was put and carried ; 
 and the main question having been put, as follows : " Shall this be the 
 title of the bill ?" it was carried without a division. 
 
 In the senate, the specific duties on cloths, as fixed by the house, were 
 changed to ad valorem duties of 40 per cent., to be increased after June, 
 1829, to 45 per cent. With these and a few other amendments, the bill 
 
TARIFF OF 1823. ^jO 
 
 was passed : and the amendments were afterward concurred in by the 
 bouse. •' 
 
 Great excitement at the south, especially in South Carolina, was pro- 
 tlux^ed by the action of congress in 1827 and 1828, on the subject of pro- 
 tection. The popular indignation found vent through public meetings, 
 eg.slatures, and the press, in terms of extreme violence. A faithful his- 
 tory of the tunes seems to require a record of some expressions of south- 
 ern feeling and sentiment. With many it has been a question, whether 
 the stand taken by the south on this subject was designed to frighten 
 the people of the north from the position they had assumed, or whether it 
 was induced by the belief that the protective policy really inflicted upon 
 • them the injury of which they so grievously complained. 
 
 A memorial to the state legislature was adopted by the citizens of 
 Columbia and Richland, S. C, entreating that body to "save them if 
 possible from the conjoined grasp of usurpation and poverty." They 
 say: - We exist as a member of the union merely as an object of taxa- 
 tion Ine northern and middle states are to be enriched by the plunder 
 of the south." " The citizens of South Carolina will be condemned to 
 work as the tributaries of the northern and middle secfions of the union 
 It is so now; and it is triumphantly determined to extend the system 
 indefinitely." "^ 
 
 In their memorial to congress, they declare "that congress possess no 
 poxver under the constitution to enact a sysiem of protection"-" their 
 honest earnings are legislated out of their pockets"-and the burdens 
 imposed on them are " too heavy to be borne in silence any longer " 
 
 In an addrocg to t-he people of South Carolina, the citizens of Colleton 
 district say: "Your remonstrances and your implorations have been in 
 ram; and a tariff bill has passed, not, indeed, such as you apprehended, 
 but tenfold worse." " The question whether congress can constitution- 
 ally do this or not, excites neither solicitude nor alarm, and appears un- 
 worthy of inquiry. Power seems to be right; and our representatives 
 sit m desponding silence, under the conviction, that their voices could ag 
 easily move the capitol from its basis, as shake the purpose of interested 
 cupidity. They protest, indeed, before they receive the blow 
 
 "What course is left for us to pursue ? Our northern and western 
 brethren are not, can not, be ignorant of the operation of the system they 
 advocate, or of the powers they claim for the government. They full 
 well know, because like us they must feel, that it lifts them to prosper- 
 ity, while It sinks us into ruin. We have done by words all that words 
 can do. To talk more must be a dastard's refuge. 
 
 " If we have the common pride of men, or the determination of free- 
 n)en, we must resist the impositions of this tariff • * » In advising 
 
420 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 an attitude of open resistance to the laws of the union, we deem it due 
 to the occasion, and that we may not be misunderstood, distinctly, but 
 briefly to state, without argument, our constitutional faith. For it 
 is not enough that imposts laid for the protection of manufactures are 
 oppressive, and transfer millions of our property to northern capitalists- 
 [f we have given ;hem our bond, let them take our blood. Those who 
 resist these imposts must deem them uncomtitutional ; and the principhi 
 is abandoned by the payment of one cent, as much as ten millions." ^ 
 
 Retaliatory measures were proposed. It was suggested by a citizen 
 of South Carolina, in one of the papers, that the legislatures of tht 
 southern states prohibit the introduction of horses, mules, hogs, beef, 
 cattle, bacon, and bagging, from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennes-ee, and Indi- 
 ana; whiskey, beer, flour, cheese, &c., from New York and Pennsylva- 
 nia; and also lay on these last named states " a municipal tax, amount- 
 ing 'to prohibition, on all stock in trade, consisting of goods, wares, or 
 merchandise, the produce of those states." 
 
 Another paper said : " The object of every agriculturist should be, in 
 the first place, to devise means for the destruction of the manufacturing 
 
 mania." 
 
 A Georgia paper called the tariff an " accursed chain to bind us vic- 
 tims to the idol mammon ;" and said : " We must now turn ourselves 
 to other means and other defenses, constitutional, indeed, but at the 
 same time with spirit pushing resistance to the very bounds of the con- 
 stitution. Let there be a wall raised between them and us ; and let 
 us say unto them as Abraham said unto Lot : ' Let there be no strife, 
 &c. ' Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me : if thou wilt take the 
 left hand, then I will go to the right ; or if thou depart to the right 
 band, then I will go to the left.' 
 
 " Let us lay upon ourselves the injunction which was through Moses 
 laid upon the Israelites: ' And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into 
 the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city and all 
 the spoil thereof: and there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to 
 thine hand.' 
 
 " Let us govern ourselves by the advice of the apostle : ' Touch not, 
 taste not, handle not, the unclean thing which is theirs.' And for this 
 purpose we would recommend that a congress assemble from all the 
 states opposed to a protecting tariff, in order to advise and recommend 
 to the different legislatures and people, such measures, 'consistent with 
 the constitution, as may seem best calculated to protect them from the 
 operation of the tariff bill, and prevent the introduction and use of the 
 tariflB.ed articles in their respective states." [Note D.] 
 
RKSOLUnONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 
 
 421 
 
 CHAPTER XXXII. 
 
 [ITTEODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND 
 REFORM, 
 
 Mr. Chilton, an opposition member from Kentucky, on the 22d of 
 January, 1828, moved certain resolutions declaring the expediency of a 
 speedy discharge of the national debt; and, in order to its accomplish- 
 ment, the necessity of a general system of retrenchment ; and instruct- 
 ing the committee of ways and means to report to the house what offices 
 might be discontinued, and what salaries might be reduced, and such 
 other means of retrenchment as to them might seem necessary. 
 
 These resolutions were the subject of daily debate until the 6th of 
 February, when, after having been materially modified, they were 
 "eferred to a select committee by a unanimous vote. Professing to 
 3oncur in the principle of the resolutions, and to believe that the sev- 
 eral departments of the government had been economically admin- 
 istered, the friends of the administration, although they considered the 
 introduction of the resolutions as being intended for party effect, made 
 no serious opposition to their reference. Reduction of expense in the 
 departments of state, of the treasury, of the navy, of war, and of the 
 post-olfice, were mentioned as particular objects of inquiry ; as also the 
 contingent fuads of these departments, and the compensation of the 
 members of congress. The debate was unusually discursive, embracing 
 many topics having no relevancy to the general subject. It was marked 
 by that strong party feeling which might be expected from speakers on 
 one side who were fully bent on overthrowing the administration, and 
 from those on the other, equally determined to sustain it. 
 
 The resolutions were founded upon alleged abuses and want of econ- 
 omy in the administration of the government. The specifications made 
 by the mover were, that the navy list was crowded ; at West Point, a 
 large number of cadets had been educated at the public expense, who 
 were without employment ; a Jifth auditor had been appointed for a 
 time which had passed away, and his services were no longer necessary ; 
 there was an unnecessary number of clerks in most of the public offices ; 
 the contingent fund had been improperly used ; many salaries might be 
 reducad, and the reduction should begin with the compensation and 
 mileage of members of congress ; aiid there was an unnecessary expen- 
 diture for printed documents. 
 •Although the speakers of the opposition party concurred in the 
 
422 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 object of the resolutions, there were poiuts upon which they were not 
 entirely unanimous. Messrs. Buchanan, Randolph, and M'Dtiffic, 
 though they believed in the necessity of reform, did not think the 
 present a favorable time, nor the manner proposed a proper one, to 
 effect the object. Mr. Buchanan also differed with Mr. Chilton in 
 respect to the ofl&ce of fifth auditor, whose duties had been doubled 
 since the office was created. Several members of the opposition also 
 opposed a reduction of their compensation. Mr. Chilton subsequently 
 said the fifth auditor was not the one whose office he wished discon- 
 tinued. He believed, however, there were too many auditors. 
 
 The importance of a speedy payment of the public debt was urged in 
 favor of the measure. Mr. Daniel, of Kentucky, suggested that the 
 eavings made by retrenchment might be divided among the states, to 
 be expended in making roads and canals. There were, he said, more 
 than 9,000 officers employed in the various departments. He believed 
 the office oi fourth auditor was useless ; and at least three of the audi- 
 tors might be dispensed with. Laborers generally were required to work 
 during the whole day, while the public officers attended in their offices 
 only four or five hours, at extravagant salaries of $1,000 to $3,000, 
 Let them perform a greater amount of labor, and their number might 
 be greatly reduced. 
 
 Money, it was said, too, had been taken out of the treasury for wild 
 and visionary projects. The operation of the government had not been 
 confined to constitutional objects; but a new era had opened upon us, 
 and we were about to feel the calamitous effects of the administration. 
 The military academy at West Point was denounced as a monarcliicaj 
 institution, the benefits of which were confined to the sons of the rich 
 and well-born. There were twenty young men, supernumerary 2d lieu- 
 tenants, who had been educated at the public expense, and who were 
 now supported at their own homes at an annual cost of $15,000 an- 
 nually. 
 
 Among the instances of the misapplication of money, was the appoint- 
 ment of Rufus King as minister to London, who was superannuated, 
 and known to be incompetent to perform the duties of his mission ; on 
 account of which, we had lost the West India trade. Yet his mission 
 had cost $30,000 or $40,000. Another minister (Mr. Gallatin) haj 
 been sent, who also had returned without having essentially benefitted 
 the nation. It was alleged as an abuse, also, that our foreign ministers^ 
 in addition to their first year's salary of $9,000, were paid an equal 
 Bum as an outfit. And it was mentioned as an abuse of the contingent 
 fund of the state department, that John A. King, secretary of legation, 
 who had been left by his father as charge d'affaires at Loudon, had beeu 
 
RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 423 
 
 paid a salary, or an outfit (4,500) and part of a salary, while lie re- 
 mained in England, in violation, it was believed, of a law of congress, 
 which requires his appointment by the president and senate. John H 
 Pleasants had been paid $1,900 for carrying dispatches to one of our 
 ministers in South America ; but instead of performing his mission, he 
 had sailed to Europe, The Panama mission had cost $S0,000 or 
 $100,000, and resulted in no great benefit. Mr. Daniel mentioned other 
 things which he considered abuses, and said he believed that many of the 
 offices under the government were mere sinecures, of no manner of good 
 to the public, and ought to be abolished. And the president, he said, 
 was responsible for the whole, whether these offices existed before he came, 
 into power or not. He ought to have examined into them, and if any of 
 them could be dispensed with, he ought to have pointed them out in his 
 message to congress. 
 
 Mr. M'Duffie said he would neither inculpate nor exculpate the 
 'administration. He would say nothing that would have a bearing on the 
 administration in one way or another. The question was not what the 
 government had done — that was past — but this was a practical resolu- 
 tion, which had reference wholly to future reforms. Whether there 
 were abuses or not — whether our ministers had been sent out too often, 
 or changed without sufficient reason, were questions not involved in the 
 resolution. Whether the Panama mission was expedient, or not, was 
 not now before the house ; that mission was at an end ; why was it 
 brought up here, and at this time ? As bearing upon the administra- 
 tion these things had no business here. 
 
 In reference to the public debt, and the mode of its discharge, he said 
 that subject was before the committee of ways and means; and he 
 moved that so much of the resolution as referred to the public debt, be 
 struck out. All the means which the country possessed of paying that 
 debt, were by existing laws to be applied to that object; and no resolu- 
 tion would either hasten or retard its payment. 
 
 In the course of the debate the president was also censured for his 
 having rewarded with office members of congress who had aided in his - 
 election. He was accused of having proclaimed doctrines in relation to 
 the powers of the general government, incompatible with every notion of 
 a limited constitution, the rights of the states, and the liberties of the 
 people. And having, by a lawless construction, extended the powers ot 
 the government, he had threatened a sovereign state (Georgia) with the 
 military force of the nation. 
 
 Gentlemen on the other side expressed their willingness to institute 
 the inquiry proposed by the resolutions. Mr. Wright, of Ohio, said the 
 iubject was not a new one. The president, in his message in December 
 
424 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 1826, had said: " It is well for us, however, to be admonished of the 
 necessity of abiding by the maxims of the most vigilant economy, and 
 of resorting to all honorable expedients, for pursuing, with steady and 
 inflexible perseverance, the total discharge of the debt." And in the 
 message of December, 1827, he says: "The deep solicitude felt by all 
 classes throughout the union, for the total discharge of the public debt, 
 will apologize for the earnestness with which I deem it my duty to urge 
 this topic upon the consideration of congress, of recommending to them 
 ugain the strictest economy in the application of the public funds." 
 
 Mr. Wright said he had, two years ago, proposed to amend the rules 
 ot the house, so as to authorize the raising of a standing committee on 
 retrenchment, to ascertain abuses, and suggest measures of economy ; 
 and at the last session he had proposed an inquiry into the expenditure 
 of the contingent fund of the house. If unnecessary offices existed, it 
 was not to be charged to the administration, as no new offices had been 
 created. Nor had they raised the salaries of any officers, except that of 
 the postmaster-general ; and this was demanded by the increasing busi- 
 ness of his department. 
 
 The administration was declared to be desirous of paying the public 
 debt. The $10,000,000 annually reserved as a sinking fund, must ine- 
 vitably pay the debt. The present administration had paid, not only 
 the ten millions annually, but a part of the deficiencies of the preced- 
 ing administration. 
 
 Of the 9,000 officers said to be employed in the various departments, 
 it ought to have been stated, that between 7,000 and 8,000 were deputy 
 postmasters. 
 
 The academy at West Point was defended by several members. It 
 had been recommended by Washington, and established during the 
 administration of Jefferson, and cherished by every subsequent admin- 
 istration. The number of cadets to be appointed, and the recommenda- 
 tion and selection of candidates for admission, were regulated by law, 
 and not by the administration. It was true, there were not always 
 vacancies in the army for the immediate employment of all the cadets ; 
 but they soon became merged in the register, and ceased to be super- 
 numeraries. The academy was also defended by Mr. Buchanan, an 
 opposition member, who considered an institution of this kind as tha 
 best plan of military instruction ever devised, arid necessary as a means 
 of providing for the common defense. The supply cf officers, however; 
 was too great for the demand of the army ; or, if gentlemen pleased 
 the army was too small for the academy. 
 
 The mission to England, it was said, had been tendered to Gov. 
 Clinton, of New York, and by him declined^ he having just been elected 
 
RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 425 
 
 governor. It was next offered to Mr. King, who, of all men in the 
 nation, was generally acknowledged to be best qualified to settle the 
 difficulties between the two countries: and the appointment was such as 
 the senate approved. At the time of the appointment, his health waa 
 sufficient to transact the public business. But he became sick, and 
 returned home, and soon after died. Mr. Grallatin was appointed as his 
 successor. The mission had not been unsuccessful. A treaty had been 
 effected, by which $1,200,000 had been allowed us for slaves carried 
 away during the last war ; and by another treaty, the boundary line 
 between the United States and the British colonies had been settled ; 
 thus terminating two long standing difficulties between the two countries. 
 
 In relation to the matter of John A. King, it was said, that, from an 
 official report of the secretary of state made at the preceding session, 
 in answer to a call from the house of representatives, it appeared to have 
 bc3n the uniform practice under preceding administrations, when a 
 minister left a court before a successor arrived, to leave some one in 
 charge of our diplomatic affairs ; and the charge had, perhaps, always 
 been devolved upon the secretary of legation. Nor did the compensa- 
 tion allowed Mr. King exceed the allowances in similar cases under 
 former administrations. • 
 
 John H. Pleasants had received, as bearer of dispatches, the usual 
 sum, and no more. He embarked for South America, but was prevented 
 by sickness from going the whole distance. He however employed a 
 person to deliver the dispatches, and the service was satisfactorily per- 
 formed. 
 
 The Panama mission, it was said, had received the sanction of both 
 houses, and been approved by the nation. What would not have been said 
 against the administration, if the invitation to attend the meeting had 
 not been accepted? The administration was not responsible for the 
 failure of the meeting. 
 
 In reply to the charge, that the West India trade had been lost by 
 the diplomatic blunders of the administration, Mr. Bartlett, of New 
 Hampshire, stated the facts to be as follows; When, during the admin- 
 istration of Mr. Monroe, this subject was under negotiation, our govern- 
 ment insisted on having the same privileges in this trade as the British 
 North American colonies. That was the question at the close of his 
 term. So soon as that point could with decency be surrendered by his 
 successor, it was given up. Then the British government insisted on. 
 regulating the business by reciprocal acts v.*' legislation, which would 
 have left our commerce to the caprice or interest of parliament, or even 
 to the less forhial annihilation by a decree in council. This annuncia- 
 tion was accompanied with the additional suggestion, that, if we should 
 
426 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 legislate for such a purpose, they would not even hold out an encourage- 
 ment that they would meet us in such compromise. Congress refused 
 to act in that crisis, and left the presideci no alternative but to execute- 
 former existing laws. But subsequent r.egotiation had secured to us 
 that trade upon a better foundation than any act of parliament would 
 give it. Sweden had a treaty wi*'!' (jreat Britain, securing reciprocal 
 advantages of trade with her W^st India possessions: and by a treaty 
 with Sweden, just published, we had secured a trade, on the most ad- 
 vantageous terms, to the island of St. Bartholomews. This gave us au 
 indirect trade to the British islands, to which our trade had always 
 been in articles of necessity to them. They must still have them, and 
 pay for the indirectness of the trade, while their ships are excluded from 
 the trade to this country, giving us both the outward and home freight. 
 
 Another charge of extravagant expenditure, had been founded upon 
 a comparison of this administration with that of Mr. Jefierson, made 
 by Mr. Hives, of Virginia, who considered three or four millions as the 
 ordinary current expenses of Mr. Jefferson's administration, and the 
 ordinary current expenses of the present, thirteen millions. Mr. Bart- 
 lett, by a different process of calculation, made the expenses of the 
 former greater, and those of the latter less, tl»an his opponent had done. 
 A great change, too, in the condition of the country had taken place. 
 At the former period, the house consisted of 140 members, now of 213. 
 In the senate there were then 32, now 48. The expenses of the two 
 branches was then $164,526, now $471,800. Our army, in 1802, con- 
 sisting of 2,400 men, cost $844,009; now it consisted of 6,000 men, 
 and cost $2,050,317. There had also been a corresponding increase of 
 the navy, and consequently of its expenses. Since that period, too, we 
 had paid large sums to extinguish Indian titles. Claims growing out of 
 the late war had been paid ; and a million and a half of dollars were 
 distributed among the soldiers of the revolution. 
 
 It had been stated, that the expense of foreign intercourse in the last 
 three years of Mr. Monroe's administration had been $280,000, and in 
 the three first years of the present, $413,000. But in this statement, 
 the appropriations for 1825, which had been made before Mr. Adams 
 came into office, had been erroneously imputed to him. By comparing 
 the appropriations for foreign intercourse for 1823, 1824, and 1825, 
 with those-for 1826, 1827, and 1828, it would appear, that, in the latter 
 period, the expense was $27,000 less than in the former. Other compar- 
 isons with preceding administrations were made by Mr. B., representing 
 the expenses of Mr. Adams' administration to have been less than those 
 of its predecessors. 
 
 The appointment of members of congress to office who had voted for 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
RESOLUTIONS ON RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 427 
 
 Mr. Adams in the house, had been referred to as an evidence of the 
 corruption of the administration. Mr. Jefferson's administration had 
 been held up as a model for imitation. He, too, had been chosen by the 
 house ; and he had appointed a larger number of members of congress 
 to office than Mr. Adams had. The old charge of bargain and intrigue, 
 as connected with the last presidential election, had been reiterated, 
 notwithstanding the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Buchanan,) who 
 had been designated by the accuser as witness, had said in his place to 
 this house, and to the world : " Of the charge of corruption in the 
 election, I will not speak: if there was any, I know it not." 
 
 Mr. Adams had been charged with " lawless constructions" of the eon- 
 fctitution and laws to extend his power and patronage. And uuder this 
 construction he had appointed foreign ministers on original missions, in 
 the recess of the senate. The same power, said Mr. Wright, ui' Ohio, 
 had been exercised by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe .; and 
 he cited the instances. Mr. Jefferson had, in the recess of the senate, 
 in 1801, instituted the office of secretary of legation, and commissioned 
 one such officer to France, and another to Spain ; and he had appointed 
 six consuls to places, to which none had been sent before. 
 
 But we have not room to pursue this debate, a large portion of which 
 would scarcely be considered creditable to the body in which it occurred. 
 It abounded with personalities and criminations. Certain acts of Mr. 
 Adams before his election, and those of his competitor for the presidency, 
 ^rere made the subject of severe animadversion. 
 
 The motives of the opposition were impugned. Every preceding ad- 
 n.inistration, it was said, had been similarly assailed. The object was to 
 rerthrow the administration. A certain letter published in the opposi- 
 tion papers, and highly applauded, was referred to as evidence of a com- 
 bination of the friends of the disappointed rival candidates for this pur- 
 pose. The letter said : " To the friends of Jackson and Crawford, those 
 of John C. Calhoun are added ; and the union forms such a force of 
 numbers, talents, and influence, that it would seem improbable that this 
 can be effectively met by Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay and their friends, 
 aided by their united experience, ability, patronage, and official advan- 
 tages, great as they are. Men are so very sincere in their dislikes, that 
 the most opposite natures will coalesce to diminish the power of an object 
 of a higher common aversion, and will surrender the strongest personal 
 competition to unite for mutual safety." 
 
 On the 6th of February, 1828, the resolutions of Mr. Chilton, having 
 been considerably amended, were referred to a select committee, consist- 
 of Messrs. Hamilton, Ingham, Sergeant, Kives, Everett, Wickliffe, and 
 Wright, of New York. On the 22d of May, this committee reported r©. 
 
428 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 solutions instituting an inquiry, during the recess of congress, into the ac- 
 counts of Grales and Seaton, as public printers, the prices paid them for 
 printing, &c., and whether in any instances, they had departed from the 
 standard ; and requiring a report and statement to be submitted at the 
 next session of congress. 
 
 On the 24th of May, the last business day of the session preceding 
 the day of adjournment, Mr. Hamilton reported a mass of papers and 
 documents which had accumulated in the course of the investigations of 
 the committee, and stated, that, from want of time, they had not been 
 able to prepare the bills and resolutions necessary to carry their recom- 
 mendation into effect ; but it was their intention to move a recommitment 
 of the report for this purpose, on an early day of the next session. A 
 minority report was submitted by Mr. Sergeant. 
 
 Accordingly, on the 3 1st of December, 1828, Mr. Hamilton moved 
 the eomniitnient of the report, and assured, the house that the requisite 
 bill should be prepared with all possible expedition. On the 24th of 
 January, 1820, a resolution on the subject of stationery came up, which, 
 after a short debate, was, on motion of Mr. Hamilton, laid on the table 
 with a view to its being embraced in the bill about to be reported for the 
 whole retrenchment of the house. No bill, however, was reported. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIII. 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONEERING. JEFFERSON's OriNIONS OF THE CANDI- 
 DATES. ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Among the means employed to advance the interests of the candidates 
 for the presidency, were attempts, on the part of their friends, to avail 
 themselves of the influence of the opinions of Mr. Jefferson. 
 
 On the 20th of November, 1827, a number of citizens of the state of 
 Illinois, addressed to Gov. Coles, of that state, a letter, in which they 
 said they had seen in the public papers, opinions said to have been ex- 
 pressed to him by Mr. Jefferson of Gen. Jackson, a short time before 
 the death of the former. They said also that the United States Tele- 
 graph, (the Jackson paper at Washington,) had asserted that he (Gov. 
 Coles) had denied ever having made the statements imputed to him, and 
 that other papers declared that he had made them : and they requested 
 him to state, as nearly as possible, the last conversation he had with Mr. 
 Jefferson in relation to Gen. Jackson and his fitness for the presidency. 
 
jefferson'b opinion of the C ANDIDATES. 429 
 
 Gov. Coles, in his answer, saya the conversation took phice on the 1 1th 
 of August, 1825, while on a visit to Monticello. Mr. Jeflforson, in 
 epeaking of the candidates at the last election, expressed a decided pre- 
 ference for Mr. Crawford, and his regret that he had lost his health, and 
 with it his election. But having failed to elect him, he expressed his 
 gratification that the choice had fallen on Mr. Adams, to whom he said 
 he had objections, but conceived him to be more safe and fit, and, by his 
 acquirements and habits of life, better qualified than Gen. Jackson to 
 discharge the duties of the presidency. " In a word," continues tho 
 governor, "he spoke of Mr. Adams as an enlightened and experienced 
 statesman, of Gen. Jackson as a valiant and successful soldier, with no 
 other pretension to the chief magistracy than that derived from his mili- 
 tary services. While conversing about Gen. Jackson, I took occasion to 
 say, that the great zeal which had been displayed to elect the general, 
 and the extraordinary vote he had received, had made me doubt the* 
 durability of our free institutions. Mr. Jefferson, in the most emphatic 
 manner, said, ' Sir, it has caused me to doubt more than any thing that 
 has occurred since the revolution ; that he (Gen. Jackson) did not pos- 
 sess the temper, the acquirements, the assiduity, the physical qualifica- 
 tions for the ofiice ; that he had been in various civil ofiices, and had 
 made a figure in none : and that he had completely failed to show him- 
 self competent to an executive trust in Florida — in a word', said the ven- 
 erable old patriarch, ' there are one hundred men in Albemarle county 
 better qualified for the presidency.' " 
 
 The governor said, that, having had a conversation with Thomas W. 
 Gilmer, (since governor of Virginia,) and having learned that he had 
 repeated the same remark to many others, he (Gov. C.) addressed him 
 a note, and received an answer, dated May 27, 1827, in which Mr. Gil- 
 mer says : " Mr. Jefferson made no secret of his opinions of Gen. Jackson. 
 As a soldier and patriot, the general was regarded by Mr. Jefferson, aa 
 by the American people, with admiration and gratitude. I speak more 
 from information derived from others, than of what I know myself, when 
 I say, that Mr. Jefferson's opinion of Gen. Jackson as a statesman was 
 less favorable. I believe his opinion on this subject was notorious among 
 those who possessed any share of his confidence. 
 
 " I remember to have heard Mr. Jefferson, on one occasion, use an 
 expression which struck me, not so much by the sentiment it contained, 
 (which, indeed, was a very common one in Virginia,) as the style in which 
 it was made. Speaking of the several candidates for the presidency, 
 before the last election, he remarked, that ' one might as well make a 
 sailor of a cock, or a soldier of a goose, as a president of Andrew Jack- 
 son.' These words made an indelible impression on my memory. They 
 
430 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 were uttered with a tone of sportive, almost with contemptuous <lerision. 
 Mr. Jefferson was descanting at the time when this remark was elicited, 
 on the proneness of the multitude to give a man who possessed one vir- 
 tue, credit for others which he did not possess, or of the want of discrimi- 
 nation in the public mind, where any thing like eathusiasm and favoritism 
 was mingled with a subject. 
 
 " It is due, perhaps, to justice and truth to add, that Mr. Jefferson, 
 BO far as I know, entertained opinions equally unfavorable of John Q. 
 Adams as a statesman. I think in the conversation just alluded to, he 
 spoke of him as having been always one thing in politics, and having 
 undergone no actual change since the days of his pupilage in the school 
 of the elder Adams. * * * 
 
 " I have repeatedly heard others speak of Mr. Jefferson's sentiments 
 on this subject. I do not recollect to have heard Mr. Jefferson say any 
 thing in relation to Gren. Jackson after the late election ; and it is not for 
 me to surmise what might have been his opinion at this time, were he 
 alive. I must say, in conclusion, that I am grieved to find that the 
 press has stooped so far below its proper dignity as to use such unbecom- 
 ing means to instruct or convince the public." 
 
 The apparent discrepancy in the statements of Messrs. Coles and Gil- 
 mer in regard to Mr. Jefferson's opinions of Mr. Adams does not affect 
 the veracity of either of these gentlemen, when it is considered that the 
 conversation with one of them was antecedent, and that with the other 
 subsequent, to the election ; and that, during the intervening period, a 
 change in Mr. Jefferson's opinions may have taken place, which is highly 
 probable. 
 
 Subsequently to the publication of Mr. Gilmer's letter, by Gov. Coles, 
 the former published a statement, (Dec. 1827,) in which he says : " Had 
 Mr. Coles desired it, I should have been equally explicit as to the opin- 
 ions which Mr. Jefferson at the same time expressed of Mr. Adams, I 
 should have stated what Mr. C. would not have been so eager to publish ; 
 that while Mr. Jefferson spoke thus in jest of Gen. Jackson's elevation 
 to the presidency, he seriously deprecated the election of Mr. Adams as 
 an evil portending most calamitous consequences to the country. * * * 
 He spoke of Mr. Adams as the federal candidate, whose election would 
 be the means of restoring the federal dynasty of 1 798 — as a man whose 
 earliest and strongest predilections had been imbibed in the high schoola 
 of ultra-federalism — whose political principles, however artfully disguised_ 
 had undergone no change by his pretended apostacy. He regarded Mr 
 Adams a learned rather than wise man — as a politician, more specious 
 than sound — possessing many of the erroneous theories, with little of 
 the practicability of a statesman." 
 
ji:fferson's opinion of the candidates. • 431 
 
 Mr. Coles haTing alluded to a letter from Peter Minor, deceased, to 
 his brot.ber Garret Minor, in which were detailed opinions of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son similar to those expressed to Mr. Coles, Mr Gr. Minor procured the 
 publication of that part of his brother's letter which relates to Mr. Jef- 
 ferson, and which was in answer to one from him, stating that the friends 
 of Mr. Crawford had generally gone over to Gen. Jackson. Mr. P. 
 Minor says : " I admire the refuge which you say you are all seeking 
 in a body from the oppressions of Mr. Adams' administration. Mx*. Jef- 
 ferson, of late years, seldom ventured to say any thing on politics ; but 
 he observed to a friend, not many weeks before his death, that his faith 
 in the self-government of the people had never been so completely shaken 
 as it had been by the efforts made at the last election, to place over their 
 heads a man who, in every station he ever filled, either military or civil, 
 made it u point to violate every order and instruction given him, and 
 take his own arbitrary will as the guide of his conduct." 
 
 Another case occurred before the election of 1828, of Mr. Jefferson's 
 sentiments being improperly brought into the public prints for the pur- 
 pose, as is presumed, of influencing the public nind on the subject of the 
 election. 
 
 It will be recollected that, in 1 808, Mr, Adams, having become dis- 
 satisfied with the federal party, whose views he could no longer represent, 
 resigned his seat in the senate of the United States, and became the poli- 
 tical friend of Mr. Jefferson, and the supporter of his administration ; 
 and it was believed that he then enjoyed, and continued to enjoy, a large 
 share of the confidence and good opinion of Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, as has been already seen, was an advocate of a strict construction of 
 the constitution, also called "state rights;" whereas, the inaugural 
 address, and the first annual message of Mr. Adams, and the early indi- 
 cations of the character of his administration, had shown him to be, in 
 the opinion of Mr. Jefferson, too latitudinarian in his views of *he pow- 
 ers of the general government. And there were those among his oppo- 
 nents who alleged that he had never been a true and sincere republican ; 
 that his political conversion had been a mere pretense. One of these 
 was William B. Giles, of Virginia. 
 
 The presidential election was approaching ; and it is natural to pre- 
 sume that either party would gladly avail itself of the influence of Mr- 
 Jefferson in favor of its own, or against the opposing candidate. In the 
 Richmond Enquirer of the 7th of September, 1827, Mr. Giles caused to 
 be published extracts of a letter from Mr. Jefferson, dated December 
 26, 1825, in answer to one from Mr. Giles, in relation to Mr. Adamg 
 and his administration. In this letter, Mr. Jefferson says : 
 
 " T sec, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the. rapid strides 
 
432 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 with which the federal branch of our government is advancing tow ar3 
 the usurpation of all the rights,reserved to the states, and the consolida- 
 tion in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic, and that too, by con- 
 structions, which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take 
 together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the president, 
 and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the 
 legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident that the three 
 ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their col- 
 leagues, the state authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to 
 exercise themselves, all functions, foreign and domestic. Under the 
 power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agri- 
 culture and manufactures, and call it regulation too, to take the earnings 
 of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, 
 and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. 
 Under the authority to establish post-roads, they claim that of cutting 
 down mountains for the construction of roads ; of digging canals ; and, 
 aided by a little sophistry on the words " general welfare," a right to do, 
 not only the acts, to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and 
 permitted ; ^but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for thfc 
 general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the 
 constitution ? Reason and argument ? You might as well reason and 
 argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives 
 chosen by ourselves ? They are joined in the combination, some from 
 incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient, voting 
 together, to outnumber the sound parts, and with majorities of only one, 
 two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. ' Are we then tf 
 stand to our arms .?' 
 
 " No ! that must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much 
 longer and greater suffering. If every infraction of a compact of so 
 many parties, is to be resisted at once as a dissolution of it, none can ever 
 be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and long en- 
 durance, then, with our brethren while under delusion. Give them time 
 for reflection and experience of consequences ; keep ourselves in a situa- 
 tion to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our com- 
 panions only when the sole alternatives left are a dissolution of the union, 
 or submission to a government without a limitation of powers. Between 
 these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation; 
 but, in the meanwhile, the states should be watchful to note every mate- 
 rial usurpation of their rights ; to denounce them as they occur in the 
 most peremptory terms ; to protest against them as wrongs to which our 
 present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or prece- 
 dents of rights, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their 
 
ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 433 
 
 accumulation shall overwei^h their separation. I would go still further, 
 and give to the federal member, by regular amendment of the constitution, 
 a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the 
 states — providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in congress, (log 
 rolling, &c.,) by declaring that the federal proportion of each state of the 
 moneys so employed, shall be in works within the state, or elsewhere 
 with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course 
 which I think safest and best as yet. 
 
 " You ask my opinion of the propriety of giving publicity tc what is 
 stated in your letter as having passed between Mr. John Q. Adams and 
 yourself. Of this no one can judge but yourself. It is one of those 
 questions which belong to the forum of feeling. This alone can decide 
 on the degree of confidence implied in the disclosure. Whether, under 
 no circumstances, it was to be communicable to others. It does not 
 seem to be of that character, or at all to wear that aspect. They are 
 historical facts which belong to the present as well as future time. I 
 doubt whether a single fact, known to the world, will carry as clear a 
 conviction to it, of the correctness of our knowledge of the treasonable 
 views of the federal party of that day, as that disclosed by this most ne- 
 faricas and daring attempt to dissever the union, of which the Hartford 
 Convention was a subsequent chapter ; and both of these having failed, 
 consolidation becomes the first book of their history. But this opens 
 With a vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who, having 
 nothing in them of the feelings or principles of '76, now look to a single 
 and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institu- 
 tions and moneyed incorporations, under the guise and cloak of their 
 favored branches of manufactures, commerce, and navigation, riding 
 and ruling over the plundered plowman and beggared yeomanry. This 
 will be to them a next blessing to the monarchy of their first aim — and 
 perhaps their surest stepping stone to it." 
 
 On the 11th of October, 1828, Judge Archibald Stewart, of Staun- 
 ton, Virginia, wrote to Thomas JeflFerson Randolph, grandson and exec- 
 utor of Thomas Jefferson, saying : " I am advised that among the papers 
 in your possession, there is a letter written by your grandfather, vindi 
 eating Mr. Adams' political course in the support which he gave to his 
 administration, and the reasons which entitled him to so large a share 
 of his confidence. * * * Candid men of all parties will be gratified 
 to receive testimony from so pure a source. May I then ask the favoi 
 of you to furnish me with a copy of the letter referred to, that it may 
 be laid before the people." 
 
 Mr. Randolph, in compliance with this request, sent a copy of the let- 
 ter ; and, in an accompanying letter, said he deemed it no violation of 
 
 28 
 
434 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 his trust " to allow them (the writings of his grandfather) to be used as 
 vindicatory testimony of the character or conduct of any individual." 
 He says farther : " The facts contained in this letter have long been 
 familiar to me, having often heard them with great interest from my 
 o-randfather in conversation with others, on different occasions, from the 
 date of their occurrence to his death." 
 
 This letter of Mr. Jefferson was dated the 25th of December, 1825, 
 the day before that from which the foregoing extracts have been taken ; 
 and both were written in answer to a letter from Mr. Giles of the 15th 
 of December, in which he communicated to Mr. Jefferson the intention 
 of continuing a series of " political disquisitions," which he had been 
 writing for the public " on the rapidly progressive usurpations of the 
 general government," and of extending these disquisitions into an exami- 
 nation of some of the most prominent principles avowed in the recent 
 message of the president. " In the performance of this task," he says, 
 " I think material aid might be derived from looking back to the period 
 of Mr. Adams' political conversion, reviewing the inducements then sug- 
 gested by him for his conversion ; and tracing the outlines of the policy 
 pursued by him from that time to the present. But I could not permit 
 myself to place that transaction before the public without consulting you, 
 sir, upon the propriety of the measure." One of the objects of consult- 
 ing Mr. Jefferson was to know whether his (Mr. Giles') recollection 
 of the inducements suggested by Mr. Adams for his political change was 
 correct. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson says in reply : " Far advanced in my 83d year, worn 
 down with infirmities which have confined me almost entirely to the house 
 for seven or eight months past, it afflicts me much to receive appeals to 
 my memory for transactions so far back as that which is the subject of 
 your letter. My memory is indeed become almost a blank, of which no 
 better proof can probably be given you, than by my solemn protestation 
 that I have not the least recollection of your intervention between 
 Mr. John Q. Adams and myself, in what passed on the subject of 
 the embargo. Not the slightest trace of it remains in my mind. 
 Yet I have no doubt of the exactitude of the statement in your letter. 
 And the least as I recollect the interview with Mr. Adams to which the 
 previous communication which had passed between him and yourself, 
 were probably and naturally the preliminary. That interview I remem- 
 ber well, not, indeed, in the very words which passed between uaj but in 
 their very substance, which was of a character too awful, too deeply en- 
 graved in my mind, and influencing too materially the course I had to 
 pursue, ever to be forgotten. 
 
 " Mr. Adams called on me pending the embargo, and while endeavora 
 
ADAMS ANP GILES CONTROVERSY. 435 
 
 were making to obtain its repeal. • * * jje spoke of the dissatis- 
 faction of the eastern portion of our confederacy with the restraints of 
 the embargo, then existing, and their restlessness under it. That there 
 was nothing that might not be attempted to rid themselves of it. That 
 he had information of the most unquestionable certainty, that certain 
 citizens of the eastern states, (I think he named Massachusetts particu- 
 larly,) were in negotiation with the agents of the British government, the 
 object of which was an agreement, that the New England states should take 
 no farther part in the war then going on ; that, without formally declaring 
 their separation from the union of the states, they should withdraw 
 from all aid and obedience to them ; that their navigation and commerce 
 should be free from restraint or interruption by the British ; that they 
 should be considered and treated by them as neutrals, and as such might 
 conduct themselves towards both parties ; and, at the close of the war, be 
 at liberty to rejoin the confederacy. 
 
 " He assured me that there was imminent danger that the convention 
 would take place ; that the temptations were such as might debauch 
 many from their fidelity to the union ; and that to enable its friends to 
 make head against it, the repeal of the embargo was absolutely neces- 
 sary. I expressed a just sense of the merit of the information, and of 
 the importance of the disclosure to the safety and even salvation of our 
 country : and however reluctant I was to abandon the measure, ( a mea- 
 sure which, persevered in a little longer, we had subsequent and satis- 
 factory assurance would have effected its object completely,) from that 
 moment, and influenced by that information, I saw the necessity of 
 abandoning it; and instead of efl"ecting our purpose by this peaceful 
 weapon, we must fight it out, or break the union. I then recommended 
 to my friends to yield to the necessity of a repeal of the embargo, and 
 to endeavor to supply its place by the best substitute in which they 
 could procure a general concurrence. 
 
 " I can not too often repeat, that this statement is not pretended to 
 be in the very words which passed ; that it only gives faithfully the im- 
 pression remaining on my mind. The very words of a conversation are 
 too transient and fugitive to be so long retained in remembrance. But 
 the substance was too important to be forgotten, not only from the revo- 
 lution of measures it obliged me to adopt, but also from the renewals of 
 it in my memory on the frequent occasions I have had of doing justice 
 to Mr. Adams, by repeating thisproof of his fidelity to his country, and 
 of his superiority over all ordinary considerations when the safety of 
 that was brought into question. 
 
 " With this best exertion of a waning memory which I can command, 
 accept assurances of my constant and affectionate friendship and ro- 
 ^ect." 
 
436 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The publication of this letter drew forth a statement by the editors 
 of the National Intelligencer, authorized by Mr. Adams to be made, and 
 which appeared in that paper of October 21, 1828. As this statement 
 contains sundry important facts of the history of the eventful period in 
 which they occurred, and also was the occasion of the correspondence 
 which ensued between Mr. Adams and the citizens of Massachusetts 
 which afterward took place, we copy it entire. 
 
 ", The indistinctness of the recollections of Mr. Jefferson, of which 
 the letter itself feelingly complains, has blended together three distinct 
 periods of time, and the information which he did receive from Mr. 
 Adams, with events which afterwards occurred, and of which Mr. Adams 
 could not have informed him. It unfortunately happens that this error 
 is apparent on the face of the letter itself. It says : ' Mx*. Adams called 
 on me pending the embargo, and while endeavors were making to obtain 
 its repeal.' He afterwards says, that at this interview Mr. Adams, 
 among other things, said ' he had information of the most unquestion- 
 able certainty^ that certain citizens of the eastern states, (I think he 
 named Massachusetts particularl}^,) were in negotiation with agents of 
 the British government, the object of which was an agreement that the 
 New England states should take no farther part in the war then going 
 on,' &c. 
 
 *' The embargo was enacted on the 22d of December, 1807, and re- 
 pealed by the non-intercourse act on the 1st of March, 1B09. The war 
 was declared it June, 1812. 
 
 "In August, 1809, Mr. Adams embarked for Russia, nearly three 
 years before the declaration of war, and did not return to the United 
 States till August, 1817, nearly three years after the conclusion of the 
 peace. 
 
 " Mr. Madison was inaugurated president of the United States on the 
 4th of March, 1809. 
 
 " It was impossible, therefore, that Mr. Adams could have given any 
 information to Mr. Jefferson of negotiations by citizens of Massachu- 
 setts with British agents, during the roar, or having relation to it. Mr. 
 Adams never had knowledge of such negotiations. 
 
 " The interview to which Mr. Jefferson alludes, took place'on the 15th 
 of March, 1808, pending the embargo ; but, at the session of congress, 
 before the substitution for it of the non-intercourse act. The informa- 
 tion given by Mr. Adams to Mr. Jefferson, had only an indire':^t refer- 
 ence even to the embargo, and none to any endeavors for obtaining its 
 repeal. It was the substance of a letter from the governor of Nova 
 Scotia to a person in the state of Massachusetts, written in the summer 
 of 180!l, and before the existence of the embargo : which letter Mr. 
 
ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 437 
 
 Adams had seen. It had been shown to him without any injunction of 
 secrecy, and he betrayed no confidence in communicating its purport to 
 Mr. Jefferson. Its object was to countenance and accredit a calumny 
 then extecsively prevailing, among the enemies of Mr. Jeff"erson and 
 the opponents of his administration, that he and his measures were sub- 
 servient to France ; and it alleged that the British government were 
 informed of a plan, determined upon by France, to eff'ect the conquest 
 of the British provinces on this continent, and a revolution in the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, as means to which they were first to pro- 
 duce war between the United States and England. 
 
 " From the fact that the governor of Nova Scotia had written such a 
 letter to an individual in Massachusetts, connected with other facts, and 
 with movements of the party then predominant in that state, Mr. Adams 
 and Mr, Jefferson drew their inferences, which subsequent events doubt- 
 less confirmed ; but which inferences neither Mr. Jeff'erson nor Mr. 
 Adams then communicated to each other. This was the only confiden- 
 tial interview which, during the administration of Mr. Jeff'erson, took 
 place between him and Mr. Adams. It took place first at the request 
 of Mr. Wilson Carey Nicholas, then a member of the house of repre- 
 sentatives of the United States, a confidential friend of Mr. Jefferson; 
 next, of Mr. Robinson, then a senator from Vermont ; and lastly, of 
 Mr. Griles, then a senator from Virginia — which request is the only 
 intervention of Mr. Giles, ever known to Mr. Adams, between him and 
 Mr. Jefferson. It is therefore not surprising, that no such interven- 
 tion occurred to the recollection of Mr. Jefferson, in December, 1825 
 
 " This interview was in March, 1S08. In May, of the same year, 
 Mr. Adams resigned his seat in the senate of the United States. At 
 the next session of congress, which commenced in November, 1808, Mr. 
 Adams was a private citizen, residing at Boston. The embargo was 
 still in force, operating with extreme pressure upon the interests of the 
 people, and was wielded as a most effective instrument, by the party 
 prevailing in the stete, against the administration of Mr. Jefferson. 
 The people were constantly instigate to resistance against it, and juries 
 after juries acquitted the violators of it, upon the ground that it was 
 unconstitutional, assumed in the face of a solemn decision of the district 
 court of the United States. A separation of the union was openly 
 stimulated in the public prints, and a convention of delegates of the 
 New England states, to meet at New Haven, was intended and proposed. 
 " Mr. Griles and several other members of congress, during this session, 
 wrote to Mr. Adams confidential letters, informing him of the various 
 measures proposed as reinforcements or substitutes for the embargo, and 
 soliciting his opinions upon the subject. He answered those letters with 
 
438 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 I 
 
 frankness and in confidence. He earnestly recommei-ded the uon-iuter 
 course for the embargo; and in giving his reasons for this preference^ 
 was necessarily led to enlarge upon the views and purposes of certain 
 leaders of the party which had the management of the state legislature 
 in their hands. He urged that a continuance of the embargo much 
 longer would certainly be met by forcible resistance, supported by the 
 legislature, and probably by the judiciary of the state. That to quell 
 that resistance if force should be resorted to by the government, it 
 would produce a civil war ; and that, in that event, he had no doubt the 
 leaders of the party would secure the cooperation with them of Great 
 Britain. That their object was, and had been for several years, the dis 
 solution of the union, and the establishment of a separate confederation 
 he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not provable in a court 
 of law ; and that, in the case of a civil war, the aid of Great Britain to 
 effect that purpose would be as surely resorted to, as it would be indis- 
 pensably necessary to the design. 
 
 " That these letters of Mr. Adams to Mr. Giles and to other mem- 
 bei's of congress, were read or shown to Mr. Jefferson, he never was 
 informed. They were written, not for communication to him, but as 
 answers to letters of his correspondents, members of congress, soliciting 
 his opinions upon measures in deliberation before them, and upon which 
 they were to act. He wrote them as the solicited advice of friend to 
 friend, both ardent friends to the administration and to their country. 
 He wrote them to give to the supporters of the administration of Mr. 
 Jefferson in congress, at that crisis, the best assistance, by his informa- 
 tion and opinions, in his power. He had certainly no objection that 
 they should be communicated to Mr. Jefferson ; but this was neither his 
 intention nor desire. In one of the letters to Mr. Giles, he repeated an 
 assurance which he had verbally given him during the preceding session 
 of congress, that he had for his support of Mr. Jefferson's administra- 
 tion no personal or interested motive, and no favor to ask of him what- 
 ever. 
 
 " That these letters to Mr. Gilffi were by him communicated to Mr, 
 Jefferson, Mr." Adams believes from the import of this letter from Mr. 
 Jefferson, now first published, and which has elicited this statement 
 He believes, likewise, that other letters from him to other members of 
 congress, written during the same session, and upon the same subject, 
 were also communicated to him; and tnat their contents, after a lapse 
 of seventeen years, were blended confusedly in his memory, first with 
 the information given by Mr. Adams to him at their interview in 3Iarch, 
 1808, nine months before; and next, with the events which occurred 
 during the subsequent war, and of which, however natural as a sequel to 
 
ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 439 
 
 the information and opinions of Mr. Adams, communicated to him at 
 these two preceding periods, he could not have received the information 
 from him." 
 
 It will at once appear to the reader, that the matter of the two let- 
 ters of Mr. Jefferson is irreconciluble. His more discreet friends at 
 the time deeply regretted and censured the course of Mr. Giles in pub- 
 lishing the extracts of the letter of the 26th of December, which had 
 been the occasion of calling out the other ; the two taken together show- 
 ing conclusively the failure of Mr. Jefferson's memory and mental facul- 
 ties. They saw no justification for thus violating the sacredness of pri- 
 vate correspondence to gratify his own animosities. Mi*. Giles was for 
 •A time suspected of not having correctly represented the contents of the 
 letter from which he published extracts. This suspicion was founded 
 apou the fact of his having suppressed the letter of the 25th, which bore 
 testimony to Mr. Adams' " fidelity to his country," whereas common 
 justice required that both letters, if either, should have been given to 
 the public. 
 
 Mr. Giles gave as a reason for not publishing the first of the tv^'O let 
 ters, that he believed it " to have been so undue and unfortunate an 
 impression, producing so many palpable errors, as that its publication 
 would have done no less injustice to Mr. Jefferson than to the public." 
 
 The statement in the Intelligencer " that Mr. Giles and other mem- 
 bers of congress wrote to Mr. Adams confidential letters, informing him 
 of the various measures proposed as reinforcements or substitutes for 
 the embargo, and soliciting his opinions on the subject;" and that '• he 
 answered those letters with frankness and in confidence," Mr. Giles 
 denied, and insinuated that Mr. Adams had " invented the extraordi- 
 nary tale to screen himself from imputations he could not otherwiye 
 avoid." Whereupon the .editors of the Intelligencer stated that Mr 
 Adams had read to them from his letter-book copies of his letters in 
 answer to four letters of Mr. Giles, during the session of 1808-9. 
 
 Mr. Giles having in one of his communications in the Richmond 
 Enquirer, used the name of T. J. Randolph in a manner deemed by Mr, 
 Randolph " unmerited and uncourteous," the latter addressed a letter 
 to the editors of that paper, justifying himself for allowing the letter of 
 Mr. Jefferson to be used " to remove certain false impressions, enter- 
 tained by the public, of the estimation in which Mr. Adams was held by 
 Mr. Jefferson;" explaining that part of the letter of the 25th of Decem- 
 ber, 1825, in which Mr. Jefferson was supposed to have committed errors 
 in consequence of the failure of his mind and memory ; and administer- 
 ing some severe rebukes to Mr. Giles. 
 
 Mr. Randolph thus explains the apparent errors in the letter alluded 
 
440 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to : " Mr. Jefferson uses the expression of * the war then going on,' 
 and again * at the close of the war.' Having myself heard the sub- 
 stance of this letter from his own lips so often, and its having been so 
 long familiar to me, I had not, perhaps, sufficiently adverted to the 
 literal construction which would be applied to these words, b}' persons 
 to whom the subject would be new. In the first expression, he alludes 
 to the war waged by the belligerents on our commerce, and the war of 
 restrictive measures on our part. In the latter he speaks of the actual 
 war which was about to take place, and which the whole language of his 
 correspoudeuce of that day shows that he believed to be immediate and 
 inevitable. How otherwise is the inconsistency of these expressions 
 with the following to be accounted for ? ' I saw the necessity of aban- 
 doning it ; and instead of effecting our purpose by this 'peaceful wea- 
 pon, we must fight it out.' If the first expressions are to be taken 
 literally, and not figuratively, great, indeed, must have be€n the wane 
 of mind and of memory, which had become inadequate to detect the 
 striking inconsistencies of so short a letter ; copying, too, from tho 
 rough draft, (as he always did,) and revising carefully everything before 
 it passed from his hands. As an additional evidence that those words 
 were used figuratively, and not literally, I quote from a letter of his, 
 dated Januaiy 28, 1809, to Mr. Monroe, when the events here spoken 
 of were in their actual transit, the following expression : ' Our peace 
 and prosperity may be revived.' This taken literally would likewise 
 suppose the actual existence of war ; for ' peace' to be * revived,' must 
 first hare been lost, and its opposite condition, war, in existence ; and 
 yet I presume it is not intended to be insinuated that this fatuity 
 existed in 1809." 
 
 Mr. Randolph also states that Mr. Giles omitted one important sen- 
 tence in publishing the extracts from the letter of December 26, 1825 : 
 that sentence was the first, as follows : " I wrote you a letter yesterday 
 of which you will be free to make what use you please. This will con- 
 tain matter not iyitended for the public eyeP " Yet," says Mr. Ran- 
 dolph, " this letter was shown immediately after its receipt, [see Mr. 
 Jefferson's letter of January 21, 1826,] and, I am well assured, was 
 openly alluded to in a debate in the senate, the letter being at the very 
 moment in the pocket of the speaker who based his attack on Mr. Adama 
 on the contents of that letter." 
 
 Mr. Giles having stated that " Mr. Jefferson never entertained a good 
 opinion of Mr. Adams, perhaps for some time before, and certainly 
 never after his message to congress, in December, 1825," Mr. Randolph, 
 in reply, refers to the letter before mentioned, of January 21, 1826. 
 It was probably an answer to one from a friend who had informed him 
 
ADAMS AND GILES CONTROVERSY. 441 
 
 of the use Mr. Giles had made of his letter of December preceding 
 The following are extracts from it : 
 
 "Dear Sir: Your favor of Jan. 15th, is received, and I am entirely 
 sensible of the kindness of your motives which suggested the caution it 
 recommended ; but I believe what I have done, is the only thing I 
 could have done with honor and conscience. Mr. Giles requested me 
 to state a fact which he knew himself, and of which he knew me to be 
 possessed. What use he intended to make of it, I knew not, nor 
 have I a right to inquire, or to indicate any suspicion that he would 
 make an unfair one; that was his concern, not mine; and his character 
 was sufficient to sustain the responsibility for it. * * * With his 
 personal controversies I have nothing to do. I never took any part in 
 them, or in those of any other person : add to this, that the statement 
 I have given him on the subject of Mr. Adams, is entirely honorable to 
 him, in every sentiment and fact it contains. There is not a word in it 
 which I would wish to recall ; it is one which Mr. Adams himself 
 might willingly quote, did he need to quote any thing. It was simply, 
 that, during the continuance of the embargo, Mr. Adams informed mc 
 of a combination, (without naming any one concerned in it,) which had 
 for its object the severance of the union, for a time at least ; that Mr. 
 Adams and myself, not being then in the habit of mutual consultation 
 and confidence, I considered it as the stronger proof of the purity of 
 his patriotism, which was able to lift him above all party passions when 
 the safety of his country was endangered ; nor have I kept the honor- 
 able fact to myself; during the late canvass particularly, I had more 
 than once occasion to quote it to persons who were expressing opiuiong 
 respecting him, of which this was a direct corrective. I have never 
 . entertained for Mr. Adams any but sentiments of esteem and respect ; 
 and if we have not thought alike on political subjects, I yet never 
 doubted the honesty of his opinions ; of which the letter in question, 
 if published, will be an additional proof. Still I recognize your friend- 
 ship in suggesting a review of it." 
 
 Doubts having been expressed of the existence of the letters said to 
 nave been written to Mr. Adams by Mr. Giles, during the session of 
 1808-9, they were procured from Mr. Adams' domicile in Massachu- 
 Betts, and published. In them Mr. Giles speaks ^of the "purity and 
 disinterestedness" of Mr. Adams — expresses the hope that he would 
 " again appear upon the theater of public life" — and applauds him for 
 his "judicious and independent conduct." 
 
442 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIV. 
 
 POLITICS OF 1808. MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. CHARGa 
 
 OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 
 
 As might have been expected, the publicatiou of the letter of Mr 
 Jefferson of the 25th of December. 1825, to Mr. Giles, detailing the 
 disclosures of Adams respecting the designs of the eastern federalists 
 in 1808, and the statement, authorized by Mr. Adams, and published 
 in the National Intelligencer, produced considerable excitement among 
 the leading men of Massachusetts, and, at least for a time, alienated in 
 a measure the affections, and impaired the confidence and esteem of 
 many of the friends of Mr. Adams in that state. 
 
 On the 26th of November, 1828, thirteen citizens of Massachusetts 
 residing in and near Boston, addressed a letter to Mr. Adams, asking 
 from him such a full and precise statement of the facts and evidence 
 relating to this accusation, as might enable them fairly to meet and 
 answer it. Although they did not claim the title of " leaders " of any 
 party in Massachusetts, they said they were associated in politics with 
 the party alluded to ; some of them had concurred in all the measures 
 adopted by that party ; and all of them warmly approved and support- 
 ed those measures. They requested Mr. Adams to state, who were 
 the persons, designated as leaders of the party prevailing in Massachusetts^ 
 whoso object was a dissolution of the union, and the establishment of a 
 separate confederation; and what was the evidence. 
 
 These citizens say : " A charge of this nature, coming as it does from 
 the first magistrate of the nation, acquix'es an importance which we can 
 not affect to disregard; and it is one which we ought not to leaye 
 unanswered. We are therefore constrained, by a regard to our deceased 
 friends, and to our posterity, as well as by a sense of what is due to our 
 own honor, most solemnly to declare, that we have never known nor 
 suspected that the party which prevailed in Massachusetts in the year 
 1808, or any other party in this state, ever entertained the design to 
 produce a dissolution of the union, or the establishment of a separate 
 confederation. It is impossible for us in any other manner to refute, 
 or even to answer this charge, until we see it fully and particularly 
 stated, and know the evidence by which it is to be maintained." 
 
 The letter was signed by H. G. Otis, Israel Thorndike, T. H. Per- 
 tins, William Prescott, Daniel Sargen/j, John Lowell, Wm. Sullivan, 
 Charles Jackson, Warren Dutton, Benj Pickman, Henry Cabot, C. C 
 
MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 443 
 
 Parsons, and Franklin Dexter. The last three were the sons and 
 representatives of George Cabot, Theophilus Parsons, and Samuel 
 Dexter, deceased. 
 
 The reply of Mr. Adams is of such length as to forbid its insertion 
 entire. He said he could not recognize the persons who addressed him 
 as the representatives of the party alluded to ; and he undertook to 
 show the impropriety of answering their interrogatories. He does, how- 
 ever, detail some of the facts upon which he founds the charge of a 
 design feo separate from the union. He says : 
 
 " The simple fact of which I apprised Mr. Jefferson was, that, in the 
 summer of 1807, about the time of what was sometimes called the affair 
 of the Leopard and the Chesapeake, I had seen a letter from the gov- 
 ernor of Nova Scotia to a person in Massachusetts, afl&rming that the 
 British government had certain information of a plan by that of France, 
 to conquer the British possessions, and to effect a revolution in the 
 United States, by means of a war between them and Gi'eat Bi-itain. 
 As the United States and Great Britain were in 1807 at peace, a cor- 
 respondence with the governor of Nova Scotia, held by any citizen of 
 the United States, imported no violation of law ; nor could the corres- 
 pondent be responsible for any thing which the governor might write. 
 But my inferences from this fact were, that there existed between the 
 British Government and the party in Massachusetts opposed to Mr. 
 Jefferson, a channel of communication through the governor of Nova 
 Scotia, which Jie was exercising to inflame their hatred against France, 
 and their jealousies against their own government. The letter wa5 
 not to any leader of the federal party ; but I had no doubt it had becL 
 shown to some of them, as it had been to me, without injunction of 
 secrecy; and, as I supposed, with a view to convince me that this con- 
 spiracy between Napoleon and Mr. Jefferson really existed. How that 
 channel of communication might be further used, was matter of conjec- 
 ture; for the mission of John Henry was nine months after my inter- 
 view with Mr. Jefferson, and precisely at the time I was writing to my 
 friends in congress the letters urging the substitution of the non-inter- 
 course for the embargo. Of Mr. Henry's mission I knew nothing until 
 it was disclosed by himself in 1812. 
 
 "It was in these letters of 1808 and 1809, that I mentioned the 
 design of certain leaders of the federal party to effect a dissolution of 
 the union, and the establishment of a northern confederacy. This 
 design had been formed in the winter of 1803 and 4, immediately after, 
 and as a consequence of the acquisition of Louisiana. Its justifying 
 causes to those who entertained it were, that the annexation of Louisiana 
 to the union transcended the constitutional powers of the government 
 
444 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the United States; that it formed in fact a new confederacy to which 
 the states, united by the former compact, were not bound to adhere 
 that it was oppressive to the interests and destructive to the influence 
 of the northern section of the confederacy, whose right and duty it 
 therefore was to secede from the new body politic, and to constitute one 
 of their own. This plan was so far matured, that the proposal had been 
 made to an individual to permit himself at the proper time, to be placed 
 at the head of the military movements, which it was foreseen would be 
 necessary for carrying it into execution. In all this there was no overt 
 act of treason. In the abstract theory of our government, the obedience 
 of the citizen is not due to an unconstitutional law. He may lawfully 
 resist its execution. If a single individual undertakes this resistance, 
 our constitutions, both of the United States, and of each separate state, 
 have provided a judiciary power, judges, and juries, to decide between 
 the individual and the legislative act which he has resisted as unconsti- 
 tutional. But let us suppose the case that the legislative acts of one or 
 more states of this union are passed, conflicting with acts of congress, 
 and commaudivig the resistance of their citizens against them, and what 
 else can be the result but war — civil war ? And is not that de facto a 
 dissolution of the union, so far as the resisting states are concerned ? 
 And what would be the condition of every citizen of the resisting states ? 
 Bound by the double duty of allegiance to the union and to the state, 
 he would be crushed between the upper and nether millstone, with the 
 performance of every civic duty converted into a crime, and guilty of 
 treason, by every act of obedience to the law." 
 
 Mr. Adams said his opinion was, that the power of annexing Louisiana 
 to the union had not been delegated to congress by the constitution , 
 and this was recorded on the journals of the senate, of which he was 
 then a member. The bills, however, making appropriations for carrying 
 the convention into efi'ect, and for enabling the president to take posses- 
 sion of the ceded territory, which were opposed by those who had voted 
 against the ratification of the treaty, he had warmly and cordially sup- 
 ported. 
 
 The following paragraphs are given on account of the constitutional 
 opinions expressed in them, in relation to the purchase and annexation 
 of Louisiana, and to the secession of states : 
 
 " I had no doubt of the constitutional power to make the treaties. It 
 is expressly delegated in the constitution. The power of making the 
 stipulated payment for the cession, and of taking possession of the ceded 
 territory, was equally unquestioned by me ; — they were constructive 
 powers, but I thought them fairly incidental, and necessarily consequent 
 upon the power to make the treaty. But the power of annexing the in- 
 
MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 445 
 
 habitants of Louisiana to the union, of conferring upon them m a mass, 
 all the rights, and requiring of them all the duties of citizens of the 
 United States, it appeared to me had not been delegated to congress by 
 the people of the union, and could not have been delegated by them, 
 without the consent of the people of Louisiana themselves. I thought 
 they required an amendment of the constitution, and a vote of the 
 people of Louisiana; and I offered to the senate resolutions for carrying 
 both those measures into effect, which were rejected. 
 
 " It has been recently ascertained, by a letter from Mr. Jefferson to 
 Mr. Dunbar, written in July, 1803, after he had received the treaties, 
 and convened congress to consider them, that, in his opinion, the treaties 
 could not be carried into effect without an amendment to the constitu- 
 tion ; and that the proposal for such an amendment would be the first 
 measure adopted by them at their meeting. Yet Mr. JeiFerson, presi- 
 dent of the United States, did approve the acts of congress, assuming 
 the power which he had so recently thought not delegated to them, and, 
 as the executive of the union, carried them into execution. 
 
 " Thus Mr. Jefferson, president of the United States, the federal 
 members of congress, who opposed and voted against the ratification of 
 the treaties, and myself, all concurred in the opinion, that the Louisiana 
 cession treaties transcended the constitutional powers of the government 
 of the United States. But it was, after all, a question of constructive 
 power. The power of making the treaty was expressly given without 
 limitation. The sweeping clause, by which all powers necessary and 
 proper for carrying into effect those expressly delegated, may be under- 
 stood as unlimited. It is to be presumed, that, when Mr. Jefferson ap- 
 proved and executed the acts of congress assuming the doubtful povyer, 
 he had brought his mind to acquiesce in this somewhat latitudinarian 
 construction. I opposed it as long and as far as my opposition could 
 avail. I acquiesced in it after it had received the sanction of all tlie 
 organized authority of the union, and the tacit acquiescence of the people 
 of the United States and of Louisiana. Since which time I have con- 
 sidered the question as irrevocably settled. 
 
 " But, in reverting to the fundamental principle of all our constitu- 
 tions, that obedience is not due to an unconstitutional law, and that its 
 execution may be lawfully resisted, you must admit, that, had the laws 
 of congress for annexing Louisiana to the union been resisted, by the 
 authority of one or more of the states of the then existing confederacy, 
 as unconstitutional, that resistance might have been carried to tlie ex- 
 tent of dissolving the union, and of forming a new confederacy ; and 
 that, if the consequences of the cession had been so oppressive upon 
 New England and the north, as was apprehended by the federal leaders, 
 
446 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to whose conduct at that time all these observations refer, the project 
 which they did then form of severing the union, and establishing a 
 northern confederacy, would, in their application of the abstract principle 
 to the existing state of things, have been justifiable. In their views, 
 therefore, I impute to them nothing which it could be necessary for them 
 to disavow : and, accordingly, these principles were distinctly and ex- 
 plicitly avowed, eight years afterwards, by my excellent friend, Mr. 
 Quincy, in his speech upon the admission of Louisiana, as a state, into 
 the union. Whether he had any knowledge of the practical project of 
 1803 and 4, I know not; but the argument of his speech, in which he 
 referred to my recorded opinions upon the constitutional power, was 
 an eloquent exposition of the justifying causes of that project, as I 
 had heard them detailed at the time. That project, I repeat, had gone 
 to the length of fixing upon a military leader for its execution ; and 
 although the circumstances of the times never admitted of its execution, 
 nor even of its full development, I had yet no doubt, in 1808 and 1809, 
 and have no doubt at this time, that it is the key to all the great move- 
 ments of these leaders of the federal party in New England, from that 
 time forward, till its final catastrophe in the Hartford convention. * * * 
 
 " It was this project of 1803 and 4, which, from the time when I first 
 took my seat in the senate of the United States, alienated me from the 
 secret councils of those leaders of the federal party. I was never inti- 
 mated in them. I approved and supported the acquisition of Louisiana ; 
 and from the first moment that the project of separation was made 
 known to me, I opposed to it a determined and inflexible resistance. 
 * * * My principles do not admit the right even of the people, still less 
 the legislature of any one state in the union, to secede at pleasure from 
 the union. No provision is made for the exercise of this right, either by 
 the federal or any of the state constitutions. The act of exercising it, 
 presupposes a departure from the principle of compact, and a resort to 
 that of force. 
 
 " If, in the exercise of their respective functions, the legislative, ex- 
 ecutive, and judicial authorities of the union on one side, and of one or 
 more states on the other, are brought into direct collision with each other, 
 the relations between the parties are no longer those of constitutional 
 right, but of independent force. Each party construes the compact for 
 itself. The constructions are irreconcilable together. There is no um- 
 pire between them ; and the appeal is to the sword, the ultimate arbiter 
 of right between independent states, but not between the members of one 
 body politic. I therefore hold it as a principle without exception, that 
 whenever the constituted authorities of a state authorize resistance to 
 any act of congress, or pronounce it unconstitutional, they do thereby 
 
MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 447 
 
 declare themselves and their state quoad hoc out of the pale of the 
 union. That there is no supposable case in which the people of a state 
 might place themselves in this attitude, by the primitive right of insur- 
 rection against oppression, I will not affirm : but they have delegated no 
 duch power to their legislatures or their judges; and if there be such a 
 right, it is the right of an individual to commit suicide — the right of an 
 inhabitant of a populous city to set fire to his own dwelling house. But 
 to those who think that each state is a sovereign judge, not only of its 
 own rights, but of the extent of powers conferred on the general govern- 
 ment by the people of the whole union ; and that each state, giving its 
 own construction to the constitutional powers of congress, may array ifea 
 separate sovereignty against every act of that body transcending this es- 
 timate of their powers — to say of men holding these principles, that, 
 for ihe ten years from 1804 to 1814, they were intending a dissolution 
 of the union, and the formation of a new confederacy, is charging them 
 with nothing more than with acting up to their own principles." 
 
 Mr. Adams then proceeds to say : " To the purposes of party leaders 
 intending to accomplish the dissolution of the union and form a new con- 
 federacy, two postulates are necessary : First, an act or acts of congress 
 which may be resisted, as unconstitutional ; and, secondly, a state of ex- 
 citement among the people of one or more states of the union, sufficiently 
 inflamed to produce acts of the state legislatures conflicting with the acta 
 of congress. Resolutions of the legislatures denying the powers of con- 
 gress, are the first steps in this march to disunion ; but they avail no- 
 thing without subsequent and corresponding action. The annexation of 
 Louisiana to the union was believed to be unconstitutional ; but it pro- 
 duced no excitement to resistance among the people. Its beneficial con- 
 sequences to the whole union were soon felt, and took away all possibility 
 of holding it up as the labarum of a political religion of disunion. 
 
 * The projected separation met with other disasters, and slumbered 
 till the attack of the Leopard on the Chesapeake, followed by the orders 
 in council of 11th November, 1807, led to the embargo of the 22d ]>> 
 ceraber of that year. The first of these events brought the nation to 
 the brink of war with Great Britain ; and there is good reason to believe 
 that the second (the orders in council) was intended as a measure familiar 
 to the policy of that government, to sweep our commerce from theocean, 
 carrying into British ports every vessel of ours navigating upon the seas, 
 and holding them, their cargoes, and their crews in sequestration, to aid 
 in the negotiation of Mr. Rose, and bring us to the terms of the British 
 Cabinet. This was precisely the period at which the governor of Nova 
 Scotia was giving to his correspondent in Massachusetts, the friendly 
 ivarning from th? British government of the revolutionizing and conquer- 
 
448 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Ing plan of France, which was communicated to me, and of whicli I ap- 
 prised Mr. Jefferson. 
 
 " The embargo, in the mean time, had been laid, and had saved most 
 of our vessels and seamen from the grasp of the British cruisers. It 
 had rendered impotent the British orders in council ; but at the same 
 time it had choked up the channels of our own commerce. As its ope- 
 ration bore with heavy pressure upon the commerce and navigation of 
 the north, the federal leaders soon began to clamor against it ; then to 
 denounce it as unconstitutional ; and then to call upon the commercicu 
 states to concert measures among themselves to resist its execution. Tt.i? 
 question made of the constitutionality of the embargo, only proved, that, 
 in times of violent popular excitement, the clearest delegation of a power 
 to congress will no more shield the exercise of it from a charge of usur- 
 pation, than that of a power the most remote, implied or constructive. 
 The question of the constitutionality of the embargo was solemnly argued 
 before the district court of the United States at Salem ; and although 
 the decision of the judge was in its favor, it continued to be argued to 
 the juries ; and even when silenced before them, was in the distemper of 
 the times so infectious, that the juries themselves habitually acquitted 
 those charged with the violation of that law. There was little doubt, 
 that, if the constitutionality had been brought before the state judiciary 
 o-f Massachusetts, the decision of the court would have been against the 
 law. 
 
 " The first postulate for the projectors of disunion was thus secured. 
 The second still lingered ; for the people, notwithstanding their excite- 
 ment, still clung to the union, and the federal majority in the legislature 
 was very small. Then was brought forward the first project for a con- 
 vention of delegates from the New England states to meet in Connecti- 
 cut ; and then was the time at which I urged, with so much earnestness, 
 by letters to my friends at Washington, the substitution of the non-inter- 
 course for the embargo. 
 
 " The non-intercourse was substituted. The arrangement with Mr. Er- 
 skine soon after ensued ; and in August, 1809, 1 embarked upon a public 
 mission to Kussia. My absence from the United States was of eight 
 years' duration ; and I returned to take charge of the state department 
 in 1 8 1 7. The rupture of Mr. Erskine's arrangement ; the abortive mission 
 of Mr. Jackson ; the disclosures of Mr. John Henry ; the war with Great 
 Britain ; the opinion of the judges of the supreme court of Massachusetts 
 that, by the constitution of the United States, no power was given eithei 
 to the president or to congress, to determine the actual existence of thr, 
 exigencies upon which the militia of the several states may be employed iu 
 the service of the United States ; and the Hartford convention ; — all 
 
MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS. 449 
 
 happened during my absence from this country. I forbear to pursue 
 the narrative. The two postulates for disunion were nearly consum- 
 mated. The interposition of a kind Providence, restoring peace to our 
 country and to the world, averted the moat deplorable of catastrophes, 
 and turning over to the receptacle of things lost upon earth, the ad- 
 journed convention from Hartford to Boston extinguished (by the mercy 
 of Heaven may it be forever !) the projected New England confederacy. 
 
 " It is not improbable, that, at some future day, a sense of solemn duty 
 to my country may require me to disclose the evidence which I do possess, 
 and for which you call. But of that day the selection must be at my own 
 judgment ; and it may be delayed till I myself shall have gone to answer 
 for the testimony I may bear, before the tribunal of your God and 
 mine. Should a disclosure of names even then be made by me, it will, 
 if possible, be made with such reserve, as tenderness to the feelings of 
 the living, and to the families and friends of the dead may admonish," 
 
 Mr. Adams having stated in his reply, that " it would have been more 
 satisfactory to him to receive the inquiry separately from each indi- 
 vidual," and having intimated that he should not continue correspond- 
 ence with them, joinlii/, the thirteen " citizens of Massachusetts" address 
 their rejoinder " to the citizens of the United States." Their " appeal" 
 is a very long as well as a very able one ; and however conclusive to Mr, 
 Adams may have been the evidence of a design to separate from the 
 union, a perusal of the appeal can hardly fail to remove from the mind 
 of an impartial reader, any suspicion which he might have entertained, 
 that these gentlemen were justly chargeable with the designs imputed by 
 Mr. Adams to " certain leaders'''' of the federal party in Massachusetts. 
 
 The charge so often made against the state of Massachusetts of de- 
 igns hostile to the union, the ajjpeal pronounces a " calumny;" and the 
 writers, in vindicating themselves and the federal party, claim it as a right 
 to demand of their accuser the grounds of the accusation. They do not 
 see any good reason why by their uniting with each other in their applica- 
 tion, Mr. Adams should be authorized to disregard their claim. And 
 although they did not arrogate to themselves the title of " leaders," yet 
 having " avowed such a close political connection with all who could pro- 
 bably have been included in that appellation, as to render them responsible 
 for all their political measures that were known to them," they were 
 interested, and entitled to make this demand of Mr. Adams ; and by de 
 dining to answer their interrogatories, he had placed himself in the pre 
 dicament of an unjust accuser. 
 
 In speaking of the project to dissolve the union, so far as it applied 
 to the men who directed the affairs of Massachusetts, and to the mea- 
 sures adopted, these gentlemen said it "probably existed only in the 
 
 29 
 
450 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 distempered fancy of Mr. Adams." The object of the letter of the 
 goTernor of Nova Scotia, he supposed, was to accredit a calumny, that 
 Mr. Jefferson and his measures were subservient to France. The 
 British government had been informed that France intended to conquer 
 the British provinces on this continent, and effect a revolution in the 
 government of the United States ; in order to which, a war was to be 
 produced between the United States and England. They said : " A 
 letter of this tenor was no doubt shown to Mr. Adams, as we must 
 believe upon his word. The discovery would not be surprising, that the 
 British as well as French officers and citizens, in a time of peace with 
 this country, availed themselves of many channels for conveying their 
 speculations and stratagems to other innocent ears as well as to those 
 of Mr. Adams, with a view to influence public opinion. But the subject 
 matter of the letter was an absurdity. Who did not know, that, in 
 1807, after the battle of Trafalgar, the crippled navy of France could 
 not undertake to transport even a single regiment across the British 
 channel ? And if the object was the conquest of the British provinces 
 by the United States alone, how could a revolution in our government, 
 which must divide and weaken it, promote that end ? * 
 
 " The folly of a British governor in attempting to give currency to a 
 story which savors so strongly of the burlesque, can be equalled only 
 by the credulity of Mr. Adams in believing it calculated to produce 
 effect ; and if he did so believe, it furnishes a criterion by which to 
 estimate the correctness and impartiality of his judgment concerning 
 the weight and the application of the other evidence which he still with- 
 holds, and from which he has undertaken, with equal confidence, to 
 draw his inferences.' After the adjustment of the diplomatic prelimi- 
 naries with Mr. Giles and others, Mr. Adams communicated nothing ^ 
 to Mr. Jefferson, but the substance of the Nova Scotia letter. If Mr. 
 Adams had then known and believed in the ' project,' (the ' key' to all 
 future proceedings,) it is incredible that it should not have been deemed 
 worthy of disclosure — at that time, and on that occasion." 
 
 In their examination of the alleged project of 1803 and 4, they say: 
 " In the first place, we solemnly disavow all knowledge of such a project, 
 and all remembrance of the mention of it, or of any plan anaiagous to 
 it, at that or any subsequent period. Secondly, while it is obviously 
 mpossible for us to controvert evidence of which we are ignorant, we 
 are well assured it must be equally impossible to bring any facts which 
 can be considered evidence to bear upon the designs or measures of 
 those who, at the time of Mr. Adams' interview with Mr. Jefferson, and 
 afterwards, during the war, took an active part in the puolic affairs of 
 Massachusetts. ' 
 
CHARGE OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 451 
 
 " The effort discernible throughout this letter, to conDect those later, 
 events, which were of a public nature, and of which the natural and 
 adequate causes were public, with the mysterious project known only to 
 himself, of an earlier origin and distinct source, is in the last degree 
 violent and disingenuous. 
 
 " The cession of Louisiana to the United States, when first promulged, 
 was a theme of complaint and dissatisfaction in this part of the country. 
 This could not be regarded as factious or unreasonable, when it is 
 admitted by Mr. Adams, that Mr. Jefferson and himself entertained 
 constitutional scruples and objections to the provisions of the treaty of 
 cession. Nothing, however, like a popular excitement grew out of the * 
 measure; and it is stated by Mr. Adams, that this project ^slumbered'' 
 until the period of the embargo, in December, 1807. Suppose then, for 
 the moment, (what we have not a shadow of reason for believing, and 
 do not believe,) that upon the occasion of the Louisiana treaty, ' certain 
 leaders,' influenced by constitutional objections, (admitted to be com- 
 mon to Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Adams, and themselves,) had conceived a 
 project of separation, and of a northern confederacy, as the only pro- 
 bable counterpoise to the manufacture of new states in the south, does 
 it follow that, when the public mind became reconciled to the cession, 
 and the beneficial consequences of it were realized, (as it is conceded by 
 Mr. Adams was the case,) these same ' leaders,' whoever they might 
 be, would still cherish the embryo project, and wait for other contin- 
 gencies to enable them to effect it ? On what authority can Mr. Adama 
 assume that the project merely ' slumbered' for years, if his private 
 evidence applies only to the time of its origin ? 
 
 " The opposition to the measures of government in 1808, arose from 
 causes which were common to the people, not only of New England, 
 but of all the commercial states, as was manifested in New York, Phila- 
 delphia, and elsewhere. By what process of fair reasaning, then, can 
 that opposition be referred to, or connected with, a plan which is said 
 to have originated in 1804, and to have been intended to embrace merely 
 a northern confederacy ? It was believed in New England, that new 
 members could not be added to the confederacy beyond the territorial 
 limits of the contracting parties, without the consent of those parties. 
 This was considered as a fair subject of remonstrance, and as justifying 
 proposals for an amendment of the constitution. But so far were the 
 federal party from attempting to use this as an additional incentive to 
 the passions of the day, that, in a report made to the legislature of 
 1813, by a committee of which Mr. Adams' 'excellent friend,' Josiah 
 Quincy, was chairman, (Louisiana having at this time been admitted 
 into the union,) it is expressly stated, that ' they have not been disposed 
 
452 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to connect this great constitutional question with the transient calami- 
 ties of the day, from which it is in their opinion apparently distin- 
 guished, both in its cause and consequence.' " 
 
 They next refer to the embargo, the pretexts for which, they say, 
 were deemed by the people of Massachusetts a mockery to their suiFer- 
 ings. Owning nearly one-third of the tonnage of the United States, they 
 felt that their voice ought to be heard in what related to its security 
 Depending chiefly on their foreign trade and fisheries for support, their 
 situation appeared desperate. They could not consider the annihilation 
 of their trade as included in the power to regulate it. To the lawyers, 
 statesmen, and citizens of Massachusetts, the embargo law appeared a 
 direct violation of the constitution. War followed, and aggravated the 
 public distress. The state was deprived of garrisons for her ports, and 
 was left during the war nearly defenseless; her citizens subject to 
 incessant alarm ; her territory invaded ; her own militia arrayed, and 
 encamped at an enormous expense ; pay and subsistence from her nearly 
 exhausted treasury, and reimbursement refused even to this day." Hav- 
 ing thus described the condition of the state, the address proceeds : 
 
 " Now, what, under the pressure and excitement of these measures, 
 was the conduct of the federal party, with the military force of the state 
 in their hands ; with the encouragement to be derived from a conviction 
 that the northern states were in sympathy with their feelings ? Did 
 they resist the laws? Not in a solitary instance. Did they threaten a 
 separation of the states? Did they array their forces with a show of 
 Huch a disposition ? Did the government or people of Massachusetts, 
 in any one instance, swerve from their allegiance to the union ? The 
 reverse of all this is the truth. Abandoned by the national government, 
 because she declined, for reasons which her highest tribunal adjudged to 
 be constitutional, to surrender her militia into the hands of a military 
 prefect, although they were always equipped, and ready and faithful 
 under their own officers, she nevertheless clung to the union as to the 
 ark of her safety; she ordered her well trained militia into the field; 
 stationed them at the points of danger ; defrayed their expenses from her 
 own treasury; and garrisoned with them her national forts. All her 
 taxes and excises were paid with punctuality and promptness, an exam- 
 ple by no means followed by some of the states, in which the cry for 
 war had been loudest. These facts are recited for no other purpose but 
 that of preparing for the inquiry, what becomes of Mr. Adams' ' key,' 
 his ' project,' and his * postulates ?' The latter were to all intents and 
 purposes, to use his own language, ' consummated.' 
 
 " Laws unconstitutional in the public opinion had been enacted. The 
 great majority of an exasperated people were in a state of the highest 
 
CHARGE OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 453 
 
 excitement. The legislature, (if his word be taken,) was undor * the 
 management of the leaders.' The judicial courts were on their side; 
 and the juries were, as he pretends, contaminated. All the combusti- 
 bles for revolution were ready. When, behold ! instead of a dismem- 
 bered union, military movements, a northern confederacy, and British 
 alliance, accomplished at the favorable moment of almost total prostra- 
 tion of the credit and power of the national rulers, a small and peaceful 
 deputation of grave citizens, selected from the ranks of civil life, the 
 legislative councils, assembled at Hartford. There, calm and collected, 
 like the pilgrims from whom they descended, and not unmindful of those 
 who achieved the independence of their country, jthey deliberated on the 
 most effectual means of preserving for their<^ellow-citizens and their 
 descendants the civil and political liberty which had been won, and 
 bequeathed to them." 
 
 The "appeal" then enters into a defense of that convention, which, it 
 is alleged, " has been subjected to heavier imputations, under an entire 
 deficiency, not only of proof, but of probability, than ever befel any 
 other set of men, discharging merely the duties of a committee of a 
 legislative body, and making a public report of their doings to their 
 constituents. These imputations have never assumed a precise form; 
 but vague opinions have prevailed of a combination to separate the 
 union." 
 
 The grounds on which the convention was defended, are : 
 
 First, the constitutional right of a state to appoint delegates to such 
 a convention. The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable 
 manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good, and to request 
 of their rulers, by address, petition, or remonstrance, a redress of wrongs 
 and grievances. 
 
 Secondly, the propriety and expediency of exercising that right at 
 that time. The grievances suffered and the dangers apprehended, and 
 the strong excitement which they produced among all the people, ren- 
 dered some measures for their relief indispensably necessary. 
 
 Thirdly, the objects intended to be attained by it, and tie powers 
 given for that purpose, by the state to the delegates. The excitement 
 was great, amounting almost to desperation. It was thought the mea- 
 sures called for would be more prudently and safely conducted by the 
 government of the state, than by unorganized bodies of individuals, 
 excited by what they considered unjust and oppressive measures of the 
 general government. No secret action was taken on the subject by the 
 legislature. The resolution for appointing the delegates and prescrib- 
 ing their powers and duties, was openly discussed and passed ; and a 
 oopy of it was sent to the governor of every state in the union. 
 
454 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Fourthly, the manner in which the delegates exercised their power. 
 This appears from their report, which was immediately published, and 
 which set forth and enforced, by elaborate reasoning, the paramount 
 importance of the union ; and there was no just ground for imputing to 
 them covert and nefarious designs. The main and avowed object of the 
 convention was the defense of this part of the country against the com- 
 mon enemy. New England was destitute of national troops; her trea- 
 sures were exhausted ; and her taxes drawn into the national coffers. 
 
 The appeal says farther : " The burden of that report consisted in 
 recommending an application to congress to permit the states to provide 
 for their own defense, and to be indemnified with the expense, by reim- 
 bursement, of at least a portion of their own money. This convention 
 adjourned early in January. On the 27th of the same month, an act of 
 congress was passed, which gave to the state governments the very power 
 which was sought by Massachusetts, viz : that of raising, organizing, 
 and officering state troops, to be employed in the state raising the same, 
 or in an adjoining state, and providing for their pay and subsistence. 
 This, we repeat, was the most important object aimed at by the institu- 
 tion of the convention, and by the report of that body. * * * It 
 is indeed grievous to perceive Mr. Adams condescending to intimate 
 that the convention was adjourned to Boston, and, in a strain of rheto- 
 rical pathos, connecting his imaginary plot, then at least in the thirteenth 
 year of its age, with the catastrophe which awaited the ultimate pro- 
 ceedings of the convention. That assembly adjourned without day, 
 after maldng its report. It was ipso facto dissolved, like other com- 
 mittees. One of its resolutions did indeed purport, that ' if the appli- 
 cation ot these states to the government of the United States should be 
 unsuccessful, and peace should not be concluded, and the defense of 
 these states should be neglected as it has been since the commencement 
 of the war, it will be^ in the opinion of this convention, expedient for 
 the legislatures of the several states, to appoint delegates to another 
 convention, to meet at Boston on the third Tuesday of June next, with 
 such powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momentous 
 may require.' " 
 
 The " appeal" concludes as follows : " The causes of past controver- 
 sies, passing, as they were, to oblivion, among existing generations, and 
 arranging themselves, as they must do, for the impartial scrutiny of 
 future historians, the revival of them can be no less distasteful to the 
 public than painful to us. Yet it could not be expected, that while Mr. 
 Adams, from his high station sends forth the unfounded suggestions of 
 his imagination or his jealousy, as materials for present opinion and 
 future history, we should, by silence, give countenance to his charges ; nor 
 
CHARGE OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 455 
 
 that we should neglect to vindicate ourselves, our associates, and our 
 fathers." 
 
 These extracts from the letter of Mr. Adams, and the ai^peal of his 
 opponents, have been extended to great length : they are, however, not 
 more copious than justice to the parties seemed to require. Scarcely 
 ever has there been in this country a political excitement so incessant and 
 80 intense, and for an equal period of time, as from 1S07 to 1814. No 
 political assembly ever obtained a more odious notoriety than the Hart- 
 ford convention. It was extensively believed at the time, and is by 
 many even at this day, to have had treasonable designs. Facts and cir- 
 cumstances existed which afforded ground for the suspicions so generally 
 entertained. It is, however, but just to say, that no evidence has ever 
 been elicited upon which that convention can be convicted of inteutions 
 hostile to the union. 
 
 But the sequel to this controversy has not yet been given. William 
 Plumer, a senator in congress from Hew Hampshire in 1 803 and 1 804, 
 in a letter to Mr. Adams of the 20th of December, 1828, states, that, 
 during that session of congress, several federalists, senators, and repre- 
 sentatives, from the New England States, informed him, at different 
 times and places, that they thought it necessary to establish a separate 
 government in New England. He saj- s : "Just before that session cf 
 congress closed, one of the gentlemen to whom I have alluded, informed 
 me that arrangements had been made to have the next autumn, in Bos- 
 ton, a select meeting of the leading federalists in New England, to con- 
 sider and recommend the measures necessary to form a system of govern- 
 ment for the northern states, and that Alexander Hamilton, of New 
 York, had consented to attend that meeting." And he says farther, that 
 the gentlemen who had informed him of the contemplated meeting, told 
 him at the next session of congress, that the death of Mr. Hamilton had 
 prevented the meeting, but the project was not and would not be 
 abandoned. Mr. Plumer adds : 
 
 " I owe it to you as well as to myself, to state explicitly, that in the 
 session of congress in the winter of 1803 and 1804, 1 was myself in favor 
 of forming a separate government in New England, and wrote several 
 confidential letters to a few of my friends and correspondents recommend- 
 ing the measure. But afterwards, upon maturely considei-ing the sub- 
 ject, I was fully convinced that my opinion in favor of separation, was the 
 most erroneous that I ever formed upon political subjects. * * * When 
 the same project was revived in 1808 and 1809, during the embargo and 
 non-intercourse, and afterwards, during the war of 1812, I used every 
 effort in my power, both privately and publicly, to defeat the attempt 
 then made to establish a separate independent government in the north- 
 ern states" 
 
456 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. A-dams having said in his letter to the federalists, that " this plan 
 had been so far matured that the proposal had been made to an indivi- 
 dual to permit himself at the proper time to be placed at the head of 
 the military movements which it was foreseen would be necessarj 
 for carrying it into execution;" and Mr. Plumer having named Mr. 
 Hamilton as that individual, James A. Hamilton addressed Mr. Adams, 
 inquiring whether he was in possession of any evidence of his father's 
 havina' consented to attend the alleged meeting at Boston, or been con- 
 cerned in a project to effect the dissolution of the union and the estab- 
 lishment of a northern confederacy. 
 
 In reply, Mr. Adams says he received his information, to the best of 
 his recollection, from Uriah Tracy, then a senator from Connecticut, or 
 from another member of congress who was present, both since deceased. 
 And after the close of the session, being at New York, he was informed 
 by Rufus King, that a person had that day conversed with him and also 
 with Mr. Hamilton's father, in favor of the project, but that both had 
 disapproved of it. Mr. Adams expressed his belief in the statement of 
 Mr. Plumer ; but from the information given him by Mr. King, he 
 believed that, in consenting to attend the meeting, Mr. Hamilton's pur- 
 pose was to dissuade the parties concerned from the undertaking. He 
 also declared the belief, that the project had been continued or resumed 
 until the time of the meeting of the Hartford convention, in 1814. 
 
 On the appearance of this letter of Mr. Adams, Judge Gould, of Con- 
 necticut, son-in-law of Mr. Tracy, addressed certain questions to James 
 Hillhouse, co- senator with Mr. Tracy, and to the other surviving mem- 
 bers of congress in 1803 and 1804, John Davenport, John Cotton Smith, 
 S. Baldwin, B. Tallmadge, and Calvin Goddard, who were familiar and 
 confidential friends of Mr. Tracy, and .of the same political party ; and 
 who declared in their answers to Judge Gould, that Mr. Tracy had nevei* 
 spoken to them of the alleged project; nor had they any reason to believe 
 that such a project had ever existed. 
 
 Judge Gould transmitted these letters to the New York Evening Post 
 for publication, accompanied by a letter of his own to the editor, con- 
 taining a caustic review of the disclosures of Mr. Adams. He says : " It 
 is particularly worthy of observation, that Mr. Adams' disclosures against 
 the federal party, in the form in which he has chosen to present them to 
 the public, are, even if untrue, absolutely incapable of direct disproof or 
 positive contradiction. This remark is equally applicable to all the 
 statements which have been published on this subject, under his name or 
 avowed sanction. * * * Thus, although he has implicated in his 
 project an important, and as he represents it, a formidable portion of the 
 federal party, yet as he has avoided, except in a single instance, (which 
 
CHARGE OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION, • 457 
 
 did not require it,) the mention of any one individual hy name^ he has 
 secured to himself the very convenient resource of exculpating, in detail, 
 every one whom it may be hazardous to accuse or prudent to conceal, 
 while he repeats the accusation against them collectively. * * * 
 
 " As regards Mr. Tracy, whom only of the whole federal party, Mr. 
 Adams has vouchsafed to name, it may be proper to state, that he has 
 now been in his grave for nearly twenty-two years. The ' other member 
 of congress' who is alleged to have been present at one of the conversa- 
 tions between Mr. Tracy and Mr. Adams, happens also to be dead, and 
 is hitherto nameless. Whether there is any deep philosophy in Mr 
 Adams' apparent preference of dead and anonymous to living and known 
 authority, which might confront him, I can not presume to determine, 
 l^ut as ' dead men,' according to the proverb, * tell no tales,' so on the 
 other hand, they can contradict none. 
 
 " Mr. Tracy, it is well known, was a man of unusual tact and address, 
 in all situations, and a most acute judge of the characters of men. He 
 was also early and well acquainted with Mr. Adams, and was not igno- 
 rant of the strength and obduracy of his personal resentments and anti- 
 pathies. He knew, moreover, what many perhaps at that time did not — 
 the terms on which Mr. Adams stood with Mr. Hamilton. The brilliant 
 and exalted character of that great man had long been, to the house of 
 Braintree, an object of deep jealousy and resentment. ' Under him,' 
 Mr. Adams had felt his ' genius rebuked,' and of all mankind (not ex- 
 cepting even Mr. Ames or Col. Pickering himself,) Mr. Hamilton was to 
 Mr. Adams probably the most odious. In the hereditary and cherished 
 antipathies of Mr. Adams, Mr. Hamilton, it is believed, had no rival. 
 All this Mr. Tracy well knew ; and that a man like him, in the exercise 
 of his understanding, should have hoped to obtain the accession of such 
 a man as Mr. Adams to the ' project' of the federal leaders, by proposing 
 a measure which he knew would be -most revolting to Mr. Adams'' ivhole 
 soul ; that he should have proposed Mr. Hamilton as the leader of a 
 great public e .terprise to Mr. John Q. Adams, is, modestly speaking, 
 something strange. It is a little singular, also, that Mr. Tracy should 
 have made Mr. Adams the depository of so important a state secret, 
 while his lips were absolutely sealed upon the subject to his long 
 tried, best known, and most intimate political friends and associ- 
 ates, whose accession to the project, if any such existed, must certainly 
 have been contemplated by him. The survivors of the Connecticut 
 delegation were not only his political, but his personal friends. He 
 and they were uniformly advocates of one and the same political system 
 With most of them from his youth, and with all of them, long before 
 the year 1804, he was in habits of the freest and most confidential com- 
 
458 , THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 municatioG. on all subjects connected with public afifairrf. And that he 
 should so guardedly have concealed this same project from all those 
 gentlemen, as not to give the slightest intimation of it to any one of 
 them, while he divulged it so unreservedly to Mr. John Q. Adams, of 
 Massachusetts, must be a little puzzling to ordinary understandings." 
 
 Mr. Plumer having been requested by James A. Hamilton, to give 
 the name of the person who informed him of his father's connection with 
 the project referred to in the letter of Mr. Plumer, replied on the 11th 
 of April, 1829, saying that he had " made no charge or accusation 
 against Gen. Hamilton;" he had simply stated that a member of con- 
 gress, at the session of 1803-4, mformed him that the general had con- 
 sented to attend the meeting. He however declined giving the name of 
 his informant : in relation to which Mr. Hamilton observes : 
 
 " As this affair now stands, Mr. Adams may still consider himself 
 entitled to the benefit of this witness, which he would undoubtedly lose, 
 if a free examination were submitted to; and aware how important it 
 was to sustain Mr. Piumer's credibility, Mr. Adams has endorsed hip 
 statement, and tendered him a certificate of respectability. * * * • 
 The credibility of the associate witness must be sustained, regardless of 
 the reputation and honor of the accused ; the charge of treason must be 
 fixed somewhere, and the stamp of infamy, if possible, made indelible. 
 This mighty project to dismember the union, seems only to be known 
 to John Q. Adams and William Plumer ; the late president resorting 
 to the dead to bear him testimony, while the former governor of New 
 Hampshire dare not trust the living or the dead. In 1804, Mr. Adams, 
 by his own admission, knew that Gen. Hamilton advocated the union ; 
 in 1828, in his reply to the Boston federalists, he asserts that he was 
 fixed on as the military leader to carry the plan of disunion into execu- 
 tion; and on the 6th of March, 1829, he most graciously afiects to be- 
 lieve that Gen. Hamilton entertained no treasonable or disloyal viewy." 
 
 Mr. Hamilton accompanies his letter to the Evening Post with the 
 declarations of nine members of the congress of 1803-4, .ntimate friends 
 and associates of Mr. Plumer, disclaiming all knowledge of any sugges- 
 tion made at that time, and avowing their disbelief that Gen. Hamilton 
 gave any countenance to a separation ?f the states, or consented to at- 
 tend a meeting for that purpose. 
 
ANOTHER ALLEGED ATTIMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION 459 
 
 CHAPTEK XXXV. 
 
 ANOTHER ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION. 
 
 Almost simultaneously with the Giles and Adams controversj', and 
 the publication of the letter of Mr. Jeflfersou and Mr. Adams' own state- 
 ment in relation to the alleged designs of disunion, and the establish- 
 ment of a northern confederacy, an "important development" was an- 
 nounced in the southern papers disclosing the incipient steps to have 
 been taken by leading southerners in an abortive attempt to sever their 
 political connection with the government. 
 
 In October succeeding the passage of the tariff of 1828, which pro- 
 duced such excitement at the south, a writer, under the signature of 
 " Union," in a South Carolina paper, propounded to the members of 
 congress from that state, the following questions, which, he stated, " if 
 answered in the negative, might have a tendency to change the opinions 
 of at least a portion of the people of the state as respected the nature of 
 the opposition to the tarifi", inculcated by a few of the Jacksonites of 
 South Carolina." 
 
 " 1st. Was there not a meeting of the delegation of this state held in 
 Washington city, in the house of one of our senators, a few nights after 
 the passage of this tariff law, the object of which was (as it was said) to 
 consult upon measures best to be adopted and pursued as it regards this 
 law ? 
 
 " 2d. At this meeting, were there not one or more members deputed 
 to wait upon and consult with the respective delegations from the southern 
 states, and to obtain, if possible, their cooperation ? Did this deputa- 
 tion not undertake the mission, and totally fail in the object for which 
 it was appointed? If it did, was it not then proposed by one or more 
 leading members of the assembly, that the whole of the memrers as- 
 sembled should immediately abandon their seats in congress, return 
 home, and thereby end all further political connection with the ^govern- 
 ment ? 
 
 " 3d. Was this proposition not abandoned by the meeting, in conse- 
 quence of one or more of the prudent members objecting to take upon 
 themselves the burden of the great responsibility, which would have 
 been the consequence of such a step ? 
 
 " Lastly. Was the night consultation not ended by a majority of the 
 members finally determining, that, although they would awa'it the ad- 
 journment of congress, yet that, upon their arrival home, thej would 
 
460 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 each visit their constituents generally, and among them make every 
 effort to inculcate such doctrines and principles as would induce the 
 people of the states to agree to and advocate a separation of the states ?" 
 
 To the allegations implied in these interrogatories, Mr. Hayne, the 
 senator in whose house the meeting was said to have been held, made a 
 positive denial. He said in his reply : " It is true, that, during the last 
 session of congress, consultations were held among the members of the 
 South Carolina delegation on the subject of the tariflf. Such consulta- 
 tions have, as I believe, been usual in all cases affecting, in a peculiar 
 degree, tlie interests of particular states ; and the members of this state 
 would, in my opinion, have been wanting in their duty if they had not 
 most earnestly and anxiously taken into consideration, on the passage 
 of the tariff law, whether any thing remained to be done by them in 
 their representative capacity in relation to that matter. Such, I avei, 
 was the sole object of a meeting held at my house in Washington, im- 
 mediatel}^ after the passage of that law — a meeting rendered indispen- 
 sably necessary, by a question which had been discussed among some of 
 the southern members, (but which I think did not originate with any 
 member of our delegation,) viz : whether a protest against the law, to 
 be signed by all the members from the anti-tariff states, to be entered 
 on the journals of the two houses of congress, and transmitted to the 
 executives of the several states, might not be an expedient measure. 
 The subject of such a protest was fully discussed without being brought 
 to any conclusion, further than that a free interchange of opinions in 
 relation to it should take place among the representatives of the anti- 
 tariff states ; the final result of which was the abandonment of the 
 scheme by common consent, as one not only of doubtful policy, but con- 
 cerning which there existed too great a difference of opinion to justify 
 its adoption." 
 
 On reading this denial on the part of Mr. Hayne, Thomas R. Mit- 
 chell, a representative from the same state, who had made to some of 
 his confidential constituents, statements in respect to the meeting refer- 
 red to, which were impugned by the letter of Mr. Hayne, replied to the 
 same, substantially confii-ming the implied allegations of the writer above 
 mentioned. Addressing Mr. Hayne directly he says : 
 
 " And will you deny, sir, that, after all the southern delegations ex- 
 cept Georgia had positively refused to unite with us in such a protest 
 as was thought effectual by you and others, that a proposition was made 
 by one of your members, that we should formally secede from congress, 
 return home, and say to our constituents, that our services were nc 
 longer of any use ? That when this proposition was made, it was imme- 
 diately opposed by Col. Drayton, who at once declared that he would 
 
ANOTHER ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION 461 
 
 not concur, as the act thus performed would be unconstitutional, and 
 would not be sanctioned by his constituents ? I can not, sir, be mis- 
 taken in this statement. The proposition excited feelings too strong to 
 be forgotten. I thought if it were adopted, that I should be placed in 
 the most trying of all situations. To remain alone at Washington, in 
 opposition to the views ot the whole delegation, would be assuming a 
 fearful responsibility ; to shrink from that responsibility, and yield to 
 their views in opposition to my own, would be contemptible weakness. 
 Besides, what was to result from it ? What was to be the fate of the 
 people whom we represented ? Imagination shuddered at the prospect. 
 These were my feelings — these were the ideas which the proposition 
 called forth. And I have never in my life been more relieved than when 
 it was immediately put down by Col. Drayton. 
 
 " Again, sir, will you deny that a proposition was made, that we 
 should, on our return home, communicate by letter, or otherwise, with 
 the principal men of our respective districts, on the subject of the tariff; 
 explain to them the fatal effects on their trade and agriculture ; and its 
 aggression on the sovereignty of the state? Further, that it was pro- 
 posed, that we should, during the summer, communicate to each other, 
 by letter, the state of feeling which we discovered in our respective dis- 
 tricts ? And finally, that the delegation should meet at Columbia in 
 October or November, for the purpose of devising and maturing some 
 plan of action for the state governments ? Do you not remember that 
 one gentleman (Mr. M'Dufiie,) did say, that, in his opinion, there was 
 no other remed}- for the evil than a separation of the state from the 
 union ; that temporizing measures would prove unavailing; and that he, 
 himself, was prepared to go all lengths ? And whe-n it was remarked 
 that his constituents might not approve such a measure, did he not reply 
 with an exclamation, that he would not then represent them ? that he 
 considered his services in congress as an obligation conferred on them ; 
 and that, whenever they failed to support his great views on the affairs 
 of the union, he would abandon them ? To this, did you not reply, that 
 others were as ready to make sacrifices as he could be ? 
 
 "Further, when it was observed, that Mr. M'Dufl&e's plan was ill-ad- 
 vised, because the United States' government would force the state to 
 submission, (she, single-handed, not having the power to resist,) did you 
 not ask, where were the means of the general government to coerce the 
 state ? That the standing army was no more than a handful of men — • 
 nothing could be feared from it ? That, with regard to the militia, no 
 southern militia, if called out by the president, would take arms against 
 our people ; and that the northern militia would not be permitted by 
 Virginia and North Carolina to pass through their territories for tho 
 
462 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 purpose of subjecting South Carolina ? Finally, after all attempts to 
 obtain a cooperation of the southern delegations had failed — after one 
 of our most influential members (Mr. Senator Smith) had peremptorily 
 refused to attend, and unanimity was not found to exist even among 
 those who were present, was it not then that you proposed to abandon 
 all the foregoing plans, lest any increase of excitement in South Caro- 
 lina mieht prove injurious to the election of Gen. Jackson ? 
 
 " On the adjournment of the meeting, I called on senator Smith, 
 related what had transpired, and remarked, that the delegation had been 
 saved by the wisdom and firmness of Col. Drayton. "With regard to 
 the views of yourself and others, I could say nothing. Having never 
 respected either the principles or course of the Calhoun party, I was 
 not in your confidence, and was therefore left to mere conjecture as to 
 what your motives were, and what your ulterior projects might be. In 
 this public development I have not volunteered ; you have forced me 
 to it." 
 
 To this Col. Hayne rejoined in an attempt to disprove the statement 
 of Mr. Mitchell, and introduced as testimony letters of several of the 
 members of that state. It was, however, admitt'^d and proved, that 
 the question was discussed of presenting to the house a protest from the 
 delegations of the anti-tariff states : That it was proposed, that, when 
 the delegates went home, they should by letter communicate to each 
 other the feelings and sentiments of the people within their districts 
 upon the subject of the tariff; and that they should endeavor to pre- 
 vent the expression of public opinion on this subject until after the 
 election : That the delegation should assemble at Columbia, at the com- 
 mencement of the session of the legislature, to give to the members of 
 that body any information respecting the tariff that might be desired . 
 That Maj. Hamilton declared his purpose to go home, surrender his 
 commission, and not return to congress, unless directed by his constitu- 
 ents; from which purpose he was dissuaded by Col. Drayton : That the 
 effects of a dissolution of the union were discussed : That Maj. Hamil- 
 ton said, if South Carolina should be driven from the union by the 
 restrictive policy, the government could not enforce it ; as the regular 
 army was too small to create apprehensions, and Virginia and North 
 Carolina would never permit northern militia to pass through their 
 territories to reduce South Carolina to subjection. 
 
 Although the testimony adduced by Col. Hayne, if correct, acquits 
 the accused of the worst designs imputed to them ; yet, from the facts 
 admitted, it was easy and natural for Mr. Mitchell to infer all he charged 
 upon them ; and the more so from their having been, as Maj. Hamilton 
 confessed, " under a very high degree of excitement at this new act of 
 
RISE AND TROGRESS OF THE ANTI-MASONIC PARTY. 463 
 
 injustice." Only a few years after, the right of secession and of nulli- 
 fication was the current and almost universal doctrine in South Carolina, 
 in which these gentlemen, it is presumed, all concurred, and of which 
 they detcrnjined to give a practical exemplification by a forcible resist- 
 ance to the laws of the union. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVI. 
 
 RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE ANTI-MASONIC PARTY. 
 
 In September, 1826, an event occurred which gave rise to a new 
 political party. William Morgan, of Batavia, Grenesee county. New 
 York, having written for publication a work alleged to contain a dis- 
 closure of the secrets of free-masonry, and which was about to be 
 issued from the press of David C. Miller, was apprehended uuder coloi 
 of a criminal process, and conveyed to Canandaigua, in the county of 
 Ontario, where, upon examination before a magistrate, he was discharged. 
 He was subsequently arrested, on the same day, upon a demand against 
 him ; a judgment was obtained ; and he was confined in the jail of the 
 county. On the evening of the 12th of September, persons who had 
 been concerned in his seizure and confinement, discharged the debt, and 
 caused his liberation. On leaving the jail, he was forcibly taken, carried 
 in a close carriage to the Niagara frontier, where he was last seen. 
 
 Several persons concerned in the outrage upon Morgan were arrested, 
 and indicted, pleaded guilty to the indictments, and were imprisoned in 
 the county jail at Canandaigua. A great excitement soon prevailed 
 throughout the western part of the state. 
 
 At the next session of the legislature, petitions relating to the abduc- 
 tion of Morgan were presented, and referred to a select committee of 
 the assembly; and a reward of Si, 000 was offered by Gov. Clinton for 
 the discovery of Morgan, if alive ; and if murdered, $2,000 for the dis- 
 covery of the offender or offenders ; and a free pardon to any accomplice 
 or cooperator who should make the discovery. 
 
 The committee of the legislature stated in their report, that the 
 petitions set forth, that, after an examination before the magistrate at 
 Canandaigua, Morgan was discharged. He was again immediately 
 arrested upon a demand against him, and a judgment obtained, on which 
 he was imprisoned in the county jail at that place. His friends dis- 
 charged the debt on which he had been committed, and he was liberated 
 
464 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 On leaving the jail he was seized, forced into a carriage, and conveyed 
 to the Niagara frontier, where, as some of the petitioners alleged, he was 
 murdered on the night of the 14th of September: and all expressed the 
 belief, that the conspiracy extended through several of the western 
 counties, and was the result of a previously concerted plan. 
 
 As the courts of a single county were deemed inadequate to the 
 emergency, the interposition of the legislature was asked to procure a 
 full development of the plot. The committee reported a resolution re- 
 questing the governor to offer a reward of $5,000 for the discovery of 
 Morgan, if living, and a like sum for the murderer or murderers, if 
 dead ; and another for the appointment of a joint committee of the two 
 houses, to visit the counties from which and through which Morgan had 
 been taken, to inquire into the facts and circumstances connected with 
 the outrage, and to report their proceedings to the next legislature. 
 
 In the autumn of .1827, the body of a man was found on the shore of 
 lake Ontario, which, from the testimony given on the coroner's inquest, 
 the jury unanimously agreed, was the body of William Morgan. Upon 
 a second examination, however, held some time afterward, a jury decided 
 the body to be that of Timothy Monro, who had been upset in a skiff 
 and lost in the mouth of Niagara river in Septembi.1. His clothing, un- 
 seen by his widow and intimate friends since his death, were so minutely 
 described, as to leave no doubt on the minds of the jurors. It was also 
 testified by a physician, that the body, appearing to be only in the first 
 stages of decomposition, could not be that of a person more than a year 
 after drowning. 
 
 Bills of indictment were found against several persons who had par- 
 ticipated in the abduction ; two of whom, in 1829, were convicted and 
 sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail, one for two years and four 
 months, the other for one year and three mouths. The former was tho 
 sheriff of Niagara county, who as a witness on the trial of the latter, 
 testified, that he had been apprised several days previou.sly of the coming 
 of Morgan, and had been requested to prepare a cell for him in the 
 Niagara county jail at Lockport. It was proved that Morgan was taken 
 through Kochester, and along the ridge road to Lewiston, being conveyed, 
 blind-folded in a covered carriage, which was kept closed. From Lewis- 
 ton he was taken in another carriage to the ferry near fort Niagara. 
 Witness and four others crossed with him into Canada, in the night; 
 their object being to get Morgan away from Miller into the interior of 
 Canada, and place him on a farm. The expected preparation not having 
 been made for his reception, he was brought back to this side of the 
 river, to wait a few days, and was put into the magazine of the fort ; 
 since which the witness had not seen him. 
 
RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE ANTI-MASONIC TARTY. 465 
 
 The publication of Morgan's book was followed by that of others, 
 claiming to be true revelations of the secrets of masonry ; and many 
 free masons seceded from the institution, and confirmed the published 
 statements of its character and ceremonies, as well as the oaths and ob- 
 ligations of its members, some of which were inconsistent with their 
 civil duties. It is not strange, therefore, that, with the suspicion pre- 
 viously existing in the minds of a large portion of the uninitiated 
 against the order, this outrage upon the person of Morgan, which was 
 believed to be in accordance with the laws of the institution, should soon 
 raise against it a powerful opposition. Those; who believed the members 
 held their civil obligations subordinate to their obligations to each other, 
 considered free masons unfit to hold civil ofiices. 
 
 Under the influence of this opinion, strengthened as it had been by the 
 difficulty, in a few cases, of bringing criminals to justice where courts, 
 sherifi"s and witnesses were masons, the anti-masons soon began to unite 
 to prevent the election of masons to town and county offices. Probably 
 their object, as yet, contemplated merely the procuring of the nomina- 
 tion of persons not masons, by the existing political parties. A general 
 convention was held at Le Roy, in March, 1828, in which twelve coun- 
 ties were represented. Its object appeai-s to have been to direct the 
 public attention to what was deemed a dangerous institution, and to 
 excite against it a general opposition. It recommended a state conven- 
 tion to be held at Utiea in August. The nomination of separate, inde- 
 pendent candidates for state officers, was not, it is said, contemplated in 
 calling the state convention. But the Adams party, then calling them- 
 selves " national republicans," in the hope of securing the support of the 
 anti-masons, anticipated the convention of the latter, by calling their 
 convention at an earlier day, and nominating men who were not masons. 
 Smith Thompson, then a justice of the supreme court of the United 
 States, was nominated for governor, and Francis Granger, a favorite of 
 the anti-masons, for lieutenant governor. 
 
 Perceiying in this act of the national republicans no manifestation 
 against masonry, the anti-masons did not respond to the nominations ; 
 but at their convention declared it expedient " wholly to disregard the 
 two great political parties, and to non inate anti-masonic candidates for 
 governor and lieutenant governor." Mr. Granger was accordingly nomi- 
 nated for governor, and John Crary for lieutenant governor, both of 
 whom had taken an active part in procuring the aid of the legislature in 
 bringing to justice the Morgan conspirators ; the former being a member 
 of the assembly, and the latter a senator. 
 
 Mr. Granger, however, declined the nomination, and accepted that of 
 lieutenant governor tendered him by the national republicans, to the 
 
 30 
 
466 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 great displeasure of the anti-masons ; who supplied the place of his name 
 with that of Solomon Southwick, who, though once a mason, had lately 
 cooperated with the anti-masons in their attempts to overthrow the insti- 
 tution. In the selection of Mr. Southwick, the great body of the anti- 
 masons did not concur, he having been nominated by a small convention 
 at Le Roy. With few exceptions, however, they gave him their supporl 
 at the election. 
 
 The election resulted in the choice of Mr. Van Buren, the Jackson 
 candidate for governor, and Enos T. Throop for lieutenant governor. 
 Mr. Van Buren received 136,794 votes; Judge Thompson, 106,444 j 
 and Mr. Southwick, 33,345. 
 
 From this time, a regular organization as a state anti-masonic party 
 !Eay be considered as having existence, embracing in its composition 
 original Clintonians, (Mr. Clinton having united with the friends of 
 Gen. Jackson,) and bucktails, as the party opposed to Mr. Clinton was 
 ■jailed. As regarded national politics they had not yet made any de- 
 claration ; a majority, however, were national republicans and friendly to 
 Mr. Adams. Gen. Jackson being a mason, it was eas}' to foresee that 
 they would eventually unite with the friends of the former, if with 
 either of the two national parties. 
 
 The anti-masons prosecuted their object with such zeal and energy, 
 &s soon to place them in advance of the national republicans. They held 
 a state convention in Februai-y, 1829 ; and at the election in November, 
 they obtained majorities in the fourteen western counties, and in the 
 county of Washington ; and the senator of the 8th senate district was 
 elected by an unprecedented majority. In February, 1830, another state 
 convention was held in Albany^ at which they decided to call a national 
 convention, and a state conveutioa to nominate candidates for governor 
 and lieutenant-governor. At the convention, held at Utica in August, 
 they declared their political principles, which were substantially the 
 same as those of the national republicans. Mr. Granger, having re- 
 gained their confidence and esteem, was nominated for governor, and 
 Samuel Stevens for lieutenant governor. No nomination was made by 
 the national republican party ; and had this party, with entire unanimity, 
 voted for Granger and Stevens, they would probably have been elected. 
 A number sufficient to defeat the anti-masonic candidates, having a 
 stronger attachment to masonry than to their political principles, joined 
 the Jackson party, and gave the election to Mr. Throop, by a majority 
 of 8,481 votes. 
 
 The eause of anti-masonry soon extended to other states. It acquired 
 its greatest strength in New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsyl- 
 vania, and Ohio. In some districts of these states, the anti -masonic 
 
BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS AND THE SIX MILITIA MEN. 467 
 
 party had obtained the ascendency, and in a considerable number of 
 them, it became the most formidable rival of the dominant party. The 
 sequel of its history will be given m a succeeding chapter. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVII. 
 
 BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, AND THE SIX MILITIA MEN. FUGITIVE SLAVES 
 
 AND ABOLITION. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. ANTI-TARIFF PROTESTS. 
 
 INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. PUBLIC LANDS IN INDIANA. 
 
 On the 8th of January, 1328, Mr. Hamilton, of South Carolina, 
 moved instructions to the committee on the library to inquire into the 
 expediency of having an historical picture of the battle of New Orleans 
 painted, and placed in one of the panels of the rotunda, and of engaging 
 Washington Allston to design and finish the work. During the discus- 
 sion of the resolution, which continued two days, sundry amendments 
 were offered, principally by its opponents, with a view to embarrass its 
 passage. The amendments proposed to add pictures of certain battles 
 of the revolution, and naval battles during the late war with Great Bri- 
 tain. The question was taken at the close of the second day's debate, 
 and decided in the negative : ayes, 98; noes, 103. 
 
 The resolution having been intended, as was presumed, for party effect 
 Mr. Sloane, of Ohio, from the other party, on the 1 1 th of January, 1 828, 
 moved a resolution calling on the secretary of war to furnish the house 
 with a copy of the proceedings of a court martial at Mobile, in Decem- 
 ber, 1814, by which six of the Tennessee militia men had been tried, 
 convicted of insubordination and mutiny, and condemned to be shot ; 
 which sentence was carried into effect by order of G-en. Jackson. The 
 resolution, after having been so amended as to embrace a great variety of 
 other papers, letters, &c., relating to the subject, was adopted on the 
 16th of January; and on the 11th of February, the committee on mili- 
 tary affairs, (Mr. Hamilton, chairman,) made a report on the subjeci. 
 approving the proceedings of the court, and justifying the execution of 
 the militia men. The report and accompanying documents were ordered 
 to be printed, 108 to 69. 
 
 This affair of the militia men proved detrimental rather than availing 
 to the administration party. Handbills giving unfavorable representations 
 of the trial and execution of these men, " illustrated" with wood engrav- 
 ing3 of six coffins were extensively circulated. But the investigatioD 
 
468 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 having resulted in the exculpation of Gen. Jackson, the " coffin hand* 
 bills," as they were called, became rather an effective weapon in the hands 
 of his friends against the inventors. 
 
 An attempt was made during Mr. Adams' administration to effect an 
 arrangement with Great Britain for the surrender of fugitive slaves 
 taking refuge in the Canadian provinces. By a resolution of the house 
 of representatives, May 10, 1828, the president was requested to open a 
 negotiation with the British government for this purpose. On the 15th 
 of December, in compliance with a resolution of the 8th, the president 
 transmitted to the house the correspondence between the secretary of 
 state and Mr. Gallatin, our minister at London, and Mr, Barbour, his 
 successor. The following is an extract from the instructions of Mr. 
 Clay to Mr. Gallatin : 
 
 " If it be urged that Great Britain would make, in agreeing to the 
 proposed stipulation, a concession without an equivalent, there being no 
 corresponding class of persons in her North American continental domin- 
 ions, you will reply : 
 
 "1st. That there is a similar class in the British West Indies, and, 
 although the instances are not numerous, some have occurred of their 
 escape, or being brought, contrary to law, into the United States. 
 
 " 2dly. That Great Britain would probably obtain an advantage over 
 us in the reciprocal restoration of military and maritime deserters, which 
 would compensate any that wr might secure over her in the practical 
 operation of an article for the mutual delivery of fugitives from labor. 
 
 *' 3dly. At all events, the disposition to cultivate good neighborhood, 
 which such an article would imply, could not fail to find a compensation 
 in that, or in some other way, in the already immense and still increasing 
 intercourse between the two countries. The states of Virginia and Ken- 
 tucky are particularly anxious on this subject. The general assembly of 
 the latter has repeatedly invoked the interposition of the government of 
 the United States with Great Britain You will, therefore, press the 
 matter whilst there exists any prospect of your obtaining a satisfactory 
 arrangement of it. Perhaps the British government, whilst they refuse 
 to, come under any obligation by treaty, might be willing to give direc- 
 tions to the colonial authorities to afford facilities for the recovery of 
 fugitives from labor ; or, if they should not be disposed to dist-urb such 
 as have heretofore taken refuge in Upper Canada, they might be willing 
 to interdict the entry of any others in future." 
 
 These considerations were not deemed sufficiently weighty to induce 
 the English government to make the desired concession. 
 
 A petition from the citizens of the District of Columbia, was presented 
 to congrees at the session of 1827-28, praying for the prospective 
 
FUGITIVE SLAVES AND ABOLITION. 469, 
 
 abolition of slavery in the district, and for the repeal of those lawp which 
 authorize the selling of supposed runaways for their prison fees or main- 
 tenance. The petitioners declare slavery among them, to be " an evil 
 of serious magnitude, which greatly impairs the prosperity and happi- 
 ness of the district, and to cast the reproach of inconsistency upon the 
 free institutions established among us." They represent the domestic 
 slave trade at the seat of the national government as " scarcely less dis- 
 graceful in its character, and even more demoralizing in its influence," 
 than the foreign slave trade, which is declared piracy, and punishable 
 with death. " Husbands and wives are separated ; children are taken 
 from their parents without regard to the ties of nature, and the most 
 endearing bonds of affection are broken for ever." 
 
 It was mentioned also as a special grievance, that " some who were 
 entitled to freedom, had been sold into unconditional slavery." And 
 they gave the case of a colored man who had been taken up as a runaway 
 slave, imprisoned, and advertised ; and no one appearing to claim him, 
 he was sold for life at public auction for the payment of his jail fees, and 
 taken to the south. A stronger anti-slavery document has not in later 
 years been presented to congress ; nor did it receive any more efficient 
 action than similar petitions have since received. 
 
 The memorable presidential contest between Adams and Jackson 
 terminated in November, 1828, in the triumphant election of the latter. 
 It was one of no ordinary character. It was unusually animated and 
 acrimonious. Mr. Adams' election had been effected by a "coalition " 
 which many sincerely believed to have been dishonorable ; and this belief 
 undoubtedly incited them to more than ordinary activity in their early 
 formed purpose to rebuke the coalitionists. The opposition to tho 
 reelection of Mr. Adams commenced early. The overthrow of hig 
 administration was predetermined before his inauguration. The opposi- 
 tion so early begun, was maintained throughout without abatement. The 
 personal character of the candidates was assailed in a manner unjustifi- 
 able and perhaps unprecedented. The private life of Mr. Adams was 
 correct beyond that of most public men. Many of his ofii^cial acts, how- 
 ever, were subjected to the most rigid scrutiny, with the view of 
 deducing from them evidence of dishonesty and corruption. His oppo- 
 nent was, on this point, more vulnerable. His earlier life had been 
 marked with faults, and even vices. These though long since condemned 
 by himself, and abandoned, were ungenerously held up to public view. 
 Moral character, however, has too often far less weight with the mass of 
 the electors than supposed obligations to party. 
 
 But whatever disadvantage Gen. Jackson may have suffered in this 
 respect, was far more than counterbalanced by actual advautag,es which 
 
470 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 he possessed over his opponent. Besides the benefit which inured to hiiu 
 from the suspicions of unfairness in the election of Mr. Adams, the fact 
 of his having received a plurality of the electoral votes at the preceding 
 election, was itself considered by many as establishing a claim to their 
 support. The electoral votes of Jackson and Crawford were 140; those 
 of Adams and Clay, 121. It was apparent, therefore, that by an entire 
 union of the strength of the two former, Gen. Jackson would be elected. 
 Though neither was popular at the south, Mr. Adams had incurred in an 
 eminent degree, the resentment of Georgia, in a controversy with that state 
 respecting the Indian diiBculties : and several of the neighboring states 
 sympathized with Georgia in that aifair. Mr. Adams, too, was known 
 to be in favor of a more liberal construction of the constitution than 
 southern statesmen generally; and although Gen. Jackson had taken 
 high ground in favor of protection and internal improvement, they had 
 no reason to apprehend under his administration an aggravation of the 
 evils of that policy ; but they rather hoped for some mitigation of them. 
 And yet another advantage enjoyed by Gen. Jackson in this contest, 
 was the support which he received from those whose claims to executive 
 favor had not been sufficiently appreciated by Mr. Adams. Although 
 Gen. Jackson, as is generally believed, held out no inducements to the 
 disappointed expectants of office under Mr. Adams, it is both natural 
 and usual for this class of politicians to change their party relations 
 when it can be done without hazard, or with a moderate expectation of 
 personal advantage. 
 
 Of the whole number of electoral votes for president, Gen. Jacjisou 
 received 178; and Mr. Adams, 83. Mr. Calhoun was reelected vice- 
 president by 171 votes, (the 7 Georgia electors having voted for Wil- 
 liam Smith, of South Carolina) and Richard Rush received 83. 
 
 The 2d session of the 20th congress commenced on the 1st of Decem- 
 ber, 1828, and closed with the constitutional term of Mr. Adams' 
 administration on the 3d of March, 1829. 
 
 At this session, protests against the tariff of the preceding session 
 from the legislatures of the states of Georgia and South Carolina, were 
 presented to the senate. The Georgia protest pronounced that act, en- 
 titled, "An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on 
 imports," " deceptive in its title, fraudulent in its pretexts, oppressive 
 in its exactions, partial and unjust in its operations, unconstitutional in its 
 well known objects, ruinous to commerce and agriculture — to secure a 
 hateful monopoly to a combination of importunate manufacturers;" and, 
 in language similar to that employed in her correspondence with the gene- 
 ral government on a former occasion, and hinting toward nullification, 
 concludes thus : 
 
ANTI-TARIFF PFiOTESTS. 471 
 
 " Demanding the repeal of an act which has already disturbed the 
 anion, and endangered the public tranquillity, weakened the confidence 
 of whole states in the federal government, and diminished the affection 
 of large masses of the people to the union itself, and (demanding) the 
 abandonment of the degrading system which considers the people as in- 
 capable of wisely directing their own enterprise ; which sets up the ser- 
 7ants of the people in congress as the exclusive judges of what pursuits 
 are most advantageous and suitable for those by whom they were elected , 
 the state of Georgia expects that, in perpetual testimony thereof, the de- 
 liberate and solemn expression of her opinion will be carefully preserved 
 among the archives of the senate ; and in justification of her character 
 to the present generation and to posterity, if, unfortunately, congress, 
 disregarding the protest, and coutiuuiug to pervert powers granted for 
 clearljf defined and well understood purposes, to effectuate objects never 
 intended by the great parties by whom the constitution was framed, to 
 be intrusted to the controlling guardianship of the federal government, 
 should render necessary measures of a defensive character, for the pro- 
 tection of the people of the state, and the vindication of the constitution 
 of the United States." 
 
 Mr. Berrien, having stated the purport of the protest, said it was now 
 delivered to be deposited in the archives of the federal government, to 
 serve whenever occasion might require it, as an authentic testimony of the 
 solemn dissent of one of the sovereign states of this union, from the act 
 therein protested against, as an infraction of the constitutional compact 
 by which she is united to the other members of the confederacy. Mr. 
 Berrien expressed his own attachment and that of Georgia, to the federal 
 compact, and begged gentlemen not to believe that this act was one of 
 temporary excitement. lie adverted to the efficiency with which this 
 government had sustained itself during so many trials, and expressed an 
 opinion, that it was yet to undergo a more fearful trial in questions 
 affecting our internal peace, an event which, he hoped, might be far off. 
 On his motion, the letter of the governor and protest were laid on the 
 table, and printed. 
 
 The South Carolina protest was presented by Mr. Smith, senator from 
 that state. It assigns at length the reasons for protesting against the 
 system of protecting duties, which it pronounces " unconstitutional, op- 
 pressive and unjust:" and, lest an apparent acquiescence in the system 
 should be drawn into precedent, the legislature, in the name of the com- 
 monwealth, claim to enter their protest .n the journals of the senate. 
 Mr. Smith adverted to the various restrictive measures of the general 
 government — tariffs, embargo, and non-intercourse acts — under which hia 
 ftate had suffered. He stated in the course of his remarks, that " he be- 
 
472 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 lieved there was not a man in the country not interested in manufactures, 
 who would not be glad to see all the goods used in the country smuggled 
 into it. He believed there was not a virtuous man who would inform. 
 yie had heretofore been celebrated as a moral people ; but these were 
 the effects of your tariff system." 
 
 Mr. Hayne also complained of the effects of the policy of the general 
 government upon the south ; discussed the question of the constitution- 
 ality of the protecting system ; and undertook to prove that Mr. Jeffer- 
 son had been unjustly claimed as a friend to that principle, referring to 
 his letter of December, 1825, to Mr. Giles, to prove that he considered 
 the system unconstitutional. The protest was ordered to be printed. 
 
 A bill was introduced by Mr. Dickerson, of New Jersey, December 13, 
 1 826, " to provide for the distribution of a part of the revenues of the 
 United States among the several states of the union." Of the ten mil- 
 lions of dollars appropriated annually to the sinking fund, by the act of 
 1817, the bill proposed to distribute five millions annually for four years 
 among the several states in the ratio of direct taxation. It was intended 
 by the mover as an experiment, which, if successful, would be followed 
 by an adoption of its principle in a more permanent form. The objects 
 of the bill were alleged to be, to provide funds, in all the states, for pur- 
 poses of education and internal improvement; and, by transferring to 
 the state legislatures the application of a part of the surplus funds, to 
 relieve congress from a formidable weight of legislation, and to prevent a 
 concentration of power in the general government never intended to be 
 vested there by the framers of the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Dickerson supported his bill by an elaborate speech, m which he 
 urged the vast advantage of this sum to the states, without any disadvan- 
 tage to the general government. So rapidly had the public debt been 
 diminished, and so ample would still be the means of payment, that no 
 inconvenience would be experienced by the withdrawal of five millions 
 annually. He believed that a gradual distribution of the surplus in the 
 manner proposed, would produce a greater good than would be done by a 
 more speedy extinguishment of the public debt, and the distribution at 
 once of a large surplus suddenly accumulated The bill was, on motion 
 of Mr. Benton, laid on the table. The proposition seems to have found 
 little favor with the senate. 
 
 At the session of 1828 and 1829, Mr. Dickerson again brought this 
 proposition before the senate, but with no better success. He advocated 
 the bill on the same grounds as when it was introduced two years before. 
 A large portion of the revenues must soon be appropriated to objects of 
 internal improvements, either by the general government, or by the 
 states. To make roads and canals, congress had not a constituticnal 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. 473 
 
 righl, even with the consent of the states. In favor of ihis opinion, he 
 referred to the veto of Madison, in 1817, to the bill proposing to set 
 apart certain funds for constructing roads and canals and for improving 
 water courses in the states, with the assent of the states. Mr. Madison 
 said : " If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to im- 
 prove the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident 
 thereto, be not possessed by congress, the assent of the states, as pro- 
 vided for in the bill, can not confer the power." By the passage of this 
 bill, the constitutional objection would be avoided ; and the states could 
 make a more just and beneficial application of the money than could be 
 done by the general government. 
 
 Mr. Smith, of Maryland, was of the opinion that, when the public 
 debt was paid, it would be better, instesid of continuing to raise the rev- 
 enue, to leave in the pockets of the citizens the surplus which it was pro- 
 posed to divide among the states. He would therefore j*educe the duties 
 on imports. He objected to the project, also, that it would encourage 
 the states to rely for support on the general government. And farther, 
 congress had no right to raise a revenue for the purpose of distribut- 
 ing it. 
 
 Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, said, those were mistaken who sup 
 posed this, plan would settle the distracting question of internal improve- 
 ment. Calls for money for this purpose would continue. He thought 
 it better to purchase up and extinguish the public debt, even before it 
 became due. He believed the whole of the national debt could be paid 
 in 1833, and before the close of the next administration; and that the 
 great and good man who was about to wield the destinies of this coun- 
 try would not desire to earn a greater honor than to have it inscribed 
 on his tomb-stone, that he had extinguished the national debt. 
 
 Mr. Benton hoped the example of England, the mother, would not be 
 lost upon the United States, her child. About a hundred years ago, 
 England enjoyed a long peace under the timid administration of Sir 
 Robert Walpole, in which the public debt, then small, might be paid 
 off. At his instance, half a million sterling was annually diverted from 
 the sinking fund, under the supposition that the money, not being want- 
 ed by the public creditors, could be used more beneficially for other pur- 
 poses. But thfi debt grew rapidly; and the country was soon over- 
 whelmed with taxes. He joined in the wish of the senator from South 
 Carolina, that the debt might be paid off under the ensuing administra- 
 tion. Such a consummation would confer new fame upon Gen. Jackson. 
 
 The debate was continued by Messrs. Dickerson, Hayne, Johnson, of 
 Louisiana, Benton. Kane, Webster, Berrien, and M'Lane. The bill 
 seems to have been advocated by no other senator than the mover. It 
 
474 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 was subsequently, on motion of Mr. Dickerson, referred to a select com- 
 mittee for modification, but no report was made upon it. 
 
 On the 10th of February, 1829, Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, presented 
 to the senate, a resolution of the legislature of that state, declaring, that 
 the state, " being a sovereign, free, and independent state, has the exclu- 
 eive right to the soil and eminent domain of all the unappropriated lands 
 within her acknowledged boundaries;" and that this right "was reserved 
 for her by the state of Virginia in the deed of cession of the north- 
 western territory to the United States, being confirmed and established 
 by the articles of confederacy and the constitution of the United States." 
 The resolution also instructed their senators and representatives in con- 
 gress to use their exertions to induce the United States to acknowledge 
 this vested right of the state, and to place her upon an equal footing 
 with the original states. 
 
 The claim of t^je state to the public lands within her boundaries, Mr. 
 Hendricks said, was based upon the stipulation in the- deed, by which 
 Virginia ceded her western lands to the United States, that that portion 
 now forming the state of Indiana, should, when admitted into the union, 
 be received as a free, sovereign, and independent state, and on an equal 
 footing with the original states, in all respects whatever. These lands, 
 as well as those ceded by other original states to the general goveru- 
 liient, were ceded to and received by the United States for the express 
 purpose of paying the national debt ; but this, it was contended, did not 
 interfere with the construction given by that state to the deed of cession. 
 A long time was expected to intervene between that period and the ad- 
 mission of the state, and thirty-two years had actually intervened, in 
 which time the lands, or a part of them, might have been sold, and the 
 debt extinguished. It could not, he said, have been the intention of 
 congress to interfere with those lands after they should have fallen within 
 the boundaries of states admitted into the union : the article of con- 
 federation declaring, that no " state should be deprived of territory for 
 the benefit of the United States." 
 
 But if this view of the subject was erroneous, it was nevertheless im- 
 politic and inexpedient for the general government to continue to assert- 
 its claim to the unappropriated lands of one-third of the states. While 
 the public lands remain in the hands of the federal government, the new 
 states will not, can not be satisfied ; because congress was, and must 
 ever be, incompetent to legislate understaudingly on the subject. The 
 legislatures of the states were much better acquainted with the qualities 
 of the soil, the necessities of the people, and were better judges of the 
 measures adapted to promote the interests of their citizens. 
 
 Mr, Noble differed with his colleague. Congress, he believed, would 
 
PUBLIC LANDS IN INDIANA. 475 
 
 never relinquish these lands to the states in whioh they were, and to 
 hold out the idea that they would, was injurious to the prosperity of the 
 new states It would be unjust to deprive the old states of their share 
 lU the public lands. It was through the protection and support they 
 had received from the old states, that the new states were indebted for 
 their prosperity. On his motion, the resolution was referred to the 
 committee on public lauds. 
 
 In the house of representatives, a select committee was appointed at 
 this session, to whom was referred a resolution relative to the expe^ 
 diency of distributing annually, amongst the states, all moneys arising 
 from the sales of the public lands. The committee made their report 
 on the 25th of February, 1829. The report contains a history of the 
 public lands, and states the quantity to which the government still held 
 the right of soil, to be more than 1,000 millions of acres. The com- 
 mittee say : 
 
 " The public lands as now held by the United States, may be classed 
 under the three following heads : 
 
 *' 1st. Those which were ceded by several of the old states to the 
 confederated government, and the present government of the United 
 States. 
 
 " 2dly. Those which were acquired by purchase from France by the 
 treaty of Paris of the 30th of April, 1803, (Louisiana). 
 
 " 3dly. Those purchased of Spain by the treaty of Washington, of 
 the 22d of February, 1819, (Florida, and the territory west of the Mis- 
 fiissippi)," 
 
 A division of the public lands amongst the states had been suggested 
 to the committee. This, they believed, would be an injurious measure. 
 It would be impossible so to locate the several divisions as to attach to 
 them an equal value. The states would have diiferent systems of sales. 
 Struggles would take place in congress for measures to advance the value 
 of the possessions of some of the locations over that of the others. 
 Serious collisions would occur. Speculation, fraud, and corruption 
 would be attempted in the state legislatures. 
 
 To avoid these evils, and to protect the rights of the community, the 
 committee proposed to give the states a direct interest in the income 
 arising from the sale of the public lands. This measure would check 
 further concessions, and prevent the selfish from availing themselves of 
 the advantage presented by some great crisis of public affairs to obtain 
 propitiatory concessions from rival parties injurious to the general in- 
 terest. As a guard to the purity of legislation, and as a just and equit- 
 able application of the value of the lands, the committee recommend the 
 policy of distributing the nett proceeds of all sales of the public lands 
 
476 THE AMERICAN STATESr.IAN. 
 
 among the several states, in the ratio of their population. Among the 
 benefits of this plan would be the adoption of a system of rigid economy 
 in relation to the expenditures of the land offices ; and no private or 
 other claim would be sanctioned, but as its justice should be clearly 
 ascertained. 
 
 A few days before the close of the session and of the presidential term 
 of Mr. Adams, Mr. Hamilton, from the select committee on retrench- 
 ment, made an additional report, as follows : " That, having presented 
 to the house various bills and resolutions consequent on such abuses, 
 legislative and administrative, to which they thought a corrective ought 
 to be applied, (upon which bills and resolutions, the shortness of the 
 session, and the interposition of bills of a public nature having priority 
 on the calendar, have precluded the action of congress,) they deem it 
 important, before the close of their labors, that the house should dis- 
 tinctly express its opinion on the following cardinal subjects of public 
 economy : 
 
 "1. Be it therefore resolved. That as no free people should be burdened 
 with unnecessary taxation, it is expedient to pay the public debt with 
 all convenient dispatch. 
 
 " 2. That this house has a right to expect that the executive will sub- 
 mit to congress at its next session, a comprehensive scheme of retrench- 
 ment, which shall extend to the lopping off of all useless offices, and to 
 securing a more effective accountability in those which are retained. 
 
 " 3. That a retrenchment of the fixed as well as contingent expendi- 
 tures of congress, is indispensably necessary, more especially the last 
 which are essentially liable to abuse." 
 
 Mr. Hamilton addressed the house on the resolutions until the ex- 
 piration of the hour allouted to morning business. No action upon tho 
 resolutions was taken. 
 
 
 CHAPTER XXXVIIl. 
 
 n><AUGURATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. REMOVALS '^ROM OFFICE. 
 
 MEETING OF CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 
 
 Andrew Jackson was inaugurated president of the United States ou 
 tbe 4th day of March, 1829. At half-past eleven o'clock, he entered 
 the senate chamber, attended by the marshal of the district and the com 
 
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON. 477 
 
 inittee of arrangements. The chief justice of the United States and the 
 associate judges were seated on the right of the president's chair, and 
 the foreign ministers in their official costumes on the left. At about 
 twelve o'clock, in the presence of the senate and house of representa- 
 tives, and an immense concourse, he delivered his inaugural address ; at 
 the conclusion of which, the oath to support the constitution was adminis- 
 tered to him by chief justice MarshalL ■n'iJtioo 
 
 The principles upon which his administration was to be conducted 
 were briefly and appropriately stated. He should keep steadily in view 
 the limitations as well as the extent of the executive power ; observe a 
 proper respect for the rights of the states, taking care not to confound 
 their reserved powers with those granted to the confederacy ; observe a 
 strict and faithful economy in the management of the public revenue, in 
 order to facilitate the extinguishment of the public debt, and to counter- 
 act a tendency to public and private profligacy, which a profuse expen- 
 diture is apt to engender; recommended equal favor to agriculture, com- 
 merce, and manufactures in selecting subjects of impost ; and commended 
 internal improvement and the diffusion of knowledge, so far as they 
 could be promoted constitutionally by the federal government. He 
 would not seek to enlarge the standing army ; but would gradually 
 increase the navy, and strengthen the national militia ; and he would 
 " observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits, a just and liberal 
 policy; and give that humane and considerate attention to their rights 
 and their wants which are consistent with the habits of our government 
 and the feelings of our people." x 
 
 Another duty which he prescribed to himself, and which he seems to 
 have regarded as peculiarly important, is alluded to as follows : " The 
 recent demonstration of public sentiment inscribes on the list of execu- 
 tive duties, in characters too legible to be overlooked, the task of reform / 
 which will require, particularly, the correction of those abuses that have 
 brought the. patronage of the federal government into conflict with the 
 freedom of elections, and the counteraction of those causes which have 
 disturbed the rightful course of appointment, and have placed or con- 
 tinued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands." 
 
 The names of the persons selected to constitute the new cabinet, were 
 the following: Martin Van Buren, of New York, secretary of state* 
 Samuel D. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, secretary of the treasury ; John 
 H. Eaton, of Tennessee, secretary of war; John Branch, of North Caro- 
 lina, secretary of the navy; John McPherson Berrien, of Georgia, 
 attorney general; and William T. Barry, of Kentucky, postmaster- 
 general. Prior to this time, the postmaster-general was not included in 
 the cabinet. John M'Lean, of Ohio, the incumbent of that office, waa 
 appointed an associate justice of the supreme court. 
 
478 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 For a development of the general policy of the new administration, 
 the public mind awaited the appearance of the first annual message. 
 The executive appointments, however, soon discovered the adoption of 
 a new rule in the exercise of this power, and was taken by many as an 
 explanation of the nature of the " reform" alluded to in the inaugural 
 address, as " inscribed on the list of executive duties." The senate 
 continued in session until the 17th of March to act upon nominatioHS 
 made by the executive. Among the persons appointed, were a con- 
 siderable number who were nominated to supply vacancies caused by 
 removal of incumbents. During the recess of the senate, removals were 
 very numerous. District marshals, and attorneys; surveyors, inspec- 
 tors, and collectors of ports ; naval officers ; appraisers of goods ; receiv- 
 ers of pviblic moneys ; auditors, controllers and clerks in the execu- 
 tive departments, were displaced, and political adherents appointed in 
 their places. But the most numerous class of officers removed, was that 
 of postmasters, of whom nearly five hundred were removed during the 
 first year of the administration. 
 
 This principle of removal and appointment was of course made the 
 subject of general complaint and severe animadversion by the party thus 
 proscribed. It revived, to some extent, the question of the right of the 
 executive to displace public officers, or to fill vacancies that do not 
 " hapjjen^'' in the recess of the senate ; it being considered by many of 
 the opposition a perversion of the word happen in the constitution to 
 apply it to a vacancy caused by removal except for official misbehavior 
 or incompetency. But conceding the practice to be constitutional, it was 
 held to be an unjustifiable exercise of power. The proscription of men 
 for an honest difi"erence of sentiment not at all afi'ecting the faithful dis- 
 charge of a public duty, was inimical to freedom of opinion and politi- 
 cal integrity. It was, moreover, a practice without precedent in any 
 preceding administration. The friends of the administration claimed 
 for the executive the right to exercise the power of removal at his dis- 
 cretion ; and as he was intrusted with the execution of the laws, it was 
 also eminently proper that he should be permitted to select for his assist- 
 ants, those for whose acts he was responsible. This right of selection 
 necessarily implied that of the unrestricted substitution of one person 
 for another. 
 
 There were those, however, "who, though they readily conceded to the 
 president the power of removal in accordance with the construction of 
 the constitution as sanctioned by the practice of the national legislature, 
 nevertheless disapproved its exercise to the extent to which it had been 
 carried, especially in the removal of postmasters. Niles, the editor of 
 the " Weekly Register," aid a veteran republican, commented on this 
 subject, thus : 
 
REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 479 
 
 " Political considerations, except those of the broadest and most noble 
 nature, (in the spread of intelligence,) never entered into the institution 
 of che post-office department. It becomes contaminated when reduced 
 to the dominion of party ; and confidence, once lost, is slowly regained. 
 Its operations should be as unsuspected of party management as the purity 
 of a vestal ; and while expecting that many changes would be made by« 
 the new administration in the officers superintending other branches of 
 the public business, we strongly hoped that the post-office department 
 would have remained unsubjected to any private or political feeling of 
 that administration. But that hope was not long indulged. The 
 arrangement of the postmaster-general into " the cabinet" with after 
 events, which transferred Mr. M'Lean to the bench of the supreme court, 
 and introduced Mr. Barry to the direction of the establishment, filled 
 us with something like alarm, and caused us to recollect events long 
 past, — when a vice-president of the United States, (Mr. Jefferson.) not 
 only declined the superscription of his own letters, but often sent them 
 inclosed to persons other than those for whom they were intended, by 
 previous arrangement ; and, when at home in Virginia, sometimes caused 
 them to be dropped into a post-office a little removed from his own ; 
 when it was believed that the names of the subscribers to a certain news- 
 paper, (the Aurora, by Bache or Duane,) at particular places, were offi- 
 cially returned to ' head quarters' for political purposes. Whether the 
 suspicions of Mr. Jefferson and the party that supported him were well 
 founded or not, the simple fact that many of the deputy postmasters 
 were violent partisans, and some had been put into office as such, justi- 
 fied them and required this caution. # * » Deeply interested in the 
 business of the post-office establishment, and knowing the effects that 
 must follow a loss of confidence in its management, we were exceedingly 
 anxious that honest and capable, industrious and obliging postmasters 
 should not be dismissed for opinion's sake. If there were abuses of the 
 privileges allowed to postmasters on the one side, they were not wanting 
 on the other. What was improper in one party can not have been right 
 in its opponent. And there is also this important difference : not one 
 of the postmasters recently in office had been appointed to supersede 
 another because of political opinion, so far as we ever heard; and even 
 if had been so, it was to have been expected that they were rather against 
 than favorable to the last administration; Mr. M'Lean being understood 
 as a decided friend of the election of Gen. Jackson. Yet we do not 
 believe he suffered his private feelings to enter into the performance of 
 his public duties. But now. persons are dismissed without the preferring 
 of charges against them affecting their moral character or personal 
 standing." 
 
480 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 We do not propose to discuss, in this place, the justice or propriety 
 i»f this new rule of appointment introduced into the administration of 
 the government by Gen. Jackson, and since that time i-ovariably prac- 
 ticed by every dominant party*; nor to inquire into the reasons for a 
 practice so directly contrary to the rule prescribed by himself to one of 
 • his late predecessors. Ke had also in the distribution of executive 
 patronage, disappointed the public expectation by an unusually liberal 
 dispensation to members of congress — a practice which he had, in hia 
 letter to the legislature of Tennessee, declared to tend inevitably to 
 corruption. As might be expected, his opponents availed themselves 
 of whatever advantage might be gained from an exposure of the incon- 
 sistency of his profession and practice. It may here be observed, how- 
 ever, that no political principle o* measure deliberately adopted as a 
 party expedient, will ever be wanting in apologists and defenders ; and 
 however repugnant to the feelings of an unsophisticated politician may 
 be the idea of proscription for opinion's sake, it has become so familiar 
 as to have lost its deformity in the view of the mass of politicians, and 
 long since ceased to afford the basis of an effective electioneering argu- 
 ment against any party practicing it. 
 
 The number of persons removed from office by each of the several 
 presidents, had been as follows : By Gen. "Washington, in eight years, 
 nine, one a defaulter; by John Adams, in four years, ten, one a 
 defaulter ; by Jefferson, in eight years, thirty-nine ; by Mr. Madison, 
 in eight years. Jive, three defaulters ; by Mr. Monroe, in eight years 
 nine, of which six were for cause ; by John Quiucy Adams, in four 
 years, two, both for cause. 
 
 The appointment by Mr. Adams, of certain members of congress to 
 office, having been made the occasion of a call upon him " for a list of 
 appointments given by the executive to members of congress, since tho 
 foundation of the government" — the object of the information being 
 alleged to be to enable congress to remove an evil said to exist and to 
 bo growing — the president communicated the information. The list 
 transmitted embraced the names of members appointed during their 
 official terms and "for six months thereafter," as required by the resolu- 
 tion, and is stated in Niles' Register of June 20, 1829, to contain. In 
 the aggregate, 117, as follows : Appointed by Washington, 10 ; by John 
 Adams, 13; by Jefferson, 25; by Madison, 29; by Monroe, 35; by 
 John Quincy Adams, in thirteen months, to the time of the report, 5 ; 
 to wit, Henry Clay, secretary of state ; James Barbour, secretary of 
 war; Kufus King, minister to Great Britain; Joel R. Poinsett, minis- 
 ter to Mexico; and Lot Clark, postmaster, Norwich, N. Y. During 
 the first three months, the number of members appointed by president 
 
MEETING OF CONGRESS. t8l 
 
 Jackson, was 12; including the whole cabinet, except Mr. Barry ^ 
 foreign ministers, Louis M'Lane, to England ; William C. Rives, to 
 France ; Thomas P. Moore, to Colombia ; Greorge W. Owen, collector 
 at Mobile ; John Chandler, collector at Portland; Jeromus Johnson, 
 appraiser of goods at New York; John Gr. Stower, of New York, 
 United States district-attorney for Florida. 
 
 The 1st session of the 21st congress, as also the first under president 
 Jackson's administration, commenced the 7th of December, 1829, In 
 both branches tliere were majorities in favor of the administration. In 
 the preceding congress, the majority of 6 in the senate, had been 
 reduced to 4 ; while that of 17 in the house, had been increased to 59, 
 as was esthnated. 
 
 The message of the president was delivered the next day. Besides 
 the ordinary topics embraced in a review of our internal affiiirs and our 
 foreign relations, several measures, not u«ually presented to congress, 
 were introduced into the message. He suggested an amendment of the 
 constitution, bringing the election of president and vice-president 
 directly to the people ; restricting the service of the chief magistrate to 
 a single term of four or six years; prohibiting the appointment of mem- 
 bers by the president in whose election they may have been officially 
 concerned ; and suggesting the limitation to four years of all offices 
 which now exceeded that term. 
 
 The attention of congress was also invited to an inquiry into the con- 
 dition of the government with a view to ascertain what offices could be 
 dispensed with, what expenses retrenched, and what improvements might 
 be made in the organization of its various parts to secure the responsi- 
 bility of public agents. 
 
 Among the subjects brought to the notice of congress, was that of the 
 rechartering of the bank of the United States. It was thus alluded to : 
 " The charter of the bank of the United States expires in 1836, and its 
 stockholders will most probably apply for a renewal of their privileges. 
 In order to avoid the evils resulting from precipitancy in a measure 
 involving such important principles and such deep pecuniary interests, 
 I feel that I can not in justice to the parties interested, too soon pre- 
 sent it to the deliberate consideration of the legislature and the people. 
 Both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating this 
 bank are well questioned by a large portion of our fellow-citizens ; and 
 it must be admitted by all, that it has failed in the great end of estab- 
 lishing a uniform and sound currency. 
 
 " Under these circumstances, if such an institution is essential to the 
 fiscal operations of the government, I submit to the wisdom of the 
 egislature, whether a national one, founded upon the credit of the go^* 
 
 31 
 
^i 
 
 482 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ernmeut and itsreveaues, might not be devised, whicli would avoid all 
 constitutional difficulties, and at the same time secure all the advantages 
 to tli^e .government and country that were expected to result from the 
 present bank." 
 
 The subject of our Indian aflfaire, though not a new one, was treated 
 in a. manner indicating a contemplated change in the policy of the gov- 
 ernment in relation to the Indian tribes — a change which, if not actually 
 demanded by Georgia and Alabama, was known to be in accordance 
 with their wishes. The president says : " A portion of the southern 
 tribes, having mingled much with the whites, and made some progress 
 in the arts of civilized life, have lately attempted to erect an indepen- 
 dent government within the limits of Georgia and Alabama. These 
 states, claiming to be the only sovereigns within their territories, ex- 
 tended their laws over the Indians, which induced the latter to call 
 upon the United States for protection." 
 
 Deeming the erection of such government repugnant to that provision 
 of the constitution which declares, that " no new state shall be formed 
 or erected within the jurisdiction of any ether state," without the con- 
 sent of its legislature, he had informed the Indians, that their attempt 
 to establish an independent government would not be countenanced, and 
 had advised them to emigrate beyond the Mississippi, or .submit to the 
 laws of those states. He recommended that territory should be guar- 
 antied to them beyond the limits of any state or territory now formed, 
 where they might enjoy a government of their own choice, and where 
 " the benevolent might endeavor to teach them the arts of civilization." 
 And they were to be informed that, if they remained within the limits 
 of the states, they must be subject to their laws. 
 
 Presuming that, after the extinction of the public debt, a large sur- 
 plus would accumulate in the treasury, before the public revenues would, 
 by a satisfactory adjustment of the tariff, be reduced to a sum required 
 merely for the current expenses of the government, the disposition of 
 this surplus presented a subject for the serious deliberation of congress. 
 Appropriations for purposes of internal improvement being regarded by 
 many of the people as infractions of the constitution, he proposed, in 
 order to avoid this as well as other objections, and as " the most safe, 
 just, and federal disposition which could be made of this surplus rev- 
 enue, its apportionment among the several states, according to their 
 ratio of representation;" and if this measure should be liable to the 
 same objection, it would be expedient to propose to the states an amend- 
 ment of the constitution authorizing it. 
 
 The ground to be assumed by president Jackson in relation to the 
 tariff and internal improvements, was the subject of much speculation. 
 
president's message. 483 
 
 Hia votes on these questions in the senate of the United States, had 
 indeed placed him among the advocates of a liberal construction of the 
 constitution. He had voted during hiSshort service in that body, for a 
 large number of bills appropriating money for purposes of internal im- 
 provement. He had cooperated with ultra protectionists in the enact- 
 ment of the tariff of 1824 ; and he had but recently, in his answer to the 
 legislature of Indiana, given assurances of his undiminished attachment 
 to these principles. But his supporters in the southern states consisted 
 chiefly of the farmer friends of Mr. Crawford, who were uncompromis- 
 ing opponents of the policy and principles with which Gen. Jackson had 
 been identified. How to dispose of these questions without seriously 
 affecting his standing with the one or the other of these branches of his 
 party, was considered a diflScult matter. His course in relation to in- 
 ternal improvements is hinted in the preceding paragraph respecting the 
 disposition of the surplus revenue. His views on the subject of the 
 tariff are given more at length. 
 
 The operation of the tariff, he said, had not been so injuriouo to 
 agriculture and commerce, or so beneficial to manufactures as had been 
 anticipated. Importations of foreign goods -had not been sensibly dimin- 
 ished, while domestic competition had increased the production beyond 
 the demand for home consumption, and the manufacturers had been sub- 
 jected to partial loss by the reduction of prices. Unrestricted inteP 
 course between nations was desirable ; but the selfish legislation of other 
 nations must be counteracted by our own. Some provisions of the 
 tariff required modification ; and the rule to be observed in graduating 
 the duties upon foreign products was that which would place our own in 
 •fair competition with them; and there were controlling inducements to 
 advance a step beyond this point in regard to articles of primary neces- 
 sity in time of war. The delicacy of this operation required the observ- 
 ance of the utmost caution. Frequent legislation in regard to any 
 branch of industry, affecting its value, and transferring its capital to 
 new channels, was productive of hazardous speculation and loss. In 
 deliberating on these subjects, local feelings and prejudices should vield 
 to the 'determination to promote the great interests of the whole. They 
 should not be connected with the party conflicts of the day. The differ- 
 ent sections of the country should unite in diminishino- anv burden of 
 which either might justly complain. 
 
 The agricultural interest, from its connection with every other, and 
 from its superior importance, deserved particular attention. It was 
 principally as manufactures and commerce tended to increase the value 
 of agricultural productions, that they deserved the fostering caxe of 
 government. 
 
484 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 On the whole, the subject was skilfully treated. No sentiment was 
 expressed to which any southern opponent of the tariff would be likely 
 to take exception; and although#ome of the friends of the tariff pro- 
 fessed to discover in the general tenor of the language of this part oi 
 the message indications of a chauge of position on this question, it is not 
 easy to perceive how any sentence could, by fair construction, be regarded 
 as hostile to the protective policy. 
 
 The power of the president to remove public officers except for cause, 
 was discussed at this session. Resolutions on the subject were offered 
 in the senate by Mr. Holmes, of Maine, and by Mr. Barton, of Mis- 
 souri ; and in the house by Mr. Chilton, of Kentucky. The objects 
 embraced in the different resolutions presented, were to ascertain the 
 number of removals made by the president, and the reasous for the 
 same ; and the exercise of the power in removing officers when not 
 required for the faithful execution of the laws, and of filling the vacan- 
 cies, during the recess of the senate, was declared to be against the 
 public interest, the rights of the state, and the spirit of the constitution. 
 
 In the senate, the question of the executive power of removal and 
 appointment, was discussed, both in secret session, and in open debate. 
 Of the speeches reported, those of Messrs. Holmes and Barton in favor 
 of the resolutions are the principal, and of those in opposition, that of 
 Mr. Bibb, of Kentucky. Several of the speeches made in secret sossion 
 do not appear in the " congressional debates." 
 
 Mr. Barton referred to the 77th number of the " Federalist," to 
 sustain the exposition for which he contended. It was there said : " The 
 consent of that body, (the senate,) would be necessary to displace as 
 •well as to appoint. A change of the chief magistrate, therefore, would , 
 not occasion so violent or so general a revolution in the offices of the 
 government, as might be expected if he were the sole disposer of the 
 offices." The same writer, in reference to the objection that the senate 
 might influence the president, and assume the control of the government, 
 says : " If by influencing the president be meant restraining him, this is 
 precisely what must have been intended. And it has been shown that 
 this restraint would be salutary, at the same time that it would not be 
 such as to destroy a single advantage to be looked for from the uncon 
 trolled agency of that magistrate. The right of nomination would pro- 
 duce all the good without the ill." 
 
 Appended to this number of the Federalist, is the following note, in the 
 later editions : " This construction has since been rejected by the legis- 
 lature ; and it is now settled in practice that the power of displacing be- 
 longs exclusively to the president." Mr. Barton said : " This note ought 
 to be expunged as calculated to mislead students and weak cabinets. It 
 
POWER OF REMOVAL. 485 
 
 is not true, in point of tact, that the legislature has rejected this con- 
 Btruction ; nor true, in point of law, that the senate can renounce an iota 
 of their restraining powei that belongs to their organization, and chiefly 
 distinguishes our checked and restrained executive from one of arbitrary 
 will. The whole idea of the annotator was taken from the laws respect- 
 ing the assistants of the president, to perform the duties prescribed by 
 him aa under the act of 1789, and not applicable to the oflacers of the 
 public, or of the law, to perform duties prescribed by the laws of the 
 land. The correctness of Hamilton, (the writer of the article,) and the 
 error of the annotator and his disciples of the majority, can be demon- 
 strated, if there be truth in logic and common sense. The argument 
 stands thus : Without the concurrent power of the senate in matters of 
 appointing, (as you admit in your report of 1826,) the president becomes 
 a monarch." 
 
 Mr. Barton admitted the right of the president to remove an officer 
 for official delinquency or disability, and to put a fit person in his place. 
 This was in conformity to his obligation to see the laws faithfully exe- 
 cuted. But the doctrine of an unrestricted power of removal was a de- 
 parture from the exposition and understanding of the constitution by the 
 founders of the government. It enabled the president to use the offices 
 of the republic as bribes or weapons, and rendered public officers depend- 
 ent upon him for official existence. It put it into his power to wield the 
 whole official force of his country — nay, the purse and the sword of his coun- 
 try — against its liberties. To pervert the power to the purpose of pun- 
 ishing freemen for their opinions or votes, or purchase supporters, or 
 reward office hunters, was a great offense, a gross violation of our consti- 
 tutional rights, by a president. He adverted to the inconsistency of the 
 majority. They had said that the president was responsible to the peo- 
 ple at the end of his term; and they could correct the abuse. Yet the 
 opponents of the resolutions refused to let the people know for what 
 causes the power had been exerted ! 
 
 Mr. Bibb, in reply, referred to the act of July, 1789, establishing the 
 department of foreign affairs, since called the " department of state," the 
 principal officer of which was authorized to appoint a chief clerk, " who, 
 whenever the said principal officer shall be re^noved from office by the 
 president of the United States,'''' &c. A similar provision, he said, was 
 in the law organizing the departments of war and the navy. Those three 
 acts conceded the power of the president to remove the principal officer. 
 Mr. Bibb read a list of removals, by presidents Washington, Adams and 
 Jefferson. From the time of Washington's first removal to the pi-esent 
 time, not an instance had occurred in which the senate, as a body, had 
 asserted the right to ask the cause ol removal, or to exercise an appel- 
 
486 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 late or revisory power over the president's decision. The attempt, in 
 1814, to ask the cause of the removal of Gideon Granger from the office 
 of postmaster-general, was rejected by the senate. 
 
 Mr. B. also cited a decision of the supreme court, made in 1803. 
 " When an officer is removable at the will of the executive, the circum- 
 stance which completes his appointment is of no concern, because the act 
 is at any time revocable. By the constitution of the United States, the 
 president is invested with certain political powers, in the exercise of 
 which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only in his po- 
 litical character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the perform- 
 ance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act 
 by his authority, and in conformity with his orders. In such cases, their 
 acts are his acts | * * * and there exists and can exist, no power to 
 control that discretion." 
 
 He also examined this question upon the principles of the constitution. 
 A feeble executive produced a feeble execution of the laws ; which was, 
 in effect, a bad execution of the laws. Energy in the executive was es- 
 sential to a good government. This had been provided by the constitu- 
 tion. In a government looking to our intercourse with foreign nations 
 to preserve peace ; direct the energies of the nation in war ; spreading 
 over such an extent of territory, an energetic executive was more neces- 
 sary than in one of the confederated states. At the time of making the 
 constitution, there were but two tenures of office, the one during good 
 behavior, the other during pleasure. When, therefore, the constitution 
 required the president to nominate, appoint, and commission all officers, 
 and to commission the judges during good behavior, it followed clearly that 
 he should commission no other officers during good behavior, but to hold 
 during the pleasure of the president. 
 
 Mr. B. presented several other considerations to enforce this interpre- 
 tation. He said this tenure of office at the will of the president was 
 well adapted, (1.) To preserve due subordination in the officers to the ex- 
 ecutive head ; (2.) To preserve that unity of purpose and action necessary 
 for decision, energy and dispatch ; (3.) To defend the executive against 
 the encroachments of the coordinate departments, as well as againsi 
 anarchy; (4.) To maintain that due weight and influence to the presi- 
 dent which was intended by the constitution, in giving him a qualified 
 negative upon the proceedings of congress, and in assigning to him the 
 duty to recommend to congress such measures as he shall judge necessary 
 and expedient. 
 
 The resolution, being that introduced by Mr. Barton, was on motion 
 of Mr. Grundy, laid on the table. Mr. Holmes' resolutions, after a long 
 speech by himself were, on motion of Mr. Grundy, indefinitely postponed. 
 
 I 
 
FOOT S RESOLUTIONS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 487 
 
 CHAPTER XXXIX. 
 
 foot's resolutions ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. GREAT DEBATE IN THE 
 
 SENATE. 
 
 At this session, (1830,) occurred what has been termed, " the great 
 debate in the senate." The occasion, rather than the subject of it, was 
 % resolution offered by Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, " That the committee 
 on the public lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of limit- 
 ing, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands to such lauds f.uly 
 as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are subject to entry at the 
 minimum price. And also whether the office of surveyor-general may 
 not be abolished without detriment to the public interest." 
 
 We have said this resolution was the occasion of the debate ; because, 
 except in the earliest stage of it, among the unusual number of topics 
 embraced in the discussion, the resolution itself received but a secondary 
 consideration. 
 
 The resolution was offered on the 29th of December, 1829. It was 
 taken up the next day for consideration, and, after a short debate, was 
 laid on the table. The discussion was resumed a few days afterward, 
 and continued until the 21st of May. The object of the mover of the 
 resolution was to confine the sales of the public lands to those already 
 fciurveyed and brought into market ; there being more than 72,000,000 
 acres which remained unsold at the minimum price of $1 25 per acre. 
 The resolution was opposed on the ground that the object contemplated 
 by it would check emigration to the new states and territories, and limit 
 their settlement. The eastern states were charged with a design to im- 
 pede the settlement of the western states ; one object of which was 
 alleged to be, to keep the people in the east to work in the manufactories. 
 Hostility on the part of the eastern states, to the new states of the west, 
 had been repeatedly manifested. The resolution was vigorously opposed 
 by the western senators, Messrs. Benton, of Missouri, and Kane and 
 Noble of Illinois, especially Mr. Benton, who referred to the early policy 
 of the government; the tendency and design of which had been to retatd 
 the settlement and prosperity of the new states. 
 
 Mr. Foot repelled the imputation of hostility to the west ; said, if the 
 resolution should be adopted, he should move to add the words, " pro- 
 priety of making donations to actual settlers." 
 
 The senators whose names are most familiarly associated with this de- 
 bate, are Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, and Mr. Webster, of Massa- 
 chusetts J the former having twice spoken at length, and been replied to 
 
488 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 by Mr. Webster. The second reply is the speech -which has so often 
 been the subject of high encomium, and which has probably contributed 
 more than any other single effort to the fame of that distinguished orator 
 and statesman. Besides these, the other prominent participants in the 
 debate, were : Messrs. Benton, Grundy, Kane, Livingston, Rowan, 
 Smith, of South Carolina, and Woodbury, all, it is believed, friends of 
 the administration, and all, perhaps, except 3Ir. Smith, concurring 
 mainly in the views of Mr. Hayne on the subject of the public lands ; 
 and Messrs. Barton, Clayton, Foot, Holmes, Johnson, of Louisiana, 
 Sprague, and Noble, opponents of the administration , the last named 
 senator, however, being opposed to the resolution. 
 
 Mr. Hayne said, that, in relation to the proper policy of the govern- 
 ment concerning the disposal of the public lands, there were two parties, 
 holding opposite opinions. The one supposed the policy heretofore pur- 
 sued had been just and liberal to the new states ; the other, embracing 
 the entire west, thought the government had treated them in the spirit 
 of a taskmastei- — that its policy had been illiberal and selfish. It had 
 sold out, from time to time, certain portions for the highest pi-ices that 
 could be obtained ; and until within a few years, on long credits. The 
 result of such a course was to keep a country for a long time under a 
 heavy load of debt. Other nations, in planting colonies, had given free 
 granfs of land. He had not yet formed a fixed or settled opinion on 
 the subject. But he suggested that, after the public debt should have 
 been paid, (for which the lands were pledged,) it might be sound policy 
 to relinquish them to the states in which they were, on terms which 
 should compensate the government for the cost of the original purchase, 
 and for other expenses incurred on their account. He thought the states 
 should in due season be invested with the control of all the lands within 
 their respective limits. 
 
 Mr. H. distrusted the policy of creating a great national treasury, 
 whether to be derived from the public lands or from any other source, 
 and of distributing the excess among the states. It would be a fund for 
 corruption — fatal to the duration of our institutions, and to the sover- 
 eignty and independence of the states. He believed the very life of our 
 system was the independence of the states, and no evil was more to be 
 deprecated, than the consolidation of the government. 
 
 Mr. Webster maintained that the policy of the government had been 
 liberal to the new states. He considered the analogy referred to by Mr. 
 Hayne to be unjust ; the cases were not similar. The North American 
 colonists either fled from Europe to avoid persecution, or came hither at 
 their own charges, as pri-^ate adventurers. The western lands and the 
 protection of the settlers against the Indians, had led to the expenditure 
 
GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE. 489 
 
 of both blood and treasure. The extinguishment of the Indian title had 
 cost many millions. Nothing had been spared which a just sense of their 
 necessities required. He adverted to the growth and prosperity of these 
 states since the Indians were conquered by Wayne, which was the result 
 of the care and protection of the government. He objected to throwing 
 great portions of the lands, at low prices, into the hands of private spec- 
 ulation. 
 
 In replying to the remark of Mr. Hayne, that he wanted no perma- 
 nent sources of income — that a fixed revenue only consolidated the gov- 
 ernment and corrupted the people — Mr. W. said, he was aware such sen- 
 timents were elsewhere held ; but he had not expected to hear them ut- 
 tered there. " Consolidation ! — that perpetual cry of terror and delu- 
 sion — consolidation ! When gentlemen speak of the effects of a common 
 fund as having a tendency to consolidation, what do they mean ? Do 
 they mean, or can they mean, any thing more than that the union of the 
 states will be strengthened by whatever furnishes inducements to the 
 people of the states to hold together ? This is the sense in which the 
 framers of the constitution use the word consolidation, and in which 
 sense I adopt and cherish it. They tell us in the letter submitting the 
 constitution to the consideration of the country, that, ' in all our delib- 
 erations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears 
 to us the grer.test interest of every true American — the consolidation of 
 our union — in which is involved our prosperity, liberty, safety ; perhaps 
 our national existence.' * * * This, sir, is Gen. Washington's con- 
 solidation. This is the true constitutional consolidation." 
 
 Mr. W. defended the East against the charge of hostility to the West. 
 The tariff had been mentioned as an instance of selfish policy, and 
 designed to prevent western emigration. He repelled the charge, and 
 the cause assigned for it. New England was not the author of the tariff. 
 The tariff of 1816 was more a southern than an eastern measure. And 
 in 1824, there were, in each of a majority of the western states, and even 
 in Virginia, more votes in favor of the tariff of that year, than in Mas- 
 sachusetts. It had been forced upon New England. 
 
 From the time the cessions of the - lands were made to congress, no 
 portion of the country had acted with more liberality or intelligence on 
 the subject of the western lands than New England. Provision was to 
 be made for the government of the country and for disposing of the ter- 
 ritory. The soil must be granted and settled. How was it to be done ? 
 Two systems presented themselves ; the one a northern and the other 
 a southern mode of conducting the sales. The northern was adopted ; it 
 was that now in successful operation in the new states north-west of the 
 Ohio. That which was rejected ^yas the system of warrants, surveys 
 
490 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 entry and location, which prevailed south of the Ohio, ind had shingled 
 over the country with conflicting titles and claims, and led ^o speculation 
 and litigation. The former was the New England system — that of sur- 
 veying lands before issuing title papers, and of inserting accurate descrip- 
 tions of metes and bounds. At the foundation of the constitution of 
 these new states, was the ordinance of 1787, drawn up by Nathan Dane, 
 of Massachusetts. It had impressed upon the soil an incapacity to bear 
 up any other than free men. Mr. W. suggested this as the cause that had 
 given to these states a more rapid growth and prosperity than those south 
 of the Ohio. And this great measure, he said, had been carried by the 
 north, and by the north alone. Individuals elsewhere had favored it ; 
 but as a measure, it was supported entirely by northern votes. The 
 Cumberland road and other western improvements had uniformly received 
 the votes of New England. 
 
 In vindication of his own course, he read a few extracts from h debate 
 in the house of representatives, in 1825, on the subject of the western 
 road ; Mr. W. being then a member of that body. A distinguished mem ■ 
 ber from the south (Mr. M'Duffie) had said in that debate, that emigra« 
 tion to the west needed no stimulus, but rather a check. Every induce- 
 ment had been held out to the people to settle in the west, until the east' 
 em population had become sparse. If any object was worthy the atten- 
 tion of the government, it was a plan which should limit the sale of the 
 public lands. To which he (Mr. W.) had replied, that it was not his wish 
 so to hasten the sales of the lands as to throw them into the hands of 
 purchasers who would sell again ; but he could not concur with the gen- 
 tleman from South Carolina, in wishing to restrain the laboring classes 
 in the eastern states from going to any part of our territory. He wad in 
 favor of letting population take its own course. If any of his constitu- 
 ents wished to settle on the Kansas, or the Arkansas, let them go, and 
 be happier, if they could. Mr. W. said he had read these extracts to 
 vindicate his state from unfounded charges and imputations on her public 
 character and conduct. 
 
 After this stage of the discussion, many foreign subjects were intro- 
 duced into the debate, which was continued until the 2d of April. Hav- 
 ing been permitted to slumber until near the close of the session, it was 
 revived the 20th of May, and finally brought to a close the next day, with- 
 out any decisive action upon the resolution. Among the incidental and 
 irrelevant topics drawn into the debate, were slavery, state rights and 
 nullification, the judicial power of the union, New England federalism, 
 &c. It abounded with facts and illustrations relating to the government, 
 which impart to it not a little interest and value as a political history. 
 But the most prominent subject was that oi the relative powers of the 
 
GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE. 491 
 
 Btate and federal governments, in the discussion of which was asserted 
 the constitutional right of a state to disobey any law which the state 
 authorities may deem unconstitutional — the right of nullification. 
 
 The principal speakers in this debate, which was almost strictly of a 
 party character were Messrs. Benton, Hayne, Kane, Kowau, Grundy, 
 Livingston, and Smith, of South Carolina, supporters of the administra- 
 tion ; and Messrs. Webster, Sprague, Holmes, Noble, Foot, Clayton 
 Johnson, of Louisiana, and Robbins, of the opposition. The former were 
 opposed to the resolution, except Mr. Smith, who, on this subject, dis- 
 sented from his colleague, Mr. Hayne ; the latter, it is believed, Mr. 
 Noble excepted, were all in favor of the inquiry proposed in the resolu- 
 tion. Although Messrs. Hayne and Webster are generally regarded as 
 the leading combatants in this celebrated controversy, Mr. Benton occu- 
 pied a much greater portion of time than any other senator. 
 
 Mr. Webster, at the close of the speech above noticed, was imme- 
 diately followed by Mr. Benton in the commencement of a speech which 
 was continued for an hour the next day, (January 2 1 ,) when he yielded 
 the floor to Mr. Hayne, and did not resume it until after the discussion 
 between those two gentlemen was over. Necessity forbids our giving 
 even the most condensed sketch of the remarks of speakers on the various 
 topics embraced in this very discursive debate — or party combat, as it 
 may be appropriately called. Many important questions, however, were 
 discussed, among which the most prominent was that of the constitutional 
 powers of the national and state governments, in other words, tli.e no.tv.rc 
 of the union. 
 
 Mr. Hayne claimed for a state the right not only to disregard a law 
 of congress which it may deem unconstitutional, but to determine for 
 itself, the unconstitutionality of an act, as well as the mode and meas- 
 ure of redress ; and founded this claim upon the authority of the Vir- 
 ginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and 1799. Mr. Webster, on the 
 other hand, contended for some power in the general government to 
 decide ultimately upon the constitutionality of laws ; and that the doc- 
 trine that each state might at discretion violate any law which her own 
 authorities should pronounce unconstitutional, would, if carried into 
 practice, be fatal to the union. 
 
 Mr. Hayne, in defense of his doctrine, said : " The senator from Mas- 
 sachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to call the South Carolina 
 doctrine, has attempted to throw ridicule upon the idea that a state has 
 any constitutional remedy, by the exercise of its sovereign authority, 
 against a ' gross, palpable, and deliberate violation of the constitution.' 
 He calls it an idle or a ridiculous notion, or something to that effect, and 
 added, it would make the union ' a mere rope of sand.' Now, sir, as 
 
492 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the gentleman has not condescended to enter intc any examination of the 
 question, and has been satisfied with throwing the weight of his author- 
 ity into the scale, I do not deem it necessary to do more than to throw 
 into the opposite scale the authority on which South Carolina relies, and 
 there, for the present, I am willing to leave the controversy. The South 
 Carolina doctrine, that is to say, the doctrine contained in an exposition 
 reported by a committee of the legislature in December, 1828, and pub- 
 lished by their authority, is the good old republican doctrine of '98 ; the 
 doctrine of the celebrated * Virginia resolutions' of that year, and of 
 ' Madison's report,' of '99. It will be recollected that the legislature of 
 Virginia, in December, '98, took into consideration the alien and sedition 
 laws, then considered by all republicans as a gross violation of the con- 
 stitution of tlie United States, and on that day passed among others, the 
 following resolution : 
 
 " The general assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, 
 that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the 
 compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and 
 intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid 
 than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and 
 that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other 
 powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto 
 have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the pro- 
 gress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the 
 authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. " 
 
 Mr. H. also quoted from Mr. Madison's report the following : "It 
 appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded on common 
 sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of 
 compacts, that, when resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the 
 authority- of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful 
 judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued 
 or violated. The constitution of the United States was formed by the 
 sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds 
 to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the constitu- 
 tion, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation The states, 
 then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, acd in their sov- 
 ereign capacity, it follows, of necessity, that there can be no tribunal, 
 above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact 
 made by them be violated ; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, 
 they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may 
 be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." 
 
 From the Kentucky resolutions, responding to those of Virginia, and 
 penned by Mr. Jefferson, Mr. H. quoted the following declaration : — 
 
GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE 498 
 
 " That the government created by this compact was not made the ex- 
 clusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, 
 since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the 
 measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among 
 parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to jud^e 
 for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress." 
 
 The legislature of Kentucky, in 1799, reaffirmed their resolutions of 
 the preceding year. From their proceedings, Mr. H. read, in support 
 of his theory, the following declarations : " That the principle and con- 
 struction contended for by several of the state legislatures, that the 
 general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers 
 delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism ; since the discretion of 
 those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be 
 the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that 
 instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable 
 right to judge of its infraction ; and, that a nullification, by those sov- 
 ereignties, of all unauthorized acts, done under the color of that instru- 
 ment, is the rightful remedy." 
 
 Mr. Webster said he had much respect for the constitutional opinions 
 of Mr. Madison ; but possibly a wrong construction might have been 
 given to the resolution to which Mr. Madison had given his sanction. 
 That resolution declared, that, in case of the dangerous exercise of 
 powers not granted to the general government, the states might inter- 
 pose to arrest the progress of the evil. But how interpose ? Did it 
 mean no more than that the people, in any mode of assembling, might 
 resist usurpation ? No one would deny this. Nor would it be denied, 
 that the people might, if they chose, throw ofi" any government when it 
 became oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better one. This was 
 the right of revolution. But what the gentleman contended for, was, 
 that it was constitutional for a state, in form of law, in virtue of its sov- 
 ereign capacity, to interrupt the administration of the constitution it- 
 self, in the hands of those who were chosen and sworn to administer it. 
 [Appendix, Note E]. 
 
 Mr. W. admitted that unconstitutional laws were not binding. But 
 the great question was, whose prerogative was it to decide whether a 
 law was constitutional or not ? The proposition, that a state has a con 
 etitutional right to annul a law supposed to be unconstitutional, he de 
 nied. Under the constitution, there was no mode in which a state gov- 
 ernment, as a member of the union, .jould interfere, and stop the pro- 
 gress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any 
 circumstances whatever. 
 
 This led him to inquire into the origin of thegoverniueDt, and the source 
 
494 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of its power. Was it the creature of the state legislatures, or the crea- 
 ture of the people ? " The doctrine for which the gentleman contends," 
 said Mr. Webster, " leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only 
 that the general 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 determining whether it acts 
 within the limits of its authority. It is the servant of four-and- 
 tweoty masters, of different wills and different purposes and yet 
 bound to obey all. This absurdity arises from a misconception as 
 to the origin of this government in its true character. It is the people's 
 constitution, the people's government ; made for the people ; made by 
 the people ; and answerable to the people. The people of the United 
 States have declared that this constitution shall be the supreme law. 
 The states are sovereign so far as their sovereignty is not affected by 
 this supreme law. But the state legislatures, as political bodies, how- 
 ever sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the 
 people have given power to the general government, so far the grant is 
 good ; and the government holds of the people, and not of the state gov* 
 ernments. The general government and the state governments derive 
 their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the 
 other, be called primary; though one is definite and restricted, and the 
 other general and residuary. The national government possesses those 
 powers conferred on it by the people ; the rest belongs to the states and 
 the people." 
 
 But in erecting this government and giving it a constitution in which 
 they have defined its powers, the people, he said, had done but half their 
 work. No definition could be so clear as to avoid possibility of doubt. 
 Who then should construe this grant of the people ? With whom did 
 they repose the ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the govern* 
 meut ? They had left it with the government itself, in its appropriate 
 branches. Their design was to establish a government that should not 
 be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and 
 state discretion. The constitution, and the laws made under 't, are de- 
 clared to be supreme; and it is declared that "the judicial power shall 
 extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United 
 States." These two provisions covered the whole ground. They were 
 the key-stone of the arch. With these it was a constitution ; without 
 them, it was a confederacy. 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 ques- 
 tions of constitutional power to the final decision of the suprone court. 
 It then became a government ; it then had the means of self-protection 
 
GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE. 495 
 
 Mr. Hayne again replied to Mr. "Webster, and reaffirmed tl e doctrine 
 of his former speech, on the authority of Mr. Madison's report, " that 
 where resort can be had to no common superior, the parties to the com- 
 pact m jst themselves be the rightful judges," &c. ; and he denied the 
 doctrine of Mr. Webster, that the federal government had " the power 
 of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon the extent of its own au- 
 thority." The states in forming the compact, had not surrendered their 
 sovereignty. A compact between two, with a right reserved to one to 
 expound the instrument according to his own pleasure, was no compact 
 at all, but an absolute surrender of the whole subject matter to the 
 arbitrary discretion of the party who was constituted the judge. The 
 states being parties to the compact in their capacity as states, and being 
 sovereign and equal, having no common superior, there could be no 
 tribunal above their authority to decide whether the compact had been 
 violated; and the federal government was bound to acquiesce in the 
 solemn decision of a state thus acting in its sovereign capacity. He 
 went into a long argument attempting to prove that the supreme court 
 had not the power to decide in such cases, and said, if congress should 
 attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law, they would put themselves 
 clearly in the wrong ; and the state would have the right to exert its 
 protecting power. 
 
 Mr. Webster, in a very brief reply, stated Mr. Hayne's propositions 
 to be : (1.) That the constitution is a compact between the states ; (2.) 
 That a compact between two, with authority reserved to one to inter- 
 pret its terms, would be a surrender to that one of all power whatever ; 
 and (3.) As an inference from these propositions, that the general gov- 
 ernment does not possess the authority to construe its own powers. 
 
 " Now, sir," said Mr. W., " who does not see, without exposition or 
 detection, the utter confusion of ideas involved in this so elaborate and 
 systematic argument ? The constitution, it is said, is a compact between 
 states : the states, then, and the states only, are parties to the compact. 
 How comes the general government itself a party ? Upon the honor- 
 able gentleman's hypothesis, the general government is the result of the 
 compact, the creature of the compact, not one of the parties to it. Yet 
 the argument, as he 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 oicn existence. For the purpose of erecting the constitution on 
 the basis of a compact, the gentleman considers the states as parties 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 as its offspring, but one of its parties ; and so, being a party, has 
 not the power of judging on the terms of compact. Pray, sir, in what 
 school is such reasoning taught ? * * • 
 
496 THE AMERICAN STATESMArC. 
 
 " The gentleman says, if there be such a power of final dtcision 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 ex- 
 tends, 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." 
 
 Mr. W. argued farther, that, even supposing the constitution to be a 
 compact between the states, that doctrine was not maintainable ; because, 
 first, the general government was not a party to the compact, but a 
 government established by it, and vested by it with the powers of trying 
 and deciding doubtful questions ; and, secondly, if the constitution were 
 regarded as a compact, not one state only, but all the states, were parties 
 to it ; and one alone could have no right to fix upon it her own peculiar 
 construction. Yet the doctrine was, that Carolina alone might construe 
 and interpret that compact which equally bound all, and gave equal 
 rights to all. But the constitution, he said, was not a compact between 
 state governments ; the constitution itself declaring, that it was ordained 
 and established by " the people of the United States." It did not even 
 say that it was established by the people of the several states ; but by 
 the people of the United States in the aggregate. The confederation 
 was strictly a compact between the states, as states ; but that was 
 found insufl&cient, and the people, not satisfied with it, had established, 
 not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between states, but a 
 general government, directly responsible to the people, and divided into 
 branches with prescribed limits of power, and presci-ibed duties. 
 
 Mr. Benton thought the power claimed by Mr. Webster for the 
 supreme court was no less than a despotic power. That court was 
 called supreme in reference to inferior courts — the district and circuit 
 courts — and not in reference to the states of the union. A power to 
 decide on the federal constitutionality of state laws, and to bind the 
 states by the decision, was a power to govern the states. 
 
 Mr. Rowan, of Kentucky, protested against the doctrine of Mr. Web- 
 ster, which denied that the constitution was a compact formed by the 
 states, but which asserted that it was a government formed by the 
 people, and for the very purpose, among others, of imposing certain 
 salutary restraints on state sovereignties. And the idea that the people 
 had conferred upon the supreme court such a power, was a fallacy. He 
 believed these doctrines struck at the root of all our free institutions, 
 and led directly to a consolidation of the government. They had been 
 inferred from the tenor of the first message of the late president Adams 
 
 IJ 
 
GREAT DEBATE IN THE SENATE, 497 
 
 to congress. Now, the explicit avowal of them by the honorable sena- 
 tor removed all doubt from the subject. We could no longer doubt as 
 to the political faith of Mr. Adams. His most zealous and distin- 
 guished apostle had avowed it. " The two parties," said Mr. R., " are 
 now clearly distinguishable by their opposite political tenets ; ihe one 
 headed by our illustrious chief magistrate, who is the friend and advo- 
 cate of the rights of the states ; the other party is now headed by the 
 senator from Massachusetts." Mr. R. undertook, by a long and able 
 argument, to disprove these doctrines, and to show that the union had 
 not been formed by the people of the United States in the aggregate, 
 but in the capacity of states ; and the union was one of state sovereign- 
 ties. The only security to the liberties of the people was in the pro- 
 tecting power of the sovereignty of their respective states ; and when 
 that sovereignty was subjected to the will of the supreme court, the 
 people were subjected to the same tribunal ; and after all their vigi- 
 lance and caution, in guarding against oppression from their rulers, they 
 were, by this doctrine, to be subjected to the rule of a judicial aristo- 
 cracy, whose tenure of power was for life, and irresponsible. He held 
 that a state being sovereign, and owing allegiance to no higher power, it 
 could not, by resisting a law of congress, commit treason or rebellion. 
 
 After having spoken of the means of peaceable resistance, on the part 
 of a state to an unconstitutional law, by nullifying resolutions, and other 
 expressions of the public will, as having a rebuking eflfect of sufficient 
 force to secure redress, he says : " But if these results should not fol- 
 low, you ask me, what next ? Must the state forbear to resist the 
 aggression upon her sovereignty, and submit to be shorn of it alto- 
 gether ? I answer, no, sir, no ; that she must maintain her sovereignty 
 by every means within her power. She is good for nothing, even worse 
 than good for nothing, without it. This, you will tell me, must lead to 
 civil war — to war between the general government and the resisting 
 state. I answer, not at all, unless the general government shall choose 
 to consecrate its usurpations by the blood of those it shall have 
 attempted to oppress. And if the states shall be led, by apprehen 
 sions of that kind, to submit to encroachments upon their sovereignties, 
 they will most certainly not remain sovereign long. Fear is a bad 
 counselor, of even an individual ; it should never be consulted by a 
 sovereign state." 
 
 Several questions here naturally suggest themselves to the reader. The 
 Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, among whose authors and exponents 
 were Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, were in this debate adduced as 
 authority for nullification, and that, too, by force, if necessary. If, as 
 these resolutions declare, a state, in case of a supposed unconstitutional 
 
 32 
 
498 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 act of congress, has " a right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as 
 of the mode and measure of redress ;" and if redress can not be had in 
 any other way, it may be asked, Do these resolutions authorize a for- 
 cible resistance ? Was nullification a distinctive doctrine of the Jack- 
 son party ? Concerning the former question it may be said, that a 
 strict construction of those resolutions would seem to justify a resort 
 to force to obtain redress. Such construction, however, is at the pres- 
 ent day rejected by a majority of those who approve the resolutions. 
 Force, in the last resort, was plainly asserted by Messrs. Hayne and 
 Rowan to be a constitutional mode of resistance ; and we are not aware 
 that any administration senator who succeeded them in the debate, 
 except Mr. Livingston, admitted the existence of any authority in the 
 general government to bind a state by its decision. Nor are we aware 
 that any senator disclaimed the avowal of Mr. Rowan, that these were 
 the distinctive doctrines of the administration party. This avowal, and 
 the tacit consent which it received in the senate, and the prompt response 
 to it of leading men and presses of the administration party, who hailed 
 the views of state rights expressed by Mr. Hayne as " the true demo- 
 cratic doctrine," for the defense of which " the democrats of the union 
 owed him a debt of gratitude ;" indicated a recognition of them as party 
 doctrines. 
 
 It is true, however, that, although the theory of Mr. Hayne seems to 
 have been maintained by nearly all the administration senators who 
 argued this point, and the existence of a power in the general govern- 
 ment to decide upon the binding force of a law of congress to have been 
 denied; all of them did not assert the right of violent resistance ; as will 
 appear from the speeches of those who followed in debate. 
 
 Mr. Grundy denied the right of the legislature of a state to declare 
 the nullity of a law, and to prevent its execution ; but gave it to a con- 
 vention chosen by the people. 
 
 Mr. Woodbury did not coincide in the assertion of a constitutional 
 right of preventing the execution of a law believed to be unconstitu- 
 tional ; the people were supreme, and could and would, in their omnipo- 
 tence, and for sufficient cause, " always apply a most sovereign remedy," 
 — evidently meaning force — if other means of redress should fail. 
 
 Mr. Livingston, an administration senator, in his views of the nature 
 of the constitution, and of the powers and rights of the parties to it, 
 dissented in a measure from all who had preceded him. He thought it 
 dancerous, on the one hand, to establish a constitutional veto in each of 
 the states, upon any act of the whole, to be exercised whenever the leg- 
 ifilature may suppose such act unconstitutional ; and on the other, it 
 was dangerous to the state governments, to consider that of tlie United 
 
GBEAT DERATE IN THE SENATE. 499 
 
 States entirely popular, and to deny the existence of a compact. While 
 he held that the general government could not have been brought into 
 being without a compact, he admitted that there were in it characteris- 
 tics of a popular kind — marks of a more intimate union and amalgamation 
 of the interests of the citizens of the different states. The entire sove- 
 reignty of the states, individually, had not been retained. The gov- 
 ernment, also, for the most part, (except in the election of senators, 
 representatives, president, and some other officers,) acted directly upon 
 individuals, and not through the medium of state authorities. This was 
 an essential character of a popular government. He placed little 
 reliance, however, on the argument, that the preamble to the constitu- 
 tion begins with the words, " We the people." It only proved that the 
 people of the several states had been consulted, and had given their 
 consent to the instrument. The people of each state had been consulted, 
 to know whether that state would form a part of the United States, 
 under the constitution ; and to that they had given their assent, simply 
 as citizens of that state. [Note F.] 
 
 The government, then, Mr. L. said, was neither a federative compact 
 which left to all the parties their full sovereignty, nor such a consolidated 
 popular government as deprived them of the whole of that sovereign 
 power. It was a compact by which the people of each state had con- 
 gented to the transfer of certain powers from their state legislature to 
 the general government. As to all these attributes of sovereignty, 
 which by the federal compact were so transferred, the general govern- 
 ment was supreme ; the states had abandoned, and could never reclaim 
 them. All other sovereign powers were retained by the states. 
 
 Mr. L. then considered the powers of the supreme court, in regard to 
 which he took substantially the same view as Mr. Webster. He said 
 the states had not only given certain powers to the general government, 
 but had expressly given also the right of enforcing obedience to the 
 exercise of those powers. They had declared the constitution, and laws 
 made in pursuance of it, to be supreme ; and they had also expressly 
 consented, that the judiciary of the United States should have cognizance 
 of all cases coming under those laws. As the constitution is paramount 
 to a law of the United States, and as both are paramount to a law of the 
 state, the supreme court of the United States must, of necessity, in a 
 disputed case legally before it, determine the question ; and its decision 
 must be final ; the states must be bound ; for in this compact they had 
 agreed that their citizens should be so bound. 
 
 This question was argued at length by Mr. L., with great clearness 
 and ability ; and we regret that we can not afford space for a greater 
 portion of his speech. He controverted that interpretation of the Vir- 
 
500 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ginia and Kentuckj resolutions which authorized a state to resist tha 
 execution of a law of congress, except in a case of intolerable and 
 unconstitutional oppression, which was not a right under the constitution, 
 but the undisputed right of revolution. 
 
 Mr. Sosith, of S. C, dissented from the views of his colleague and 
 other administration senators in relation to the disposition of the public 
 lands ; but concurred with them generally on the subject of the powers 
 of the state and general governments. 
 
 The speakers who followed Mr. Webster on the same side, expressed 
 essentially the same views in relation to the great constitutional question. 
 Several of them displayed great ability ; and, like others, digressed from 
 the subject of inquiry proposed by the resolution, traversing the whole 
 field of incidental topics drawn into the discussion. On the wuvle, the 
 debate was one of surpassing interest. It abounds with historical facts of 
 great importance ; which alone are of sufficient value to repay its perusal. 
 
 A bill passed the senate at this session to reduce the price of public 
 lands having been for a certain time in market, and to grant a preference 
 to actual settlers, by selling to them at a lower price than to non-settlers. 
 It reached the house at a late period of the session, and was laid on the 
 table for want of time to consider it. 
 
 A bill was reported in the house, to distribute the proceeds of the 
 sales of the public lands, after the payment of the public debt, among 
 the several states for purposes of education, in proportion to their re- 
 presentation, severally, in congress. The question was discussed at 
 length, prior to the report • but the bill reported was not acted upon 
 
 CHAPTER XL. 
 
 UNITED STATES BANK. MAYSVILLE ROAD BILL, AND OTHERS. VETOES 
 
 OF THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 That part of the president's message which related to the bank of the 
 United States, was referred, in the house, to the committee of ways and 
 means, who made a most elaborate report on the subject, on the 1 3th of 
 of April, 1830. The report was made by Mr. M'Duffie,of South Caro- 
 lina, from whose pen it probably emanated. He was a supporter of the 
 administration. The bank question had several times been an agitating 
 element in our national politics. The public mind had again become 
 quiet on the subject, and apparently regarded the bank as having becomo 
 
UNITED STATES BANK. 501 
 
 a permanent fiscal agent of the government, the charter of which, at its 
 expiration in 1836, would, it was presumed, be renewed, almost as a 
 matter of course. The revival of this question under such circumstan- 
 ces, and at a period nearly six years before application for a rechartei 
 of the institution was to have been expected, gave occasion for not a 
 little speculation as to the cause of so early an agitation of this slum- 
 Dering subject. 
 
 The report of the committee presented the following questions for the 
 decision of congress : 
 
 1st. Has congress the constitutional power to incorporate a bank, such 
 as that of the United States ? 
 
 2d. Is it expedient to establish and maintain such an institution ? 
 
 3d. Is it expedient to establish " a national bank, founded upon the 
 credit of the government and its revenues ?" 
 
 In maintaining the affirmative of the first of these questions, tho 
 committee stated, that the first bank had been incorporated when most 
 of the leading members of the convention of the framers of the consti- 
 tution were in the executive and legislative councils of the nation. 
 There having been as yet no organization of political parties, the deci- 
 sion of the question was presumed to have been unaffected by that party 
 prejudice which impairs the public confidence in a legislative interpreta- 
 tion of the constitution. 
 
 The renewal of its charter, in 1811, had been prevented chiefly, the 
 committee believed, by the then existing state of political parties. Mr. 
 Jefferson and Mr. Madison, the former in the cabinet, and the latter in 
 •congress, had opposed the first bank on constitutional grounds; and as 
 they had subsequently been placed at the head of the party most 
 unfavorable to the extension of the powers of government by implica- 
 tion, the bank question came to be regarded as, in some degree, a test 
 of political principle. Some of the most distinguished republicans, how- 
 ever, including Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Crawford, were in favor of the 
 renewal. It was at the time of the embargo and non-intercourse mea- 
 sures — a time of violent party excitement — when the leading federal- 
 ists, who were in favor of the bank, were peculiarly odious to the repub- 
 licans. Prejudice against the institution was increased also by the fact, 
 that the greater part of its stock was held by British subjects and fede- 
 ralists. Yet, with all these difficulties to encounter, the question of 
 renewal was lost only by the casting vote of the president of the 
 senate, vice-president George Clinton, and by i majority of one vote in 
 the house of representatives. 
 
 Within three years thereafter, and before the close of the war, the 
 circulating medium had become so disordered, and the public finances so 
 
502 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 deranged, that the secretary of the treasury, Mr. Dallas, with the 
 sanction of Mr. Madison and his cabinet, recommended to congress the 
 establishment of a bank, to revive the public credit, and to redeem the 
 fiscal resources of the government from embarrassment. A bill was 
 passed by both houses, and vetoed by him ; not, however, on constitu- 
 tional grounds — he considered the question of constitutionality settled — 
 but on account of objections to certain provisions of the bill. Another 
 bill was immediately introduced, and would probably have become a law, 
 had not the news of peace induced congress to suspend further proceed- 
 ings until the next session. The attention of congi-ess was then again 
 directed to the subject by the president and his secretary ; and, against 
 the opposition of the state banks, and the debtor class of community, a 
 bill was passed, and approved by Mr. Madison. 
 
 The committee then proceeded to discuss the constitutionality of a 
 national bank. The power of congress to create a corporation had been 
 denied. If congress, under the " power to pass all laws necessary and 
 proper to carry into effect powers" expressly granted, might inflict the 
 punishment of death without any other authority, why might it not pass 
 a law for creating a corporation ? The chartering of a bank does not 
 authorize the corporation to do any thing which the individuals compos- 
 ing it might not do without a charter. The only material particular in 
 which the charter of the bank conferred a privilege upon the corpora- 
 tion apparently inconsistent with the state laws, was the exemption of the 
 individual property of the corporators from responsibility for the debts 
 ef the corporation. But if the community dealt with the bank knowing 
 that the capital subscribed was alone liable for its debts, no one could 
 complain of imposition or injury. The real complaint against the bank 
 was, not that it had not sufficient basis for its credit, but that its credit 
 was too extensive : not against the artificial character communicated to 
 the stockholders by the charter, but against the pecuniary operations of 
 the bank itself These operations consisted in the use of its own capi- 
 tal — a faculty not derived from the government, but on the exei-cise of 
 which the government imposes many useful restrictions for the benefit 
 of itself and of the community. This analysis of a bank corporation 
 was intended to show that it was not an unfit instrument in the hands 
 of a government admitted to be sovereign in its appropriate sphere, for 
 carrying into effect the powers expressly delegated. 
 
 The committee say : " It will be no less instructive than curious, to 
 notice some of the changes made in the opinions of prominent men, 
 yielding to the authority of experience. Mr. Madison, who was tho 
 leading opponent of the bank created in 1791, recommended and sano- 
 tioned the bank created in 1816; and Mr. Clay, who strenuously opposed 
 
 i 
 
UNITED STATES BANK. 503 
 
 the renewal of the charter in 1811, as strenuously supported the propo- 
 sition to grant the charter in 1816." 
 
 In discussing the second question — that of expediency — the committee 
 assumed as a fact, the continued existence of a state paper currency, which 
 could not be prohibited by congress. But if it could be, they question 
 the expediency of suddenly withdrawing one hundred millions of bank 
 credit. The question really presented was, not between a metallic and 
 a paper currency, but between a paper currency of uniform value, sub- 
 ject to a competent controlling power, and a paper currency of fluctuat- 
 ing value, and subject to no adequate control. A large number of local 
 banks had sprung up in consequence of the withdrawal of the fifteen 
 millions of bank credit, by the winding up of the first bank of the United 
 States. These banks, free from the control formerly exercised by that 
 bank over tlie local institutions, made excessive issues, which speedily in- 
 volved the country in all the embarrassments of a disordered currency. 
 
 From a scale of depreciation of the local currency, presented by the 
 committee, it appeared that the paper of the banks in Washington and 
 Baltimore was from 20 to 22 per cent, below par. At Philadelphia, 17 to 
 18 per cent. At New York and Charleston, it was from 7 to ]0 per 
 cent. In western Pennsylvania, it was 25 per cent. But this relative 
 depreciation of bank paper at different places, as compared with specie, 
 was not the worst evil produced by excessive issues of bank paper. 
 The value of money, whether specie or paper, depreciated in proportion 
 to the increase of its quantity. Hence if the circulating medium should 
 be doubled, the prices of commodities would increase in the same propor- 
 tion, let the credit of the bank bills be ever so good. Therefore, an individual 
 who had borrowed a sum of money in 1816, when there was so great a 
 redundancy of money caused by the increased issues of bank paper, and 
 who paid the debt in 1820, when money had regained its natural value, 
 evidently returned to the lender double the value received from hinx 
 The power of banks to suspend specie payments, and arbitrarily to con- 
 tract and expand their issues, without any general control, exercised a 
 dangerous and despotic power over the property of the commuLiity. 
 
 The government, the committee said, had sustained great losses, in its 
 fiscal operations, during the war, for the want of a sound currency. It 
 had borrowed during this short period, 80 millions, at an average dis- 
 count of 15 per cent., giving certificates of stock, amounting to 80 mil- 
 lions, in exchange for 68 millions in such bank paper as could be ob- 
 tained. Here was a loss of 12 millions, which would probably have 
 been saved by a national bank. But this sum of 68 millions was received 
 in a depreciated currency, not more than half as valuable as that iu 
 which the stock given in exchange for it had been and would be re- 
 deemed. Here was a loss of 34 millions more. 
 
504 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The committee controverted the statement of the president m hia 
 message, that the bank had " failed in the great end of establishing a 
 uniform and sound currency." He probably referred to the fact^ that 
 the bills issued by any one of its branches are not redeemed by all the 
 other branches. To have required this, would have been inexpedient and 
 unjust. The effect would have been to compel the bank to perform the 
 whole of the commercial exchanges of the countr} without compensation. 
 
 It was not denied that the bills of the bank and all its branches were 
 invariably redeemed at their respective offices ; nor was it denied that 
 they were equal to specie in their respective spheres of circulation. If a 
 Philadelphia merchant had silver instead of bank bills, he could not effect 
 his purchases in New Orleans without paying for its transportation and 
 insurance. These expenses constituted the natural rate of exchange be- 
 tween the cities, and indicated the sum which the merchant would give as 
 a premium for a bill of exchange, to avoid the trouble and delay of trans- 
 porting his specie. And the bills of the bank would purchase a bill of 
 exchange precisely as well as silver. 
 
 The committee adverted to the great reduction which thebankhad effected 
 in the rate of commercial exchanges; and to its having actually furnished a 
 circulating medium more uniform than specie ; which was demonstrated 
 by the fact that a Louisiana planter, if the whole circulating medium 
 were specie, would, in order to make purchases in Philadelphia, be 
 obliged to pay more either for a bill of exchange or for the transporta- 
 tion and insurance of his specie, than it would cost to buy at the branch 
 at New Orleans a draft upon the mother bank at Philadelphia. If, 
 however, he did not choose to purchase a draft, he might transmit the 
 bills to the most distant point, where, being receivable in payment of all 
 dues to the government, persons would receive them at par ;• and the 
 bank would frequently receive them at par, and always at a discount less 
 than would pay for transporting the specie. And for purposes of reve- 
 nue, the bank gave to the national currency perfect uniformity — a per- 
 fection to which a currency of gold and silver, in so extensive a country, 
 could have no pretensions. A bill wherever issued, was of equal value 
 with specie in payment of duties at any other place, however distant, 
 where the bank issued bills, and the bank collects revenue. 
 
 The bank also served to enforce specie payments by the local banks, 
 and had aided them in doing so. It had been said that the government, 
 by making the resumption and continuance of specie payments the con- 
 dition upon which the state banks should receive the government funds, 
 might have restored the currency to a state of uniformity. Not only 
 could not this object have been accomplished in this way, but such a con- 
 nection between the federal government and the state banks would, an the 
 
UNITED STATES BANK. 505 
 
 committee believed, be dangerous to the purity of both ; and they gave 
 at length their reasons for this opinion. 
 
 The management of the bank, for the last ten years, was spoken of in 
 high terms by the committee. It had been such as to accomplish the 
 great ends for which it was established, and to promote the permanent 
 interest of the stockholders, with the least practicable pressure upon t^e 
 local banks. It had also carefully abstained from bringing its power 
 and influence to bear upon political questions. 
 
 In discussing the third question, the expediency of establishing " a 
 national bank founded upon the credit of the government and its reve- 
 nues," the committee presumed it to have been the intention of the pre- 
 sident to be understood as having allusion to a bank of discount and de- 
 posits. Such a bank must have branches similar to those of the present 
 bank. It was not suflicient for commercial purposes, that persons in re- 
 mote parts of the union had the promise of being paid specie for its 
 notes at a central bank at the seat of government. The place of re- 
 demption being so remote from the place of circulation, as to prevent 
 their being presented for payment without great expense, they must be 
 of very unequal value in different parts of the country. Its loans also 
 must be confined principally to the place of its location. If it had as 
 many branches as the bank of the United States, which employed five 
 hundred agents in its various places of business, a vast addition would 
 be made to the patronage of the executive; and, what was worse, was 
 the power of patronage resulting from the dispensation of bank accom- 
 modations to the amount of fifty millions of dollars ! 
 
 The government was not adapted to a business of this kind. Capital 
 thus employed required a vigilant and skillful superintendence, such as 
 could be expected only from those who were influenced by the ever active 
 motive of individual interest. Private friendship and political attach- 
 ment would operate on the directors of a government bank to bestow its 
 favors without impartiality or prudence ; and losses would be sustained 
 by the insolvencies of government debtors. Experience had demonstrated 
 the danger of having large masses of the community indebted to the 
 government. But the strongest objection to a government bank was the 
 powerful, and in the hands of a bad administration, the corrupting in- 
 fluence which it would exercise over the elections of the country. With 
 such a tremendous engine in their hands, it would be almost impossible 
 to displace them without some miraculous interposition of Providence. 
 
 A report like the foregoing, from a committee of seven members, five 
 of whom were friends of the administration, was unexpected ; and that 
 Mr. M'Dufiie, the author of the report, should have departed so far 
 from the southern principle of strict construction, as to assert so doubt- 
 
506 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ful a power as that of incorporating a national bank, was a cause of 
 wonder — and the more so, since this power was more extensively ques- 
 tioned than that claimed for a protective tariff, so flatly denied by Mr. 
 M'Dufl&e and his southern friends. 
 
 Pursuant to a resolution of the senate, the finance committee of that 
 body also, on the 29th of March, made a report on " the expediency of 
 establishing a uniform national currency for the United States." The 
 committee consisted of five members, three of them political friends of 
 Gen. Jackson, of whom was the chairman, Mr. Smith, of Maryland. 
 The report maintained, that there existed a sound and uniform currency, 
 both for the government and the community, furnished by the bank of 
 the United States ; and they declared the objections to the president's 
 proposed government bank to be " insuperable and fatal," and the scheme 
 to be " impracticable." 
 
 A bill to authorize the general government to subscribe to the stock 
 of the Maysville and Lexington turnpike road, in the state of Kentucky, 
 was passed by both houses at this session, but received the veto of the 
 president. In his message returning the bill with his objections to the 
 house of representatives, he refers to his annual message for an exhibi- 
 tion of his views on the subject of internal improvements. He refers 
 also to the opinions of Madison and Monroe on similar occasions. To 
 justify an appropriation for internal improvement, the object must be 
 one of common defense, and of a general and national, not a local or 
 state benefit. 
 
 The last administration, he said, had carried the appropriating power 
 to the utmost extent claimed for it ; and it would be difficult, if not im- 
 practicable, to bring back the operations of the government to the con- 
 struction of the constitution set up in 1793; assuming that to belts 
 true reading in relation to the power under consideration. 
 
 He objected also, that the bills already passed, and those which would 
 probably pass before the adjournment of congress, anticipated appropri- 
 ations which, with the ordinary public expenditures, would exceed the 
 amount in the treasury for the year 1830. Adding to these the- amount 
 required by the bills then pending, the excess over the treasury receipts, 
 (the revenue having been diminished by the reduction of thp duties on 
 tea, coffee, &c.,) would exceed ten millions of dollars. 
 
 On the question of the passage of the bill notwithstanding the objec- 
 tions of the president, a short, though animated and acrimonious debate 
 arose, in which some of the president's political friends expressed a 
 strong dislike to the veto message. Mr. Daniel, of Kentucky, had sup* 
 ported the measure, but was disposed to give the people an opportunity 
 to consider coolly the objections urged by the president. His views on 
 
MAYSVILLE ROAD BILL. 507 
 
 oonstitutit-nal power coincided mainly with the message, although he did 
 not agree, in every particular, with the doctrine contained in it. lie was 
 in favor of internal improvements, but thought the system, as it had been 
 heretofore pursued, and as it had been attempted at the present session 
 would soon involve the nation in an immense debt. 
 
 Mr. Stanbery, of Ohio, also of the administration party, considered 
 the message as the voice of the president's chief minister, rather than 
 of the president himself. The hand of the " great magician" was visi- 
 ble in every line. The apprehension of a want of money to meet this 
 small appropriation he thought unfounded. Most of the bills were 
 merely the evidence of the opinions of the committees who had reported 
 them, and would not become laws. The document was artfully contri- 
 ved to bring the system of internal improvement into disrepute, and to 
 deceive the people. It could never have issued from the president. 
 The appropriations which had been made, had been asked for by the 
 executive officers themselves, who had asked for more than had been 
 granted. The most extravagant project this session, which he feared 
 would for ever disgrace this congress, was the removal of all the southern 
 Indians, and had come recommended as the peculiar favorite of the exe- 
 cutive. Many members had been induced to vote for the bill, contrary 
 to their consciences, not having had independence to oppose the wishes 
 of the president. He (Mr. S.) had many reasons for his opposition to 
 that bill : one was the belief that its passage would strike a death blow 
 to the whole system of internal improvement. It had received the sup- 
 port of all the enemies to that system. 
 
 Mr. Polk replied to Mr. Stanbery in very severe terms, calling him 
 " a covert, political adversary," and charging him with having recently 
 formed new associations ; and proceeded to defend the president from 
 the aspersions cast upon him. He (the president) had followed the 
 examples of Madison and Monroe; and had achieved a civil victory 
 which would shed more lustre upon his future fame than many such vic- 
 tories as that of New Orleans ; for he had, by this single act, done more 
 than any man in this country, for the last thirty years, to preserve the 
 constitution, and to perpetuate our liberties. Mr. P. animadverted with 
 equal severity upon certain remarks of Mr. Chilton, a former supporter 
 of the president, who had asked if congress were to be controlled by 
 one man. He defended the veto power as a wholesome check apon the 
 acts of the legislature. 
 
 The debate was continued by Messrs. P. P. Barbour, of Virginia, 
 Bell and Isacks, of Tennessee, and Wayne, of Georgia, on the same 
 pide ; and by Mr. Vance, of Ohio, in opposition. Mr. Sutherland, of 
 Pennsylvania said he would vote for the bill, though he was a friend of 
 
508 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Gen Jackson. He represented a state which was frienJly both to the 
 president and to the system of internal improvements, which would yet 
 universally prevail. The question was decided by a vote of ayes, 96, 
 noes, 90. Not having received the votes of two-thirds of the house, the 
 bill was rejected. The vote of the house on its passage before it had 
 been presented to the president, was 96 to 87 ; and that of the senate, 
 24 to 18. 
 
 Many of the friends of Gen. Jackson, who, by his course in the 
 bcnate, and his explicit assurance in his answer to the legislature of 
 Indiana, of his adherence to the tariff and internal 'tnprovement sys- 
 tems, were both disappointed and displeased at this exef cise of the veto 
 power, regarding it as an abandonment of his former piinciples. To 
 the south, the act was peculiarly gratifying ; and it was defended by 
 a large majority of his friends even at the north, who either declared 
 their opposition to the system, or regarded the veto, not as evidence of 
 hostility to the system, but simply as being demanded by the unconsti- 
 tutionality of this particular measure. Southern feeling was truly 
 represented by Mr. P. P. Barbour on the rejection, at the same session, 
 of the Buftalo and New Orleans road bill. The house having decided 
 against the third reading of the bill, 105 to 88, Mr. B., thinking " that 
 the house had done enough for glory for one day, moved that it now 
 adjourn." The house, however, on that occasion, by a larger pote, refused 
 to adjourn. 
 
 Another bill, authorizing a subscription to the Washington Turnpike 
 company, was also negatived at this session by the president; and two 
 others, one authorizing a subscription to the Louisville and Portland canal 
 company ; another, appropriating money for lighthouses, improving har- 
 bors, directing surveys, &c., were retained until the next session of 
 congress, when, in his annual message, December, 1830, he gave at 
 length his objections to the bills, and to the system of internal improve- 
 ments, and again suggested the propriety of a general plan by. which au 
 equal distribution of the surplus revenues should be made among tho 
 several states, to be used for purposes of internal improvements. 
 
 The committee, in the house of representatives, to which this part of 
 the message was referred, Mr. Hemphill, of Pennsylvania, chairman, a 
 friend of the administration, made a report, February, 1831, adverse to 
 the views of the president. The report took a minute review of the 
 practice of the government, showing that it had been, on the whole, 
 favorable to internal improvements. The committee had little if any 
 doubt as to the nationality or expediency of some of the bills passed at 
 the preceding session, and vetoed by the president. Some parts of tho 
 message relating to this subject were severely commented upon, as likely 
 
VETOES OF THE PRESIDENT. 609 
 
 to lead to incorrect conclusions. The message stated the expenditures 
 heretofore made for internal improvements at upwards of five millions 
 of dollars; and the estimated expense of works partially and entirely 
 surveyed and projected, at ninety-six millions. The president having 
 been called on for a statement of all these works, had included in his 
 report objects not considered by the committee as properly coming under 
 the head of internal improvements. They did not consider works facili- 
 tating foreign commerce to be of such character; but the president 
 had embraced in his report, the expenses of "building piers, improving 
 ports, bays, and harbors, and of removing obstructions to the navigation 
 of rivers;" and these made up nearly one-half of what was called 
 " expenditures for internal improvements." 
 
 The committee concluded their report by offering a resolution, " That 
 it is expedient that the general government should continue to prosecute 
 internal improvements by direct appropriations of money, or by sub- 
 scriptions for stock in companies incorporated in the respective s-tates." 
 
 An act was passed at this session, " making additional appropriations 
 for the improvement of certain harbors, and removing obstructions in 
 the mouths of certain rivers," by large majorities : in the house by a 
 vote of 136 to 53 ; in the senate, 28 to 6. An act was also passed, 
 " for carrying on certain roads and works of internal improvement, and 
 for providing for surveys," by large majorities. Whether the president 
 regarded these bills as free from the objections to which former bills 
 were liable ; or whether he believed it the duty of the executive to yield 
 to so decisive an expression of the wishes of the people through their 
 representatives, we are not informed. 
 
 At the session of 1 829-30, an act for the more effectual collection ot 
 impost duties, was passed. It was shown by Mr. Mallary, that enor- 
 mous frauds upon the revenue had been committed, by means of false 
 invoices and sample packages, and by various other expedients. It was 
 estimated, that the treasury had been defrauded for the last ten years, 
 to the amount of $3,000,000 annually. Mr. M'Duffie, by way of 
 amendment, offered a bill, previously reported by himself as chairman 
 of the committee of ways and means, proposing an essential reduction 
 of duties on iron, hemp, wool, cotton, raw, and manufactured ; salt, 
 sugar, molasses, &c. He was in favor, he said, of enforcing the col- 
 lection of the revenue, even though he might object to the laws by wljich 
 it was levied. But in this case he would do it by diminishing the 
 duties, and thereby removing the inducements to evade them. Mr. 
 M'Duffie occupied the floor several days, discussing the policy of the 
 protecting system, and exhibiting what he deemed its pernicious effects 
 upon the country. 
 
510 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The amendment of Mr. M'D. was negatived; and the bill aftpj hav 
 ing been amended, became a law. Separate acts were passed ; one " to 
 reduce the duty on molasses, and to allow a drawback on spirits distilled 
 from foreign materials ;" another, " to reduce the duty on salt;" and 
 still another, " to reduce the duties on tea, coffee, and cocoa." It will 
 perhaps be recollected, that the duty on molasses was, in 1828, increased 
 from five to ten cents a gallon, against the wishes of the people of a 
 large portion of the northern and eastern states. It was alleged, at the 
 time, that the object of this proposed increase of duty on this and cer- 
 tain articles was to " weigh down the bill" of that year, by making it 
 objectionable to the friends of protection. This, with the additional 
 fact, that the duties on tea, coffee, &c., had been laid for revenue only, 
 was not now so much needed, doubtless facilitated the passage of these 
 laws. 
 
 CHAPTER XLI. 
 
 GEORGIA AND THE CHEROKEES. DEBATE ON THE "INDIAN BILL.'' 
 
 OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 The establishment, by the Indian tribes, of independent governments 
 within any of the states, with a view to a permanent location, and the 
 expediency of arresting such location, had been made the subject of 
 inquiry at the session of congress of 1827-8. It was referred to a com- 
 mittee, but no report was made: and the subject received no farther 
 attention during Mr, Adams' administration. The determination ex- 
 pressed in the message of Gen. Jackson, to suppress the attempts of the 
 Indians to establish and maintain governments of their own within the 
 states of Georgia and Alabama, and to effect their removal beyond the 
 Mississippi, or to permit their subjection to the sovereignty and legisla- 
 tion of those states, had been intimated almost immediately after the 
 new administration came into power. 
 
 A delegation of the Cherokees were officially informed, that the gov- 
 ernpient would sustain the states in exercising jurisdiction over the 
 Indians within their limits, and that their exemption from the operation 
 of the laws of those states was to be hoped for only by removal. In 
 August, 1829, a proposition was made by the general government 
 through Gov. Carroll, of Tennessee, to John Boss, principal chief of 
 the Cherokees, to meet commissioners to be appointed by the president 
 
OEORGIA AND THE CHEROKEES. 511 
 
 to discuss the subject of their removal. This proposition was deolinei 
 From the oft repeated declarations of the Indians, of their indisposition 
 to remove, it was well known that no offers could induce them to enter 
 into a treaty on the subject. 
 
 In December following, an act was passed by the legislature of Georgia, 
 annexing the different portions of their territory to the adjoining coun- 
 ties, extending over them the laws of the state, and annulling the laws 
 and regulations of the Indians ; the act to take effect the 1st of June, 
 1830. This act was followed by a memorial to congress, setting forth 
 their grievance in the following pathetic terms : 
 
 " We are told, if we do not leave the country, which we dearly love, 
 and betake ourselves to the western wilds, the laws of the state will be 
 extended over us; and the time, the 1st of June, 1830, is appointed for 
 the execution of the edict. When we first heard of this, we were 
 grieved, and appealed to our father, the president, and begged that pro- 
 tection might be extended over us. But we were doubly grieved when 
 we understood, from a letter of the secretary of war to our delegation, 
 dated March of the present year, that our father, the president, had 
 refused us protection, and that he had decided in favor of the exten- 
 sion of the laws of the state over us. This decision induces us to appeal 
 to the immediate representatives of the American people." 
 
 Against the claim of Georgia to the right of soil and of jurisdiction 
 over it, the memorial says : " When the white man came to the shores 
 of America, our ancestors were found in peaceable possession of this 
 very land. They bequeathed it to us as their children, and we havo 
 sacredly kept it as containing the remains of our beloved men. This 
 right of inheritance we have never ceded, nor qvqx forfeited. Permit ua 
 to ask, What better right can a people have to a country than the right 
 of inheritance, and immemorial peaceable possession ? We know it is 
 said of late by the state of Georgia, and by the executive of the United 
 States, that we have forfeited this right. At what time have we made 
 the forfeit ? Was it when we were hostile to the United States, and 
 took part with Great Britain, during the struggle for independence ? If 
 BO, why was not this forfeiture declared in the first treaty of peace 
 between the United States and our beloved men ? This was the proper 
 time to assume such a position. But it was not thought of; nor would 
 our forefathers have agreed to any treaty whose tendency was to deprive 
 them of their rights and their couDtry." 
 
 As another evidence of their right to the lands in question, they had 
 the failh and pledge of the United States, repeated over and ever again, 
 in treaties at various times, by which their rights as a separate people 
 had been distinctly acknowledged, and guaranties given that they should 
 
5iL2 '-'THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 be secured and protected. Yet it was asserted that they held their 
 lands only by a right of occupancy. They say : " In what light shall 
 we view the conduct of the United States and Greorgia, in their inter- 
 course with us, in urging us to enter into treaties and cede lands ? If 
 we were but tenants at will, why was it necessary that our consent must 
 be obtained before these governments could take lawful possession of our 
 lands ? * * * The undersigned memorialists humbly represent, 
 that if their interpretation of the treaties has been different from that 
 of the government, then they hxYo. ever been deceived as to how the 
 government regarded them, and what she asked and promised. 
 
 " In view of the strong ground upon which their rights are founded, 
 your memoralists solemnly protest against being considered mere tenants 
 at will, or as mere occupants of the soil, without possessing the sove- 
 reignty. We protest against being forced to leave it, either by direct or 
 indirect measures. To the land of which we are now in possession, we 
 are attached — it is our fathers' gift — it contains their ashes — it is the 
 land of our nativity, and the land of our intellectual birth. We do 
 moreover protest against the arbitrary measures of our neighbor, the 
 state of Georgia, in her attempt to extend her laws over us, in survey- 
 ing our lands without our consent, and in direct opposition to treaties 
 and the intercourse law of the United States, and interfering with our 
 municipal regulations so as to derange the regular operation of our own 
 laws. The existence and future happiness of your memorialists are at 
 stake : divest them of their liberty and country, and you sink them in 
 degradation, and put a check, if not a final stop, to their present pro- 
 gress in the arts of civilized life, and in the knowledge of the Christian 
 religion. Your memorialists can not anticipate such a result. Yon 
 represent a virtuous, intelligent, and Christian nation. To you they 
 willingly submit their cause for your righteous decision." 
 
 On the 29th of March, 1830, the attorney -general, Mr. Berrien, 
 having been applied to for his opinion in relation to the title of the lands 
 occupied by the Cherokees, communicated the same to the war depart- 
 ment. He maintained, on the authority of decisions of the supreme 
 court, that the right of the Indians to the lands in question, was one of 
 occupancy merely. The court had declared, that, by the treaty with 
 Q-reat Britain which concluded the revolution, the powers of government 
 »nd the rights to the soil which had been in Great Britain, passed 
 definitively to the states ; and that the United States, or the several 
 states, had a clear title to all lands within the boundary lines described 
 in the treaty, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy. 
 
 In confirmation of his opinion, he referred also to the treaties with 
 this tribe. In the first, which was concluded at Hopewell in 1785, they 
 
GEORGIA AND THE CHEROKEES. 513 
 
 were manifestly considered as a conquered people ; and the terms of that 
 instrument recognized the principle adverted to by the supreme court 
 in the case of Johnson and M'Intosh, " that a conqueror prescribes the 
 limits of the right of conquest : and that the limitations which humanity 
 imposes upon civilized nations can not be applied and enforced in rela- 
 tion to a savage tribe The treaty declares, that the United States 
 " give peace to all the Cherokees, and receive them into ih.Q favor and 
 protection of the United States of America, on the following cofidiiions.''^ 
 This language supposed that the tribe was no longer in an independent 
 state, in which it could stipulate for itself that there should be peace 
 between the United States and its people. It could receive peace only 
 as a boon — as the mere favor of the conqueror. They were required to 
 acknowledge themselves under the protection of thirf government, and to 
 abjure all other protection. Thus humbled before their conqueror, a 
 country had been assigned them in which they might dwell ; or, ab ex- 
 pressed by the treaty, " allotted to the Cherokees for their hunting 
 grounds.''^ No interest in the soil had been conferred; the fee remain- 
 ing in the state. Upon this principle, it was contended, all the subse- 
 quent treaties must be interpreted. 
 
 By a treaty made in 1817, the United States agree to exchange lands 
 with those Cherokees who wished to remove beyond the Mississippi 
 river, and to pay them for valuable improvements made on their lauds. 
 This treaty also provided, " that all those improvements, left by the 
 emigrants within the bounds of the Cherokee nation, east of the Missis- 
 sippi river, which add real value to the lands, and for which the 
 United States shall give a consideration, and not so exchanged, shall be 
 rented to the Indians, until surrendered to the nation or by the nation. ' 
 The attorney-general maintained, that the United States, in consideration 
 of these payments, became landholders in the Cherokee nation, within 
 the limits of those boundaries which were yet reserved to them as hunt- 
 ing grounds. The exchanges and leases made under this agreement, gave 
 to the parties exchanging and to the lessees the right of occupancy ; 
 which was the utmost to which the Indian title amounted ; and to this 
 title of occupancy, the United States had succeeded. 
 
 The title which the United States had thus acquired, they were bound 
 by the compact of 1 802, in which Georgia had ceded her western lands to 
 the United States, to transfer to that state : whatever right was acquired 
 by the United States, immediately inured to the benefit of Georgia, both 
 because they had no right without the consent of Georgia, to acquire 
 domain within the limits of that state, and because they had stipulated 
 to acquire this title for that state. The supreme court had, in the case 
 mentioned, decided that the United States or the several states, had n 
 
 33 
 
514 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 title to all the Indian lands within their boundaries : and in the case of" 
 Fletcher and Peck, they had declared, with regard to the lands in 
 Georgia occupied by the Indians, that the ultimate fee was in that state 
 Whether this right was to be exercised independently, or under the 
 supervision of the federal government, the attorney-general said, was a 
 question which would depend on the terms and validity of what was com- 
 monly called the Indian intercourse act. 
 
 A bill " to provide for an exchange of lands within any of the states 
 or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi," was 
 reported by the committee on Indian affairs of each house. The bill of 
 the senate, reported on the 22d of February, 1830, by Mr. White, of 
 Tennessee, was taken up in committee of the whole on the 6th of April, 
 and was debated until the 24th, when it was passed to the third read- 
 ing, 28 to 19. The principal speakers in favor of the bill, were, Mr. 
 White, who reported it, Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, and Mr. Adams, of 
 Mississippi ; and Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Mr. Sprague, of 
 Maine, and Mr. Robbins, of Rhode Island, in opposition. 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen moved an amendment to the bill, providing that, 
 until the Indians should choose to remove, they should be protected ia 
 their possessions and rights of government ; and that, before any ex 
 change of lands should be made, their rights in the premises should be 
 guarantied by treaty. And again at the close of the debate, he moved 
 a proviso that nothing contained in the bill should " be so construed as 
 to authorize the departure from, or non-observance of any treaty or agree- 
 ment now subsisting between the United States and the Cherokee 
 Indians." But these proposed amendments were all negatived. 
 
 As the removal of the Indians was a favorite measure of president 
 Jackson, and as his policy towards them was alleged to be a departure 
 from that which had been observed by all his predecessors, we consider 
 it due to a subject of so much importance, and to the parties to the con- 
 troversy, to subjoin a sketch of the principal arguments of some of th« 
 leading speakers who participated in the debate. 
 
 It ought, perhaps, to be here stated, that there was nothing in the 
 bill itself, which made the removal of the Indians compulsory. The 
 change of policy consisted in conceding to the states the right of soil, 
 and in subjecting the Indians to the government of the states. Pre- 
 suming that, if reduced to the alternative of submitting to the govern- 
 ment and laws of Georgia and Alabama, or of exchanging their lands, 
 they would choose the latter, the bill was intended to meet this con- 
 tingency. 
 
 Mr. White, who reported the bill, but of whose speech we have no 
 Full report, is said to have conceded that the faith of the United Statee 
 
DEBATE ON THE "INDIAN BILL." 515 
 
 had been repeatedly pledged to the Cherokees for their protection ; but 
 he contended that the general government ought not to perform its stipu- 
 lations against the earlier and conflicting claims of Georgia ; and that, if 
 it had made engagements with Georgia and the Indians, which could 
 not both be fulfilled, the prior engagement should be performed, and com- 
 pensation should be made for the breach of the other. 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen, in reply, alluded to the early recognition by the 
 government of the rights of the Indians under treaty stipulations. In 
 a coramunioation from Gen. Washington to the senate, August 22d, 
 /789, he submitted certain leading principles of policy which he thought 
 proper to pursue, and which were embodied in seven distinct interroga- 
 tories ; of which one was, " whether the United States should solemnly 
 guaranty to the Creeks their remaining territory, and maintain the same, 
 if necessary, by a line of military posts;" and which was answered in 
 the affirmative. And in August, 1790, in another communication to the 
 same body, he reminds them of the treaty with the Cherokees, at Hope- 
 well, in November, 1785, by which they had placed themselves xmder 
 the protection of the United States, and had a boundary assigned them. 
 Intrusions upon their lands having been made by the whites, some of 
 whom remained after having been enjoined to depart, the president an- 
 nounced his determination to exert his constitutional power in carrying 
 into execution the treaty of Hopewell, unless a new boundary should be 
 arranged, including the intrusive settlements, and compensating the 
 Cherokees for the territory ceded. A new bf'undary was arranged, and 
 solemnly guarantied by a new treaty. But this illustrious precedent of 
 Washington and his constitutional advisers was not regarded by the pre- 
 sent administration. Treaties were declared by the constitution to be 
 the supreme law of the land ; and the president and all other depart- 
 ments, officers and people, were bound by them. 
 
 Mr. P. maintained the political and civil rights of the Indians, first, 
 on the ground of immemorial possession, as the original tenants of the 
 soil; a title superior to that of the British crown, or any subsequent 
 claim. Where was the decree or ordinance that had stripped these first 
 lords of the soil ? How could even a shadow of a claim to soil or juris- 
 diction be derived by forming a collateral issue between Georgia and the 
 general government ? Her complaint was against the United States for 
 encroachments on her sovereignty. The Cherokees were no parties to 
 this issue ; they held by a better title than either Georgia or the union. 
 They had treated with us, it was true, not, however, to acquire title or 
 jurisdiction — these they had before ; but t^ secure protection and guar- 
 anty for subsisting powers and privileges. And we had, in all our inter- 
 course with them, recognized their title. All, ovir acquisitions of territory 
 
516 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 
 
 had been obtained by purchase and cession. We had also regarded them 
 as nations, and respected their forms of government. 
 
 Mr. F. traced our history in these connections. As early as 1763, 
 the king of Great Britain, in a proclamation issued to the American 
 colonies, recognized the right of the Indians under our protection, to the 
 undisturbed " possession of such parts of our territory as had not been 
 ceded to or purchased by us ;" and enjoined all persons who had •' either 
 wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon such lands," to remove 
 from them. In 1775, on the eve of the war, we had approached them as 
 independent nations having power to form alliances with or against us, 
 for the purpose of engaging the continuance of their friendship. Their 
 sovereignty had never been questioned by the illustrious statesmen of 
 that period. 
 
 After the revolution (1783,) congress resolved to treat with the tribes 
 of the middle and northern states who had taken up arms against us, 
 " for the purpose of receiving them into the favor and protection of the 
 United States, and of establishing boundary lines of property, &c., and 
 thereby extinguishing, as far as possible, all occasion for future animosi- 
 ties, disquiet and contention." Instead of the claims of conquest, the rights 
 of war, now so convenient to set up, congress accorded to these Indians 
 the character of foreign nations, tendered them our favor and protection, 
 and adopted measures to establish boundary lines of property between 
 our citizens, and their villages and hunting grounds. 
 
 In 1 785, was made the treaty of Hopewell, by which the Cherokeos 
 agreed to restore all prisoners, citizens of the United States, and sub- 
 jects of their allies, to their entire liberty ; and peace was to be given U 
 the Cherokees, and they were to be received under the protection of the 
 United States. Here, again, was a negotiation with the allies of our 
 enemy without any pretense to the rights of a conqueror. Their weak- 
 ness did not destroy their sovereignty. Vattel gave it as a rule of pub- 
 lic law, " that one community might be bound to another by a very 
 unequal alliance, and still be a sovereign state. Though a weak state, 
 in order to provide for its safety, should place itself under the protection 
 of a more powerful one ; yet, if it reserves +.o itself the right of govern- 
 ing its own body, it ought to be considered as an independent state." 
 Never had the southern Indians been disturbed in the enjoyment of this 
 right, until the late legislation by the states of Georgia, Alabama and 
 Mississippi. 
 
 This treaty also established territorial domains and forbade all intru- 
 sions upon them. A citizen of the United States remaining six months 
 on the Indian lands, forfeited the protection of the governmcQt, and 
 might be punished by the Indians. 
 
DEBATE ON THE "INDIAN BILL." 517 
 
 When, in 1787, Georgia and North Carolina, in their protests to con- 
 gress, asserted the right of states to treat with the Indian tribes, and to 
 obtain grants of their lands, the subject was referred to a committee, 
 who, in their report, argued conclusively, that, to yield such powers to 
 particular states, would not only be absurd in theory, but would in fact 
 destroy the whole system of Indian relations. After this, no more was 
 heard of state protests. 
 
 Mr. F. referred to the power of congress to " regulate commerce with 
 the Indian tribes," and to the treaty-making power ; in the exercise of 
 both of which was an implied recognition of them as foreign nations. 
 And the convention of framers, to compel us to be faithful in the ob- 
 servance of treaties, had provided that they should be the " supreme law 
 of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the 
 contrary notwithstanding." 
 
 The treaty of Holston was also adverted to, the preamble to which, 
 commences thus : " The parties being desirous of establishing perma- 
 nent peace and friendship between the United States and the Cherokee 
 nation, and to remove the causes of war, by ascertaining their limits, and 
 making other necessary, just, and friendly arrangements," &c., (the 
 parties being named, " with full powers for these purposes,") " have 
 agreed to the following articles," &c. Here again, all the forms of a 
 treaty with a distinct nation were observed. Georgia had done the 
 same herself, in 1777, where, with South Carolina, she met the Creeks 
 and Cherokees at Dewitt's Corner, for the purpose of making a treaty 
 with them ; the representatives of both parties appearing with full 
 powers." And as late as 1825, the governor of Georgia had issued a 
 proclamation, forbidding intrusions, by the citizens of that state, " upon 
 lands occupied by the Indians within its limits ;" and adds : " All good 
 citizens, therefore, pursuing the dictates of good faith, will unite in en- 
 forcing the obligations of the treaty as the supreme law," &c. — a treaty, 
 said Mr. F., with the very Indians now asserted by Georgia to be be- 
 low the reach of treaties. 
 
 The sentiments of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, were also cited 
 to sustain the position he had assumed ; but we have not room to pur- 
 sue the arguments of this speech. 
 
 Mr. Forsyth followed Mr. Frelinghuysen in a long and able reply. 
 He said, the first article of the treaty of Galphintou, of November, 1785, 
 from which the gentleman had himself quoted, was as follows : " The 
 said Indians, (the Creeks,) for themselves, and all the tribes or towna 
 within their respective nations, within the limits of the state of Georgia, 
 have been, and now are, members of the same, since the day and date 
 of the constitutiin of the said state of Georgia." He thought this artirle 
 
518 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 
 broad enough to snstain the claim of the state to sovereignty over the 
 Creeks. If they were members of the state, as they had acknowledged ^ 
 themselves, what had become of their separate and independent character 
 as a nation or tribe ? 
 
 The treaty of Dewitt's Corner, of May, 1 777, with South Carolina 
 and Georgia, settled the question with the Cherokees. The first article 
 was in these words : " The Cherokee nation acknowledged that the troops, 
 during the last summer, repeatedly defeated their forces, victoriously 
 penetrated through their lower towns, middle settlements, and valleys; 
 and quietly and unopposed, built, held, and continue to occupy, the fort 
 at Esenneca, thereby did effect and maintain the conquest of all the 
 Cherokee lands, east of the Unicaye mountain ; and to and for their 
 people did acquire, possess, and yet continue to hold, in and over the 
 said lands, all and singular, the rights incidental to conquest; and 
 the Cherokee nation, in consequence thereof, do cede the said lands to 
 the said people, the people of South Carolina." The Cherokees admit- 
 ted the right of South Carolina, by conquest, to all the land in the. 
 valley below the Unicaye mountains, which were in Tennessee, beyond 
 the territorial claims of South Carolina and Georgia; and no subse- 
 quent change in the political condition of the United States, could be 
 used as a pretext for denying to Georgia the claim to sovereignty over 
 the Cherokees within her limits. 
 
 The treaty of Hopewell, beginning with the words, " The United 
 States give peace to all the Cherokees, and receive them into their favor 
 and protection," surrendei-ed to congress the power of legislating for 
 them at discretion, thus : " For the benefit and comfort of the Indians, 
 and for the prevention of injuries or oppressions on the part of the 
 citizens or Indians, the United States, in congress assembled, shall have 
 the sole and exclusive right of regulating trade with the Indians, and 
 managing all their affairs in such manner as they shall think proper." 
 This treaty, with its burthens and benefits, fell to the new government 
 when it was established under the constitution. It might b« said that, 
 because the United States had sovereignty over the Cherokees, it did 
 not fjllow that Georgia had it. But the power of legislation over the 
 Cheiokees acquired by the United States, had been transferred to 
 Georgia by the compact of 1802, Georgia ceded to the United States 
 all her right to the jurisdiction and soil of the lands lying west of the 
 Chattahoochie, as far as Mississippi, &c. ; and the United States ceded 
 to the state of Georgia whatever claim, right, or title they might have 
 to the jurisdiction and soil of any lands, lying within the United States, 
 east of the eastern boundary of the territory ceded by Georgia to the 
 United States, and south of the states of Tennessee, North Carolina, and 
 
DEBATE ON THE "INDIAN BILL." 519 
 
 South Carolina. If gentlemen found fault with this transfer of power 
 to Georgia, the justice of it must be settled by the United States and 
 the Cherokees. Mr. F. thought it strange that the gentleman from New 
 Jersey, when he quoted from these same treaties, had not seen the pro,- 
 yisions to which he had directed his attention. 
 
 Mr. Eorsyth said he was willing to meet the gentleman on the con- 
 struction of these treaties ; and invited him to present distinct resolu- 
 tions, affirming that the Indians were independent, beyond the control 
 of the states ; that the fee simple of the land they occupied was theirs ; 
 that neither the general government nor the states could regulate their 
 affairs ; that treaties could only be made with them by the United States. 
 The legislation of the states and of the United States, the judicial de- 
 cisions of both the federal and state tribunals, all proved these positions 
 untenable. Georgia, in exercising jurisdiction over the Indians within 
 her territory, only followed the example of the New England states, 
 New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland; 
 and while the latter escaped censure, the former had drawn upon her- 
 self torrents of invective and reproach. This was to be attributed to 
 the missionaries and their friends and patrons; to the few half-breedw 
 and white men in whose hands is the Cherokee government, and who 
 regulate the affairs and control all the funds of the tribe, and conduct 
 a press supported by these funds. Another powerful agent was the 
 delegation which the Cherokee government had at Washington, to de 
 fend the independence of the tribe. And knowing the value of money, 
 the council had authorized the delegates to pay out of the treasury for 
 any aid or advice they might wish to obtain. 
 
 The senator from New Jersey had asked, why Georgia had acquiesced 
 in the exercise of the treaty-making power by the federal government. 
 Georgia, having imposed upon the United States the obligation to ex- 
 tinguish the Indian title, did not consider herself authorized to intcsrfere 
 in the manner in which that obligation was performed. After a lapse 
 of twenty-eight years,, a large territory still remained unoccupied by the 
 Indians : and was it surprising that the Georgians should inquire why 
 it was that this compact had not been fully and faithfully executed ? 
 
 Mr. F. complained of the acts of the general goyernment. Treaties 
 had been made by Georgia with the Indians before the adoption of the 
 constitution. Their validity having been disputed, Gen, Washington, 
 the first president, asked the advice of the senate on these points : Should 
 an inquiry be made into the circumstances under which these treaties 
 were held ? If fairly held, should they be enforced by the union ? If 
 not valid, should they be made the bases of new arrangements with the 
 southern tribes ? These inquiries were answered in the affirmative 
 
620 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Invostigation was made ; the commissioners of the United States reported 
 that these compacts had beon made with the usual formalities and fair- 
 iics of Indian treaties. But they were not enforced ; an arrangement 
 was preferred ; and territory previously surrendered to the state by the 
 Indians, was restored to them as hunting grounds : and the intercourse 
 act of 1790 was passed to enforce this violation of state sovereignty. 
 Georgia came here to protest against this new treaty, and against the 
 law of 1790, as equally repugnant to her claims and to the constiti tion 
 of the United States. 
 
 In 1817, through the agency of Gen. Jackson, a contract was rnade 
 with the Gherokees, providing for their removal from Georgia ; a con- 
 tract made at their instance, and for the accommodation of that portion 
 of them who occupied the lower towns, lying in Georgia, and desired to 
 remove to the west to continue the hunter's life ; those of the upper 
 towns, lying out of Georgia, wishing to remain where they were. The 
 contract was but partially executed ; the interests of Georgia were sacri- 
 ficed to the policy of the federal government. The Cherokees who 
 wished to remain, threw obstacles in the way of emigration. Without appa- 
 rent reasonable cause the contract of 1817 was abandoned, and that of 
 1819 substituted. The Cherokees remained ; and the idea was held out to 
 the tribe of a permanent residence, with a view to their civilization. 
 This new arrangement led to the belief that Mr. Monroe's administra- 
 tion was not disposed to act fairly towards the state. 
 
 Mr. P. said he had been surprised to hear the senator from Nev/ 
 Jersey quote from the royal proclamation of 1763, to prove that Great 
 Britain had never asserted the right to legislate for the savages, or to 
 appropriate their lands without a previous purchase. It asserted, 1st. 
 The sovereignty and dominion of Great Britain over the Indians and 
 Indian territory ; 2d. That the Indians were, as subjects, under the 
 protection of the crown ; 3d. That the right to appropriate the laud oc- 
 cupied by them resided in the crown. It contained grants to the whites, 
 and reservations to the Indians as hunting grounds. The laws and 
 usages of the colonies threw additional light on the subject. In war, 
 the Indians had not been treated as a civilized enemy. The males had 
 been put to death on the principle of retaliation ; and the women and 
 children sold into slavei'y for the benefit of the captors. In some statefi, 
 rewards had been offered for captives, and dogs had been trained for 
 pursuing Indian rebels. 
 
 On the declaration of independence, the authority previously exer 
 cised by Great Britain was assumed by the states, respectively withiu 
 their limits. In the war, the Indians were the allies of Great Britain, 
 and wei-e conquered. The right of sovereignty and domain which we 
 
DEBATE ON THE " INDIAN BILL.' 521 
 
 had act^uired, covered the claim of legislation over them, and of title to 
 the land they occupied. Our independence was acknowledged ; and tha 
 treaty of peace was formed with the confederation ; and there waa 
 nothing in the articles of the confederation which deprived the individ- 
 ual states of any portion of their sovereignty over Indians or Indian 
 lands. 
 
 Mr. Sprague said, that we had with the Cherokees not less than fif- 
 teen treaties. The first was made in 1785, and the last in 1819. By 
 several of them, we have guarantied to the Cherokees, 1st. Their sepa- 
 rate existence as a political community ; 2d. Undisturbed possession 
 and full enjoyment of their lands within certain defined boundaries ; 
 3d. The protection of the United States against all interference with 
 or encroachments upon their rights by any people, state, or nation. 
 For these promises on our part, we received ample consideration, by 
 the restoration and establishing of peace ; by large cessions of territory ; 
 by the promise, on their" part, to treat with no other state or nation ; 
 and other important concessions. The treaties had be'en made with all 
 the forms and solemnities necessary to make them binding. The Che- 
 rokees now come to us and say, that their rights are threatened by 
 Georgia and Alabama, and ask for the promised protection. 
 
 The treaty of Dewitt's Corner had been cited, by which the Chero- 
 kees had acknowledged that a portion of their country had been con- 
 quered ; and the same had been ceded to South Carolina. It had not 
 been, for at least one generation, claimed or occupied by the Indians. 
 What right, he asked, could this confer on Georgia to lands now owned 
 and possessed by the Cherokees ? This right had also been claimed on 
 the ground of the transfer, by the United States, of all their power and 
 claims under the treaty of Hopewell, to Georgia, by the compact of 
 1802. But did this relinquishment of the right of the United States 
 to the soil and jurisdiction to the lands, purport to transfer a preexist- 
 iDg treaty with the Indians ? If it had been even so intended, it could 
 not have been transferred. A guardian could not transfer his rights 
 and duties at pleasure. By the constitution, Georgia had given to the 
 United States the right to legislate in certain cases over her citizens for 
 their benefit ; for example, to organize, arm, discipline, and call forth 
 her militia. Could the United States transfer this right to South Caro- 
 lina ? This right was required to be exercised by the United States 
 "z?4 congress assembled.'''' Could we, without the consent of the other 
 party, strike out these words, and insert, the legislature of Georgia ? 
 Again ; to see that this power was properly exercised, the treaty gave 
 the Cherokees " the right to send a deputy of their choice, whenever 
 they think fit, to congress.'''' Should he come here to watch over tho 
 legislation at Milledgeville ? 
 
522 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 But, though this power were transferable, it must be subject to the 
 restrictious aud limitations expressed in the treaty; among which were 
 these: 1st. That the Cherokees should continue to exist as a distinct 
 political community, under the protection of the United States ; 2d. 
 That they should enjoy the undisturbed possession of their lands ; 3d. 
 That the power to manage " their aflfairs" should be exercised " for the 
 benefit and comfort of the Indians ; and for the prevention of injuries 
 and oppressions." But this did not give even the United States the 
 right to drive them from their lands, or to strike the nation out of 
 existence ; and, instead of managing their affairs for their benefit, to 
 annihilate them as a body politic. 
 
 The gentleman had passed over in silence a most important event, the 
 treaty of Holston, made in 1791, by which the United States had again 
 promised to protect the Cherokees in their rights as a nation, in the 
 following language : " The United States solemnly guaranty to the 
 Cherokee nation all their lands not hereby ceded." If any right had 
 been transferred to Georgia, it was such only as existed at the time, and 
 subject, of course, to the stipulations of the preexisting treaty. We 
 were bound to see our treaties fulfilled. The Indians had inquired of 
 us whether we would perform our promise of protection. Should we 
 say we had conveyed that promise to another — to Georgia ? Would 
 they not reply, that they had purchased our guaranty, and the protec- 
 tion of our strong arm, for the very purpose of securing them against 
 the encroachment of their white neighbors in that state ? 
 
 As to the compact of 1802, between the United States and Georgia, 
 the Cherokees not being parties to it, it could not impair their rights, 
 nor confer upon others any claim against them. Besides, the compact 
 expressly recognized the Indian title; and the United States agreed to 
 extinguish it only when it could be done " peaceably " and on " reason- 
 able terms." 
 
 It had also been argued, that, before the revolution. Great Britaiu 
 had had jurisdiction over the aborigines, and the sole right of treating 
 with them, aud that this power had been wrested from her by conquest 
 during the war, and forever abandoned by the treaty of peace in 1783. 
 If it had been obtained by conquest, it must have belonged to the con- 
 querors. And who were the conquerors ? The United States, who wero 
 also a party to the treaty of peace. It was upon this ground that New 
 Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and other states so strongly insisted that 
 the crown lands, which had been acquired by the common arm, and at 
 the common expense, belonged of right to the common fund. They suo- 
 eeeded in their demand. The several states having such lands succea- 
 aively ceded them to the general government, Virginia taking the lead. 
 
DEBATE CN THE '' INDIAN BILL." 523" 
 
 Mr. S. also combated the pretension of Georgia, that, on becoming 
 independent, in 1776, she had succeeded to the right which Great Brit- 
 ain had acquired by discovery. Discovery, he said, conferred no claim 
 or Tight against the natives — the persons discovered — but only against 
 future discoverers. It was said, that the rights derived from 
 this source had been established and defined in Europe, upon the 
 first discovery of this country. True ; but it was by the mutual under- 
 standing and agreement of the nations cf that continent only, in order 
 to regulate their conduct among themselves. The sovereign who should 
 find a country, theretofore unknown, should have the exclusive right to 
 the benefits of the discovery, and to conduct toward the aboriginal inhab- 
 itants according to his conscience and ability. 
 
 The advocates of the bill had alleged, that the word treaty, in the 
 constitution, did not mean a compact or contract with the Indian tribes. 
 Mr. S. referred to a large number of instances to show that contracts 
 with the Indians by Great Britian, from the first settlement of the 
 country, as well as those made since, under the confederation and the 
 constitution, had been called treaties. He had counted no less than one 
 hundred and twenty -four Indian treaties^ formed under the present con- 
 stitution. 
 
 The following extracts from a speech of Gen. Washington to the 
 Seneca Indians, in 1790, which were read by Mr. S., would show both 
 the meaning of the word treaty, and the binding force of the contract to 
 which it was applied, as understood by Washington. 
 
 " I, the president of the United States, by my own mouth, and by a 
 written speech signed with my own hand, and sealed with the seal of the 
 United States, speak to the Seneca nation. 
 
 " The general government only has the power to treat with the In- 
 dian nations, and any treaty formed without its authority, will not be 
 binding. 
 
 " Here, then, is the security for the remainder of your landfs. No 
 state nor person can purchase your lands, unless at some public treaty 
 held under the authority of the United States. The general government 
 will never consent to your being defrauded ; but it will protect you in all 
 your just rights. 
 
 " But your great object seems to be the security of your remaining 
 lands ; and I have, therefore, upon this point, meant to be sufficiently 
 strong and clear. 
 
 " In future you can not be defrauded of your lands. You possess the 
 right to sell, and the right of refusing to sell your lands. The United 
 States must be present when you sell, and will be your security that you 
 flhall not be defrauded in the bargain you shall make. 
 
524 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 " You now know, that all the lands seoared to you by the treaty of Fort 
 Stanwix, excepting such parts as you may since have fairly sold, are 
 yours, and that only your own acts can convey them away. Speak, there- 
 fore, your wishes on the subject of tilling the ground. The United States 
 will be happy to afford you every assistance in the only business which 
 will add to your numbers and happiness. 
 
 " The United States will be true and faithful to their engagements." 
 
 Reference was made to the language as well as the acts of the authori- 
 ties and representatives of the states upon which it was asserted these 
 treaties wore not obligatory, to show that they had themselves considered 
 them binding. 
 
 The bill passed by the senate, was taken up in the house, and committed 
 to the committee of the whole, on the 26th of April, 1830. The debate 
 commenced on the 13th of May, and closed on the 26th. Speeches in 
 favor of the bill were made by Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, chairman of the 
 committee on Indian affairs, and Messrs. Lumpkin, Foster, Wilde, La- 
 mar, and Wayne, all of Georgia ; against it, by Messrs. Storrs, of New 
 York, Ellsworth and Huntington, of Connecticut, Evans, of Maine, 
 Johns, of Delaware, Bates and Everett, of Massachusetts, and Test, of 
 Indiana. In the house, as well as in the senate, the speeches were mainly 
 argumentative ; some of them, however, containing fine specimens of 
 eloquence. 
 
 The vote on the passage of the bill, was 103 in favor of, and 97 against 
 it. It had received some amendments in the house, which were concur- 
 red in by the senate. 
 
 The act appropriated $500,000 for carrying its provisions into effect. 
 It provided for an exchange of lands ; those to which they should 
 remove, to be guarantied to the Indians ; but if the Indians should be- 
 ' come extinct, or should abandon the lands, they were to revert to the 
 United States. The Indians were to be paid for the improvements on 
 che lands they occupied ; to be assisted in their removal ; and to be sup- 
 orted for a year thereafter. 
 
 A treaty with the Choctaw Indians was concluded on the 27th of Sep- 
 tember, 1830, by the secretary of war and Gen. Coffee. The Indians 
 ceded their lands, and agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi, within 
 three years. Those who chose to remain, as citizens of Georgia, were to 
 have reservations of land for their use, and after residing upon them for 
 five years, were to possess them in fee. The country was to be surveyed 
 as soon as the government pleased, but no sale made previous to their 
 removal; and intruders were to be kept out. The government was also 
 to use its good iffices with tbe state of Mississippi to suspend the opera- 
 tion of her laws, and with Alabama not to extend her laws into the na* 
 
THE CHEROKEES APPEAL. S20 
 
 tion. Thoy were to be governed in their western residence bj laws of 
 their own, which, however, were not to be inconsistent with those of the 
 United States. 
 
 The Cherokees adhered to their determination not to emigrate, and on 
 the 1st of June, 1830, they found themselves under the operation of the 
 laws of Georgia. Qn the 1 1th of September, the Cherokee Phoenix, (the 
 Indian paper,) contained the proceedings of a meeting of Cherokees, to 
 which was appended a very pathetic appeal to the citizens of the United 
 States, complaining of the infringements upon their rights by the state of 
 Georgia, and of the withdrawal of the protection of the government, on 
 the part of the executive. However variant may have been the opinions 
 of the people in regard to the rights of the Indians, there could scarcely 
 have been a difference of feeling on the perusal of their appeal, a fe^ 
 paragraphs of which we copy : 
 
 " People of America, where shall we look ? Republicans, we appeal 
 to you. Christians, we appeal to you. We need the exertion of your 
 strong arm. We need the utterance of your commanding voice. We 
 need the aid of your prevailing prayers. In times past, your compas- 
 sions yearned over our moral desolations, and the misery which was 
 spreading amongst us, through the failure of game, our ancient resource. 
 The cry of our wretchedness reached your hearts ; you supplied us with 
 the implements of husbandry and domestic industry, which enabled us 
 to provide food and clothing for ourselves. You sent us instruction in 
 letters and the true religion, which has chased away much of our mental 
 and moral darkness. 
 
 " Your ^ise president Jefferson took much pains ^o instruct us in the 
 science of civilized government, and recommended the government of the 
 United States and of the several states, as models for our imitation. He 
 urged us to industry and the acquisition of property. His letter was 
 read in our towns ; and we received it as the counsel of a friend. We 
 commenced farming. We commenced improving our government ; and, 
 by gradual advances, we have attained our present station. But our ven- 
 erable father Jefferson never intimated that, whenever we should arrive 
 at a certain point in the science of government, and the knowledge of 
 the civilized arts, then our rights should be forfeited ; our treaties be- 
 come obsolete ; the protection guarantied by them withdrawn ; our pro 
 perty confiscated to lawless banditti, and our necks placed under the foo 
 Df Georgia. 
 
 " It has been frequently asserted, that we are willing, and even desi- 
 rous to go on to the west. We assure our friends that it is not so. We 
 love our homes ; we love our families ; we love to dwell by our fathers' 
 graves. We love to think that this land is our great Creator's gift to 
 
526 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 them ; that he has permitted us to enjoy it after them ; and that our ofl- 
 Spring are preparing to succeed us in the inheritance. This land is our 
 last refuge ; and it is our own. Our title to it has no defect but the in- 
 feriority of our physical force ; and this defect is amply supplied by our 
 compacts with the powerful and magnanimous government of the United 
 States. * * * Much has been done against us. Promises, threats, and 
 stratagems, have been employed. But we are still unshaken in our at- 
 tachment to the land of our birth ; and we do solemnly protest against 
 the exercise of oppressive measures to effect our removal." 
 
 They had been ordered by the commanding officer of the United 
 States troops to desist from digging for goH. In a letter of reply, they 
 said : " The Gherokees respect the government and its officer ; but so 
 firmly convinced are they of their rights and their privileges, that they 
 are still disposed to continue their mining operations, and are perfectly 
 resigned to such fate as the consequence of their honest labor upon their 
 own lands may consign them to, under the laws of the United States." 
 
 In October, Gov. Gilmer, of Georgia, in a letter to the president, re- 
 quested him to withdraw from the Indian territory the United States' 
 troops that had been sent there to enforce the non-intercourse law within 
 the limits of the state, as it was " considered inconsistent with the rights 
 of jurisdiction now exercised by its authorities." Before the letter 
 reached the president, in view of the approach of winter, the troops bad 
 been ordered to retire into winter quarters ; of which the governor was 
 officially informed. 
 
 Having failed in their appeals to the government for protection, the 
 Cherokees took measures to have their case submitted to the supreme 
 court of the United States. In June, 1830, Mr. Wirt addressed a let- 
 ter to Gov. Gilmer, informing him that he had been professionally con- 
 sulted by the Cherokees as to their rights under their treaties with the 
 United States, and suggested that a decision might be expedited, by 
 making a case, by consent, before the supreme court. This the governor 
 declined. In his reply, he ascribed the unwillingness of the remaining 
 Cherokees to join those of the tribe who had removed, to an 'improper 
 interference on the part of their friends, by whom they had been per- 
 suaded that the right of self-government could be secured to them by the 
 supreme court. He said : " So long as the Cherokees retained their 
 primitive habits, no disposition was shown by the states under the pro- 
 tection of whose government they resided, to make them subject to their 
 laws. Such policy would have been cruel ; because it would have inter- 
 fered with their habits of life, and the enjoyments peculiar to Indian 
 people." He ascribed the change in their condition to the power of th« 
 whites among them; and it was this state of things that had 
 
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 527 
 
 rendered it obligatory upon Georgia to vindicate her Hovereignty by 
 abolishing the Cherokee government.. "No one," said he, "knows 
 better than yourself, that the governor would grossly violate his duty, 
 and exceed his authority, by complying with such a suggestion, (that of 
 making up an " agreed case" before the court,) and that both the letter 
 and the spirit of the powers conferred by the constitution upon the 
 supreme court, forbid its adjudging such a case." 
 
 George Tassels, an Indian, having committed a homicide in resisting 
 the execution of the laws of Georgia, was tried, convicted of murder, 
 and sentenced to be hanged. Before the day fixed for the execution of 
 the sentence, the state of Georgia, pursuant to a writ of error obtained 
 from the supreme court of the United States dated the 12th of Decem- 
 ber, was cited to appear in January, and show cause why judgment 
 against Tassels should not be corrected. The governor communicated 
 the fact to the house of representatives, and the subject was referred to 
 a committee, who reported resolutions, declaring the interference of the 
 chief-justice in the administration of the criminal laws of Georgia to be 
 a flagrant violation of her rights ; enjoining all state ofiicers to disregard 
 all such mandates of the court ; requiring the governor, by all force and 
 means at his command, to resist and repel all invasions upon the admin- 
 istration of the laws ; refusing to become a party to the case ; and au- 
 thorizing the governor to order the sheriff to secure the execution of 
 Tassels, which was accordingly done. 
 
 In March following, (1831,) a motion was made in the supreme court 
 in the name of the Cherokee nation, praying for a process of siibpcena 
 against the state of Georgia, and for an injunction to restrain the state 
 from executing her laws within the Cherokee territory, on the ground 
 that the execution of such laws in the Indian territory was repugnant to 
 the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. The question 
 was most ably argued by John Sergeant and "William Wirt, in favor of 
 the motion. The opinion of the court was adverse to the application; 
 the court disclaiming jurisdiction in the case, on the ground that the Cher- 
 okee nation was not 2, foreign nation in the sense of the constitution. 
 
 The court admitted the character of the Cherokees to be that of a 
 state, a distinct political society, capable of managing its own affairs, 
 and governing itself, of maintaining the relations of peace and war; of 
 being responsible for any violation of their engagements ; or for any 
 aggressions committed on citizens of the United States. They had been 
 uniformly so recognized by our treaties with them and by our laws. The 
 counsel had shown that they were not a state of the union, and had 
 insisted that they were individually aliens, not owing allegiance to the 
 United States ; and that an aggregate ef aliens must be a foreign state 
 
528 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN-. 
 
 But the court, though it conceded to the Indian tribes the attributes of 
 a foreign nation, decided that they were not so recognized by the con- 
 stitution ; but were to be considered as domestic, dependent nations, in 
 a state of pupilage to the general government, and holding their terri- 
 tory by right of occupancy. [A decision of the court as to the rights 
 of the Indians was subsequently given in a case of acknowledged juris- 
 diction, which will be found in a succeeding chapter.] 
 
 CHAPTER XLII. 
 
 WEST INDIA TRADE. MR. m'laNe's ARRANGEMENT. JOHN RANDOLPHS 
 
 RflSSION TO RUSSIA. 
 
 The history, in a preceding chapter, of our protracted difficulties with 
 Great Britain in regulating the colonial trade, was brought down to the 
 year 1826, and left us in possession of the trade with her West India 
 colonies through the Danish, Swedish, and other neutral islands [See 
 "West India Trade.] It has been observed, that the loss of the direct 
 trade with the British islands, to the great injury of the people of the 
 United States, was charged upon the preceding administration ; that they 
 had neglected to accept, as ajonViYeo'e, advantages which they had persisted 
 in claiming as a W^/ii / and that they might have obtained them by 
 legislation, had they not relied too much on negotiation. It was to be 
 expected, therefore, that the new administration would spare no effort 
 to retrieve what had been lost by their predecessors. In this the public 
 expectation was not disappointed. 
 
 Mr. M'Lane, the new minister to England, received special instruc 
 tions in relation to the conduct of the negotiation on this " vexed ques- 
 tion " of British colonial trade. He was directed to represent, that the 
 American people, in effecting a change of administration, had testified 
 their disapproval of the acts of the late administration, and that the 
 claims set up by them which had caused the interruption of the trade 
 in question, would not be urged : that is to say, that what had been 
 injudiciously asked as a right, we were willing to receive as a boon ; and 
 that the present administration should not be held responsible for the 
 errors of their predecessors. 
 
 In the summer of 1830, an arrangement was effected, similar to that 
 proposed by the act of parliament of July, 1825. Congress, at the last 
 
WEST INDIA TRADE. 529 
 
 Besaion, in anticipation of some arrangement, or perhaps with a view of 
 facilitating one, passed an act providing that, whenever the president 
 should have evidence that Great Britain would open the ports of her 
 \¥est India and other American colonial possessions, to the vessels of 
 the United States and their cargoes, on equal terms with her own coming 
 from the United States, and would permit our vessels to export from 
 her colonies to any country except the British dominions, on the same 
 terms as British vessels; then the president was to announce the fact by 
 proclamation ; whereupon the ports of the United States were to be 
 opened to British vessels from the colonies on the same terms as our own. 
 And the order in council of the 27th of July, 1825, so abruptly issued 
 on the arrival of Mr. Gallatin, was to be abolished. The proclamation 
 was accordingly issued on the 5th of October, 1830. 
 
 It was but natural that there should be great exultation on the part 
 of the administration presses, on the consummation of an arrangement 
 which had, as they said, baffled the diplomacy of our government for 
 forty years. The recovery, " by the honest, high-minded, and straight 
 forward administration of Andrew Jackson," of an unrestricted com- 
 merce, temporarily enjoyed under the act of parliament of July, 1825, 
 but "unwittingly and criminally thrown away by the blundering negoti- 
 ation " of the preceding administration, was every where hailed as a most 
 important and honorable achievement. Whether to mitigate the mortifica- 
 tion caused by the triumph of the administration, or as the expression 
 of an honest conviction, the opposition declared not only that the trade 
 had not been lost, but that nothing had been gained by the arrangement. 
 Our products. were admitted into the neutral islands, and thence trans- 
 shipped to the British islands; and the additional cost of this circuitous 
 transportation, had fallen upon the British consumers. Under the new 
 arrangement, our navigation, which had enjoyed the carrjdng trade, 
 would be diminished by the competition of the British shipping, for 
 which loss no equivalent would be received. 
 
 Great Britain was not tardy in counteracting any advantages which 
 the United States expected from a reciprocal trade. Produce coming 
 into her West India ports directly from the United States, was subjected 
 to exorbitant duties, but was admitted into the Canadian proviueea 
 and thence shipped to her West India islands in British vessels, free of 
 duty, to the exclusion of American shipping. Also, the flour manufac- 
 tured in Canada from American wheat, was considered as having 
 changed its character, and was admitted free into England, as colonial 
 produce. The duty, for example, on a barrel of flour from the United 
 States into the British West India colonies,, was 65., or $1 33 ; but from 
 the North American co.lanies, (the Canadas,) no duty was charged. On 
 
 34 
 
530 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 1 ,000 feet of inch thick lumber, $7 ; from the British colonies free. 
 And to evade tke payment of duty even upon the produce conveyed in 
 British vessels from our ports to the West India colonies, the same was 
 first taken to the Canadian ports, and thence carried, as British produce 
 to the islands without being subject to the duty paid by our vessels. 
 
 A British paper remarked on this subject as follows : " The mos*' 
 important point secured by this new arrangement, is the carrying trade. 
 British vessels may now proceed from any part of His Majesty's 
 dominions, direct to the United States ; there load a full cargo either 
 for the West Indies direct, or by way of the provinces, as the nature 
 of the cargo may invite, thus completing the whole voyage, a portion 
 of which only American vessels would be eligible to perform." Another 
 said, tauntingly : " Jonathan, after all, will not find the great boon 
 so good a thing as he expected, under the existing restrictions." And 
 another : " We only allow their vessels to bring to our ports the pro- 
 duce and manufactures of the United States : they make their ports 
 free to our commerce in every sense of the word." 
 
 The effect of the new arrangement upon our tonnage, appeared from 
 the oflScial statements of the treasury for 1830 and 1831. American 
 tonnage entering the ports of the United States during the year ending 
 September 30th, 1830, from the British West Indies, was 22,428 tons- 
 from the British American colonies, 130,527 tons: total, 152,955. 
 In 1831, from the former, 38,046 tons; from the latter, 92,672: 
 total, 130,718. Decrease of American tonnage, 22,428. British 
 tonnage, entering our ports in 1830, from British West Indies, 182 
 tons; from British American colonies, 4,002 tons: total, 4,184. In 
 1831, from the former, 23,760 tons; from the latter, 82,557: total, 
 106,317. Increase, 102,133. 
 
 Essential benefit, however, was derived by the states bordering on 
 the Canadas, from the admission of American produce into the Canadian 
 ports, free, without any adverse effect, except some diminution of the 
 revenues of the Erie canal, caused by the diversion of produce to the 
 Canadian market. 
 
 'In 1830, John Randolph was appointed minister to Russia, as suc- 
 cessor to Mr. Henry Middleton, who had been appointed by Mr. Mon- 
 roe, in 1820. At the session of 1830-31, the appropriation bill being 
 under consideration, Mr. Stanbery, of Ohio, moved to strike out the 
 appropriation for the salary of the minister to Russia for that year. 
 Mr. R. had been but nine days at St. Petersburgh, when he was com- 
 pelled, by ill health, to leave that rigorous climate ; and he was then 
 supposed to be residing in England or France. The mover advocated 
 his motion on the principles which brought Gen. Jackson into office, 
 
JOHN Randolph's mission to Russia. 531 
 
 and alluded to the clamor during the preceding administration about 
 the profligate expenditure of the public money and constructive jour- 
 neys. A change of administration had been urged to correct these 
 abuses. Perhaps a more substantial objection was that urged by Mr. 
 Burges — the character and terms of the mission. Mr. Randolph, 
 though possessing talents of a peculiar kind, was not generally sup- 
 posed to be well fitted for a diplomatic office. His health was known 
 to be insufficient ; and he was authorized to leave Russia, if the state 
 of his health should require it. 
 
 Mr. Randolph was noted for his eccentricities. His conduct at St. 
 Petersburgh was represented to have been such as to excite suspicions 
 of insanity. His singular deportment and strange appearance, on being 
 presented to the emperor and empress, were said to have thrown the 
 latter and her attendants into a fit of laughter. He was said also to 
 have shown his private papers — his correspondence with the president 
 and secretary of state — urging him to accept the appointment. On his 
 departure, he left the affairs of the United States in the charge of John 
 Randolph Clay, his secretary of legation, who was said to be a minor, 
 about 20 years of age. 
 
 Mr. Archer opposed the motion of Mr. Stanbery. If it should be 
 adopted, not only would the professed object, the recall of the present 
 minister, be effected ; the mission to the Russian court would be 
 entirely interdicted : for, without an appropriation, no minister could 
 be maintained. The debate upon this comparatively unimportant 
 question continued several weeks, no doubt to the injury of other pub 
 lie business, when, as was expected, the motion was lost. 
 
 An inquiry into the condition and management of the post-office 
 department was authorized in the senate, and resulted in the discovery 
 of transactions which reflected discredit upon the administration of that 
 department. Mr. Grundy offered a resolution prohibiting the commit- 
 tee from calling, as witnesses, persons removed from office by the 
 department, to testify as to the causes of their removal. This resolu- 
 tion, after considerable debate, and some modification, was adopted. 
 
 On the 3d of March, Mr. Clayton, from the select committee on thi.i 
 dubject, made a report ; from which it appeared certain additional 
 allowances, without warrant of law, had been made to contractors by 
 the department, and erroneously entered on the books as having been 
 made by Abraham Bradley, senior assistant postmaster-general, who 
 acted as postmaster-general for a few days after Mr. M'Lean left the 
 office, and before its duties were assumed by Mr. Barry. 
 
 A call had been made at the preceding session for copies of contracts 
 made by the postniast(>.r-general or his predecessor, upon which extra 
 
532 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 allowances had been made; but no answer had been received until 
 some time in February of the present session, after the long delay had 
 been complained of as evidence of a design to baffle inquiry into the 
 concerns of the department. It appeared, that, in thirty-six cases, 
 some of them gross violations of law, the allowances were falsely set 
 down as having been made by Mr. Bradley. The documents showed 
 that the name of Mr. Barry had been originally written ; but had been 
 " rubbed out," and that of Mr. Bradley inserted. Mr. B., soon after 
 he had been removed from office, had, by letter, informed the president 
 of some of these cases ; and as the statements of the letter had been 
 sworn to, the tendency of the falsification of the documents, if unde- 
 tected, was to convict Mr. B. of swearing falsely. It was thought pro- 
 per, therefore, that the report should be printed. After some debate, 
 the question on suspending the printing of the report was decided in the 
 affirmative. 
 
 An attempt was made at this session, by the ultra friends of " state 
 rights" to repeal or modify the 25th section of the judiciary act, passed 
 in 1789, one of the earliest acts of congress under the constitution. 
 This assault upon that act was supposed to have been suggested by the 
 discussion of the powers of the general and state governments, in which 
 had been claimed for the supreme court the power to decide upon the 
 validity of acts of congress, and by the intended reference of the Chero- 
 kee case to that tribunal for decision. 
 
 The subject was referred to the judiciary committee, a majority of 
 whom, Messrs. Davis, of South Carolina, Foster, of Georgia, Gordon, of 
 Virginia, and Daniel, of Kentucky, reported a bill for the repeal of 
 the said sv?ction, on the ground of its unconstitutionality. The report 
 assumed substantially the same ground as Mr. Hayne and others in 
 1830. It invoked the authority of the Virginia and Kentucky reso- 
 lutions ; denied the supremacy of the national judiciary ; and asserted 
 the entire independence of the state courts. It declared, that '' the 
 power, by citation or writ of error, to take a case after judgment, from 
 a state court, and to remove it, for final determination, to the supreme 
 federal court, is a much greater outrage upon the fundamental principles 
 of theoretical and practical liberty, as established here, than the odious 
 writ of quo warranto, as it was used in England by a tyrannical king to 
 destroy the rights of corporations." 
 
 A counter report was made by the minority of the committee, viz. : 
 Messrs. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, Ellsworth, of Connecticut, and 
 White, of Louisiana, and was written, probably, by Mr. Buchanan, who 
 was chairman of the judiciary committee. This report urged against 
 the repeal, the necessity of an appeal from state courts to the federal 
 
 
TRIAL OF A DISTRICT JUDGE BY IMPEACHMENT. 533 
 
 court, to secure to individuals important rights. Individual states were 
 liable to high excitements and strong prejudices ; and judges of state 
 courts would participate in the feelings of the communities around them. 
 The judges of the federal coart residing in different states, and remote 
 from each other, were not subject to local prejudices and excitements. 
 
 Another reason offered for preserving this section was, to secure a 
 uniform interpretation of the constitution, laws and treaties of the United 
 States. If the courts of each of the states had the power of deciding, 
 in the last resort, upon the constitution and laws, there might be a dif- 
 ferent construction of them in every state ; and rights secured to the 
 citizens of one'state, might be denied to the citizens of another state. It 
 was urged, too, and with much force, that the repeal of this section would 
 endanger the union. The chief evil of the confederation, and that 
 which gave birth to the constitution, was, that the general government 
 could not act directly upon the people : the constitution was intended to 
 enable the general government to act immediately upon the states, and 
 to carry its own laws into execution. There was a higher authority in 
 this country than that of sovereign states ; it was that of the sovereign 
 people of each state : they had, in their state conventions, ratified the 
 constitution of the United States; and the states were bound by it. 
 Other arguments were adduced by the minority, in favor, both of the 
 expediency and constitutionality of this section of the judiciary act, in 
 authorizing appeals from the state courts to the national court. 
 
 This attack upon the supreme court, designed to remove a strong bar- 
 rier to nullification, met with a signal failure. The bill for the repeal 
 was rejected by a vote of 138 to 51. It received but 6 votes from the 
 northern states : Jarvis, of Maine, Chandler and Harvey, of New Hamp- 
 shire, Angel, Cambreleng and Maxwell, of New York. Delaware and 
 Maryland were unanimous against the repeal. Of the 25 members 
 absent, a majority were said to be opposed to the bill. 
 
 Among the earliest business of the session of 1830-31, was the trial 
 of James H. Peck, a judge of the district court of the United States, 
 for the district of Missouri, on an impeachment by the house of repre- 
 sentatives at the preceding session ; the trial having been adjourned. 
 The senate was organized into a court of impeachment on the 13th of 
 December, 1830. The case was managed, on the part of the house, by 
 Messrs. Buchanan, M'Duffie, Judge Spencer, Storrs, and "Wickliffe. 
 
 Under an act of congress " enabling the claimants to lands within the 
 limits of the state of Missouri and territory of Arkansas, to institute 
 proceedings to try the validity of their claims," a suit was brought before 
 judge Peck, and decided against the claimants, who appealed from the 
 decree of the judge to the supreme court of the United States. Judge 
 
534 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Peck having caused his opinion and the reasons for the same to be pub- 
 lished, the counsel for the claimants, Luke E. Lawless, procured the 
 publication of a review of the judge's opinion, purporting to expose cer- 
 tain errors which it was alleged to contain. At a subsequent term of 
 the court, the judge caused the imprisonment of Lawless for a contempt 
 thereof, for one day, and suspended him from professional practice in 
 that court for eighteen months. The judge was impeached for an alleged 
 abuse of judicial authority, the publication of Lawless not being deemed 
 harsh or disrespectful. 
 
 Judge Peck was defended by Mr. Meredith, of Philadelphia, and Mr. 
 Wirt. It was shown that the opinion of the judge had been published 
 at the request of the members of the bar, and of those persons who 
 were interested in the case; and such publications were usual both in 
 England and the United States. The case in question was a select and 
 test cause, and an adverse decision would produce dissatisfaction in all 
 other claimants. The respondent considered the publication a gross and 
 palpable misrepresentation of his opinion. Lawless had an opportunity 
 offered him, on his defense, of clearing himself of intentional disrespect, 
 but had refused to answer the interrogatories of the judge, and reas- 
 serted the allegations of his publication. The cause was ably argued by 
 Messrs. M'Duffie, Buchanan, Spencer, Storrs, and Wicklifi'e, in favor of 
 the impeachment, and by Messrs. Meredith and Wirt against it. The 
 speeches of Mr. Storrs and Mr. Wirt were spoken of as surpassingly 
 eloquent. The judge was acquitted : 21 votes to sustain the impeach- 
 ment ; 24 against. A majority of two-thirds is necessary to a con- 
 viction. 
 
 The result of this trial, however, led to the passage of a law at the 
 same session, limiting the power of judges, under the authority of the 
 English common law doctrine, in punishing for contempt of court. The 
 act restricted this power to cases of misbehavior in the presence of 
 courts, or so near them as to obstruct the administration of justice; and 
 to the official misbehavior of officers of the courts. 
 
 A revision of the tariff having been recommended by the president in 
 his annual message, the committee on manufactures, of which Mr. Mal- 
 lary was chairman, made a report dissenting from some of the views 
 of the president. The committee contrasted the sentiments of the mes- 
 Bage with those previously declared by him on this subject. He had 
 said, that " the power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to 
 the states. This authority having entirely passed from the states, the 
 right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them ; 
 and, consequently, if it be not possessed by the general government, it 
 must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly 
 
REVISION OF THE TARtFF. 535 
 
 of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to 
 counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted 
 by foreign nations." 
 
 In the message, the president says : " The chief object of duties should 
 be revenue :" but " they may be so adjusted as to encourage manufac- 
 tures." Also, that " objects of national importance alone ought to be 
 protected;" that "the present tariff taxes some of the comforts of life 
 unnecessarily high ; it undertakes to protect interests too local and 
 minute to justify a general exaction ; and it also attempts to force some 
 kinds of manufacturrcs for whiclv the country is not ripe :" and he 
 recommends that each particular interest be taken up " singly for delibe- 
 ration." 
 
 These, and several other points in the message, are discussed by the 
 committee. The first they considered as being " in plain collision with 
 the sentiments he had previously maintained." He had admitted the 
 power to " foster " our industry ; in regard to which the committee say 
 " If revenue alone is wanted, duties for that object should be imposed. 
 \i jjrotection to domestic industry is required, let duties be imposed to 
 ^foster it.' Why should the doicf object be revenue ? Why protection 
 secondary, when the treasury may be full ? Then they should be ad- 
 justed to secure protection. This should be the primary object. The 
 protecting power having once belonged to the states, and having been 
 transferred to the general government, it may be used as the good of the 
 nation demands, for a primary, not a secondary object." 
 
 The general expressions: "objects of national importance;" "some 
 of the comforts of lite ;" " interests too local ;" " some kinds of manu- 
 factures for which the country is not ripe," the committee thought, 
 afi"orded no aid in adjusting the details of a protecting tariff". Little dif- 
 ference of opinion existed as to abstract principles ; the difficulty con- 
 sisted in applying theory to practical and useful purpose. In this, 
 individuals differed in opinion. Congress had not been unmindful of 
 these objects, and no material change, it was thought, was demanded. 
 
 The committee adverted to some of the most essential " comforts of 
 life," as cotton goods, nails, hats, caps, shoes, boots, cheese, &c., as fur- 
 nishing evidence, that, in all cases where the material is found at home, 
 and the protecting duty had been adequate, the domestic article had be 
 come cheaper. The duty secured the market to the home manufacturer 
 and domestic competition reduced the cost to the Iswest possible price, 
 and at the same time improved the quality. The committee also objected 
 decidedly to the suggestion of submitting each interest " singly for de- 
 liberation," without reference to a general system. By such a rule, they 
 believed, no protecting system had ever been adopted, and by it none 
 
536 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 could stand ; and they apprehended, that an attempt to disturb the tariff 
 which had been so recently revised, would " spread alarm among the 
 great interests of the country, shake confidence in the plighted faith of 
 the government, and expose the whole country to the dangers of a most 
 selfish policy which might be adopted by foreign nations." 
 
 CHAPTER XLIII. 
 
 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON IN RELATION 
 TO OCCURRENCES IN THE SEMINOLE WAR. 
 
 In the winter of 1830-31, Mr. Calhoun, vice-president of the United 
 States, appeared before the public in an address, accompanied by a cor- 
 respondence between himself and Gen. Jackson, in relation to the course 
 of Mr. Calhoun in the deliberations of the cabinet of Mr. Monroe, on 
 the occurrences of the Seminole war. His object was to expose an 
 attempt to effect his " political destruction" by creating a disaffection 
 between Gen. Jackson and himself The " secret movement " against 
 him commenced, as he conceived, with certain letters of Mr. Crawford to 
 diflfereut persons, representing that Mr. Calhoun had been opposed to 
 the conduct of Gen. Jackson in the Florida war, and in cabinet council 
 nad proposed " that Gen. Jackson should be punished in some form, or 
 reprehended in some form," he was not positively certain which. 
 
 Mr. Crawford, in a letter to Mr. Forsyth, April 30, 1830, gives as an 
 apology for disclosing what passed in this cabinet meeting, that an ex- 
 tract of a certain letter had been published in a Nashville paper, alleging 
 that he (Mr. C.) " had pi-oposed to arrest Gen Jackson, but that he was 
 triumphantly defended by Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Adams; " and Mr. Craw- 
 ford expresses the belief, that the letter had been written by Mr. Cal- 
 houn, or by his directions. Mr. Crawford farther says : " Mr. Calhoun 
 made some allusion to a letter the general had written to the president, 
 who had forgotten that he had received such a letter ; but said, if he 
 had, he could find it ; and went directly to his cabinet and brought the 
 letter out. In it Gen. Jackson approved of the determination of the 
 government to break up Amelia island and Galveztown, and gave 
 it also as his opinion that the Floridas ought to be taken by the 
 United States. He added, that it might be a delicate matter for 
 the executive to decide ; but if the president approved of it, he had onlj 
 
MR. CALHOUN AND GEN, JACKSON ON THE SEMINOLE WAR. 537 
 
 to give a hint to some confidential member of congress, say Johnny Ray, 
 and he would do it, and take the responsibility upon himself. I asked 
 the president if the letter had been answered. He replied, no ; for he 
 had no recollection of having received it. I then said that I had no 
 doubt that Gen. Jackson, in taking Pensacola, believed he was doing 
 what the executive wished. After that letter was produced, unanswered, 
 I should have opposed the infliction of punishment upon the general, who 
 had considered the silence of the president as a tacit consent. Yet it 
 was after this letter was produced and read, that Mr. Calhoun made his 
 proposition to the cabinet for punishing the general." 
 
 The above having been plac^-d in the hands of Gen. Jackson, he imme- 
 diately wrote to Mr. Calhoun, (May 13, 1830,) expressing his surprise 
 at the course taken by him in the cabinet, so contrary to what had been 
 indicated in his correspondence at that time, and referred to the letter 
 of Mr. Calhoun, as secretary of war, to Gov. Bibb, of Alabama, of the 
 13th of May, 1818, saying: "Gen. Jackson is vested with full power 
 to conduct the war in the manner he may judge best;" and also to his 
 letters to him (Gen. J.,) in one of which he had said : " I have the honor 
 to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo, and to 
 acquaint you with the entire approbation of the president of all the 
 measures you have adopted to terminate the rupture with the Indians." 
 The general desired to know whether he (Mr. C.) had made the proposi- 
 tion imputed to him by Mr. Crawford. 
 
 As will readily be seen, there was involved in this controversy a ques- 
 tion of veracity between Crawford and Calhoun. The former had repre- 
 sented the latter as having attempted to get the general punished. Gen. 
 Jackson, on the strength of this statement of Mr. Crawford, accuses Mr 
 Calhoun of duplicity. Mr. Calhoun denies the truth of the chai-ge, and 
 in his reply to the letter of Gen. Jackson, endeavors to prove that neither 
 himself nor Mr. Monroe considered him authorized to occupy the Span- 
 ish posts. He says : " To save you the trouble of turning to the file of 
 your correspondence, I have inclosed extracts from the letters, which 
 clearly prove, that the decision of the cabinet on the point that your 
 orders did not authorize the occupation of St. Marks and Pensacola, was 
 early and fully made known to you ; and that I, in particular, concurred 
 in the decision. 
 
 " Mr. Monroe's letter of the 19th of July, 1818, the first of the series, 
 and written immediately after the decision of the cabinet, enters fully 
 into the views taken by the executive of the whole subject. In your 
 reply of the 19th of August, 1818, you object to the construction which 
 the administration had placed on your orders, and you assign your reasons 
 at large, why you conceived that the orders under which you acted author 
 
538 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ized your operations in Florida. Mr. Monroe replied on the 20tli of 
 October, 1818," and after expressing his regret that you had placed a 
 construction upon your orders different from what was intended, he 
 invited you to open a correspondence with me, that your conception of 
 the meaning of the orders, and that of the administration, might bo 
 placed, with the reasons on both sides, on the files of the war department 
 Your letter of the loth of November, in answer, agrees to the corres- 
 pondence as proposed, but declines commencing it, to which Mr. Monroe 
 replied by a letter of the 21st of December, stating his reasons for sug- 
 gesting the correspondence, and why he thought that it ought to commence 
 with you." Mr. Calhoun also refers to the message of the president to the 
 house of representatives of the 25 th of March, 1818, and his annual message 
 in November following, as containing evidence of his having considered the 
 occupation of the posts unauthorized. And he proceeds in attempting 
 to show, that in his letter to Gov. Bibb, saying that the general had 
 power " to conduct the war in the manner he might judge best," ho 
 could not have meant that he had authority to occupy the Spanish posts. 
 Nor could certain other letters be justly interpreted into such authority. 
 
 Speaking of the letter of G-eu. Jackson to Mr. Monroe, mentioned by 
 Mr. Crawford in his letter to Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Calhoun said it was not 
 received till several weeks after the orders to the general had been issued, 
 and could not, therefore, have had any influence in drawing them up ; nor 
 could the general have supposed so, as he had not referred to it as form- 
 ing a part of his justification. Mr. C. adds : " You rested your defense 
 on what I conceive to be much more elevated ground — on the true con- 
 struction, as you supposed, of your orders, and the necessity of the meas- 
 ures which you adopted to terminate the war, and not on any supposed 
 secret wish of the executive in opposition to the public orders under 
 which you acted." 
 
 The reply of the president to the letter of Mr. Calhoun was brfef He 
 said it had been intimated to him many years ago, that it had been he, 
 (Mr. Calhoun,) and not Mr. Crawford, who had been secretly endeavoring 
 to destroy his reputation ; but he had repelled the insinuations upon the 
 ground of his professed friendship, and upon his letters approving entirely 
 his conduct in the Seminole campaign. He adds : '' When I was pre- 
 sented with a copy of Mr. Crawford's letter, with that frankness which 
 ever has, and I hope ever will characterize my conduct, I considered it 
 due to you, and the friendly relations which had always existed between 
 us, to lay it forthwith before you, and ask if the statements in that letter 
 could be true. I repeat, I had a right to believe that you were my sin- 
 cere friend, and until now, never expected to have occasion to say to you, 
 in the language of Caesar, Et tu Brute, The evidence which has brought 
 
MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON ON THE SEMINOLE WAR. 539 
 
 me to this conclusion, is abundantly contained in your letter now before 
 ine. In your and Mr. Crawford's dispute, I have no interest whatever ; 
 but it may become necessary for me hereafter, when I shall have more 
 leisure, and the documents at hand, to place the subject in its proper 
 light ; to notice the historical facts and references in your communication, 
 which will give a very different view of this subject." 
 
 It is perhaps necessary here to observe, that, although Mr. Calhoun 
 does not in express terms so declare, he considered his meditated " poli- 
 tical destruction" as having originated with Mr. Van Buren and hia 
 political friends- with a view to his own advancement; and he regarded 
 Mr. Crawford as one of the principal agents in the conspiracy, who com- 
 menced writing his secret letters as early as 1827. That Mr. Van Buren 
 was suspected of having been the instigator of the " movement," was well 
 known at the time ; and appears farther from a letter of Mr. Lumpkin, of 
 Georgia, to Mr Calhoun, in which he uses epithets, by which Mr. Vau Buren, 
 as a politician, was very generally designated by his opponents. He con- 
 sidered it the duty of " every patriotic citizen to frown indignantly upon 
 all intriguers, managers, political jugglers, and selfish politicians, of 
 every description, who are disposed to divide and conquer." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun published also the private correspondence, in 1821, 
 between president Monroe and Gen. Jackson on the Seminole affair, to 
 show that Mr. Monroe considered the occupation of the Spanish posts a 
 violation of orders. Says Mr. Monroe : " In calling you into active ser- 
 vice against the Seminoles, and communicating to you the orders which 
 had been given just before to Gen. Gaines, the views and intentions of 
 the government were fully disclosed in respect to the operations in 
 Florida. In transcending the limit prescribed by those orders, you acted 
 on your own responsibility, on facts and circumstances which were un- 
 known to the government when the orders were given, many of which, 
 indeed, occurred afterwards, and which you thought imposed on you the 
 measure, as an act of patriotism, essential to the honor and interests of 
 your country." 
 
 Mr. Monroe considered himself justified by the law of nations in order- 
 ing troops into Florida in pursuit of the enemy, who eluded pursuit by 
 entering into that country. This was not an act of hostility to Spain ; 
 and it was the less so, because her government was bound to restrain the 
 Indians from committing hostilities against the United States. " But 
 an order by the government," says Mr. Monroe, "to attack a Spanish 
 poet, would assume another character. It would authorize war, to which. 
 by the principles of our constitution, the executive is incompetent." 
 And to avoid giving cause of war, by making the government responeiblo 
 for tho act, he had ordered the surrender of the posts. 
 
540 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Gen. Jackson, in reply, justifies himself on the ground, "th^fc an oider, 
 generally, to perform a certain service, or effect a certain object, without 
 any specification of the means to be adopted, or limits to govern the exe- 
 cutive officer, leaves an entire discretion with the officer, as to the choice 
 and application of the means, but preserves the responsibility for his acta 
 on the authority from which the order emanated." 
 
 In answer to this, Mr. Monroe says : " I am sorry lo find that you 
 understood your instructions relative to operations in Florida differently 
 from what we intended. I was satisfied, however, that you had good 
 reasons for your conduct, and have acted in all things cu that principle. 
 IJy supposing that you understood them as we did, I concluded that you 
 proceeded on your own responsibility alone, in which, knowing the 
 purity of your motives, I have done all that I could to justify the meas- 
 ure." He then advises the general to write a letter to the department 
 stating his views of the instructions under which he had acted ; and says : 
 " This will be answered, so as to explain ours, in a friendly manner, by 
 Mr. Calhoun, who has very just and liberal sentiments on the subject. 
 This will be necessary in the case of a call for papers by congress. 
 Thus we shall all stand on the ground of honor, each doing justice 
 to the other, which is the ground on which we wish to place each 
 other." 
 
 The correspondence in Mr. Calhoun's pamphlet is so exceedingly 
 voluminous that we cannot refer to a tithe of the letters it contains. 
 The object of its publication seems to be, not only to exculpate himself 
 from the charge of duplicity preferred against him by Gen. Jackson, but 
 to convict Mr. Crawford either of the same, or of direct falsehood, or of 
 both. To this efi"ect, ho introduces several letters. The first in order 
 is from Mr. M'Duffie, dated May 14, 1830 ; who says, that he heard Mr. 
 Crawford (in 1818) state, in conversation with Eldred Simpkins, that 
 himself and Mr. Calhoun were the only members of the cabinet in favor 
 of an inquiry into the conduct of Gen. Jackson. He also disapproved 
 the course of the general in forestalling public opinion, in prematurely 
 bringing the grounds of his defense before the country, and thus anti- 
 cipating the administration. And in reference to an article in the 
 National Intelligencer which laid down a principle of the law of nations 
 going to show, that a neutral territory could only be invaded in fresh 
 pursuit of an enemy, Mr. Crawford said : " Mr. Adams denies all that;" 
 and he represented Mr. Adams as going farther in justifying Gen. Jack- 
 son than even Mr. Monroe, stating " that the latter was induced to pass 
 over the conduct of Gen. Jackson without public censure, not from a 
 belief that he had not violated his orders, and exceeded his power, but 
 •from political considerations connected with our relalioiis with Spain " 
 
MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON ON THE SEMINOLE WAR 541 
 
 Mr. Robert S Garnett, formerly a member of congress from Virginia, 
 says, in his letter of Jan. 12, 1831, that, in a conversation wi:.h Mr. 
 Monroe, in the winter of 1819, the latter declared, that there had been 
 no division in the cabinet, as to the course which should be pursued 
 towards the general. " This," said Mr. Garnett, "excited my astonish- 
 ment, because, in a conversation with Mr. Crawford, either before tho 
 debate commenced, or while it was pending, Mr. Crawford had used this 
 expression to me : ' General Jackson ought to be condemned.' I noted 
 this expression down in a journal I kept, and subsequently repeated it 
 frequently. Mr. C. Beverly told me that he had mentioned it to Gen. 
 Jackson, when he was at his house in Tennessee, and, I thiii|j, said that 
 the general expressed much surprise." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun also controverts the statement of Mr. Crawford in rela- 
 tion to the private letter alluded to by Mr. Calhoun in the cabinet 
 meeting before mentioned, and gives letters froni Mr. Monroe and Mr 
 Wirt, both of whom express the opinion that the letter was not before 
 the cabinet. The former says he received the letter when sick in bed, 
 and could not read it, and handed it to Mr. Calhoun for perusal, who 
 after reading it, said it would require an answer. Mr. Crawford coming 
 in soon afterwards, Mr. Monroe handed it to him also for perusal ; who 
 remarked that it related to the Seminole war. Mr. M. being some time 
 confined by indisposition, the letter was laid aside and forgotten by him, 
 and not read, until after the conclusion of the war ; and he then did it 
 on an intimation from Mr. Calhoun that it required his attention. 
 
 Mr. Wirt said, (May 28, 1830,) the letter from Gen. Jackson to Mr. 
 Monroe, was new to him. He thought if such a letter had been exhib- 
 ited at the meeting, he could not have forgotten it. Nor had he any 
 recollection ihsit punishment had been proposed by any one, unless a7i 
 inquiry into the official conduct of the general could be regarded as 
 punishment. And he thought the singular fact of the general's only 
 asking for a positive hint of the president's approbation, through " some 
 confidential member of congress, say Johnny Ray," would have tended 
 to fix the occurrence in his memory. 
 
 Mr. James A. Hamilton, of New York, in a statement published in 
 the New York Evening Post, Feb. 22, 1831, says, that, during the 
 winter of 1827 and '28, he accompanied Gen. Jackson and suit frota 
 Nashville to New Orleans ; and much having been said in relation to 
 the charges against Gen. Jackson which had been renewed, and partic- 
 ularly as to the unfriendly course Mr. Crawford was supposed to have 
 taken towards the general in relation to the Seminole war, he, (Mr. 
 Hamilton,) returning through Georgia to New York, purposed calling 
 on Mr. Crawford, and ascertaining what bad occurred in Mr. Monroe's 
 
542 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 cabinet deliberations. But Mr. Crawford's residence being so far out 
 of the way, he did not visit him. He, however, wrote to Mr. Forsyth, 
 and requested him when he should meet Mr. Crawford, to show him hia 
 letter, and communicate the result to him at New York. Mr. Hamil- 
 ton says farther, that, on his arrival at Washington, in an interview with 
 Mr. Calhoun on the subject, he asked him, (Mr. C.,) "whether at any 
 meeting of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, the propriety of arresting Gen. Jack- 
 son, for any thing done by him during the Seminole war, had been at 
 any time discussed." To which Mr. Calhoun replied : " Never: such a 
 measure was not thought of, much less discussed. The only point 
 before the cabinet was the answer that was to be given to the Spanish 
 government." 
 
 Connected with the statement of Mr. Hamilton, is a letter from Mr. 
 Forsyth, dated in February, 1828, in answer to that of the former 
 written from Savannah on his way to New York, which Mr. F. had, 
 agreeably to his request, shown to Mr. Crawford, who bad authorized 
 him to say, that, at the meeting of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, Mr. Calhoun 
 had " urged upon the president the propriety and necessity of arresting 
 and trying Gen. Jackson. Mr. Monroe was very much annoyed by it ; 
 expressed a belief that such a step would not meet the public approba- 
 tion ; that Gen. Jackson had performed too much public service to be 
 created as a younger or subaltern officer might be, without shocking 
 public opinion. Mr. Adams spoke with great violence against the pro- 
 posed arrest, and justified the general throughout, vehemently urging 
 the president to make the cause of the general that of the administra- 
 tion. Mr. Crawford suggested that there was no necessity for deciding 
 upon the course to be pursued towards the general, as the question for 
 which the cabinet was convened, did not require it ; they were called to 
 determine how Spain was to be treated in relation to the Florida affair. 
 * * * Mr. Calhoun had previously communicated to Mr. Crawford 
 his intention to present the question to Mr. Monroe; an intention Mr. 
 Crawford approved, although not believing, as he stated to Mr Calhoun, 
 that Gen. Jackson would be either arrested or censured by thepresident." 
 
 Drawn out by the letter of Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Calhoun 
 addresses the editor of the United States Telegraph, requesting the 
 publication of a statement, as supplemental to his correspondence with 
 Gen. Jackson. In reference to the remark attributed to him by Mr. 
 Hamilton, that " the only point before the cabinet was the answer to be 
 given to the Spanish government," he says : " I neither did nor could 
 use the expression ' only,' as it would have been both inconsistent with 
 facts and absurd, as the publications on the Seminole affair clearly indi- 
 cate that other points were considered by the cabinet. If the statement 
 
MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON ON THE SEMIN0L3 WAR 543 
 
 be an error on the part of Mr. Hamilton, it probably originated in my 
 using the words ' main point or real point,' or some other expression of 
 similar import." 
 
 The statement concludes thus : " The argument of Mr. Crawford in 
 support of his statement of the proceedings of the cabinet, rested almost 
 exclusively on the statement of Mr. Crowninshield and Mr. Adams. A 
 subsequent acknowledgment of the former that he was not present, . . . 
 and, consequently, that his statement to Mr. Crawford is unfounded, and 
 the fact disclosed by the letter of Mr. Adams to me, published with the 
 correspondence, that Mr. Crawford has given in his letter a garbled 
 extract of Mr. Adams' statement to him, omitting the material point, 
 removed the foundation of his ai-gument; and with it, the superstructure 
 which he raised, fell to the ground. * * * Unpleasant as I find my 
 situation, I experience one consolation, without which it would be 
 intolerable. I have been placed in it by no fault of my own. Little 
 did I suspect, more than twelve years ago, when daring to construe 
 orders which I myself had drawn, and to which I could give no other 
 construction than what I did, consistently with the constitution, acting 
 as I was, under the obligation of an oath to abstain from the infraction 
 of that sacred instrument; and in venturing to suggest the course which 
 I honestly supposed ought to be adopted on their infraction, I should 
 be exposed, at this late day, to so much difficulty and danger. Yet this 
 is my only offense." 
 
 Suspicion having been cast upon Mr. Van Buren as having instigated 
 the attack upon the vice-president, that gentleman transmitted, (Feb. 
 25, 1831,) to the editor of the United States Telegraph, for publication, 
 a note, disclaiming all agency in the affair, and pronouncing every as- 
 sertion or insinuation designed to impute to him any participation in 
 attempts supposed to have been made in 1827 and 1828, to prejudice 
 the vice-president in the good opinion of Gen. Jackson, or at any time, 
 to be alike unfounded and unjust. 
 
 The intimation of Gen. Jackson in his letter to Mr. Calhoun, that, 
 at some future day, " when he had more leisure, and the documents at 
 hand," he might " place the subject in its proper light," was never car- 
 ried into effect — so far, at least, as regards the publication of any de- 
 fense. We are informed, however, by Mr. Benton, in his " Thirty 
 Years' View," recently published, that a reply was soon after drawn up, 
 giving a full exposition of the affair. This " Exposition " it appears, 
 was intended for immediate publication ; but was delayed, as Mr. Ben- 
 ton says, from a feeling of repugnance to the exhibition of a chief magis- 
 trate as a newspaper writer, until after the expiration of his office, and 
 afterwards until his death. Being placed into the hands of Mr. Benton 
 
544 THE AMEEICAN STATESMA25'. 
 
 it has at length found its way before the public-^at least that part of it 
 which relates more particularly to the matter in controversy. 
 
 Gen. Jackson refers to the orders given, from time to time, to Gen. 
 Gaines and himself, the most material of which have been given in our 
 account of the Seminole campaign, in a preceding chapter. Mr. Cal- 
 houn's understanding of these orders was to be inferred /rom his letter 
 to Gov. Bibb, in May, 1818, in which he says: " Gen. Jackson is vested 
 with full power to conduct the war as he may think best.." Having re- 
 ceived copies of the orders to Gen. Gaines to take possession of Amelia 
 island, and to enter Florida, but halt and report to the department, in 
 case the Indians should shelter themselves under a Spanish fort, he ad- 
 dressed to Mr. Monroe the letter to which reference has been made in 
 the ' correspondence.' We copy it entire : 
 
 " Nashville, 6th Jan., 1818. 
 
 " Sir : — A few days since, I received a letter from the secretary of 
 war, of the 17th ult., with inclosures. Your order of the 19th ult, 
 through him to Brevet Major-General Gaines, to enter the territory of 
 Spain, and chastise the ruthless savages who have been depredating upon 
 the property and lives of our citizens, will meet not only the approba 
 tion of your country, but the approbation of Heaven. Will you, how- 
 ever, permit me to suggest the catastrophe that might arise by Gen. 
 Gaines' compliance with the last clause of your order ? Suppose the 
 case that the Indians are beaten : they take refuge either in Pensacola 
 or St. Augustine, which open their gates to them : to profit by his vie 
 tor J, Gen. Gaines pursues the fugitives, and has to halt before the gar- 
 rison until he can communicate with his government. In the mean 
 time the militia grow restless, and he is left to defend himself by the 
 regulars. The enemy, with the aid of their Spanish friends, and Wood- 
 bine's British partisans, or, if you please, with Aurey's force, attacks 
 him. What may not be the result ? Defeat and massacre. Permit me to 
 remark, that the arms of the United States must be carried to any point 
 within the limits of East Florida, where an enemy is admitted and pro- 
 tected, or disgrace attends. 
 
 *' The executive government have ordered, and, as I conceive, very 
 properly, Amelia island to be taken possession of. This order ought to 
 be carried into execution at all hazards, and simultaneously the whole 
 of East Florida seized, and held as an indemnity for the outrages of 
 Spain upon the property of our citizens. This done, it puts all opposi- 
 tion down, secures our citizens a complete indemnity, and saves us from 
 a war with Great Britain, or some of the continental pfowers combined 
 with Spain. This can be done without implicating the government 
 
MR. CALHOUN AND GKN. JACKSON ON THE SKMINOLE WAR. 545 
 
 Let it be signified to me through any channel, (say Mr. J. Rhea,^ that 
 the possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the United States, 
 and in sixty days it will be accomplished. 
 
 " The order being given for the possession of Amelia island, it ought 
 to be executed, or our enemies, internal and external, will use it to the 
 disadvantage of the government. If our troops enter the territory of 
 Spain, in pursuit of our Indian enemy, all opposition that they meet with 
 must be put down, or we will be involved in danger and disgrace. 
 
 " I have the honor, &c. 
 
 " Andrew Jackson. 
 
 ** James Monroe, President U. S." 
 
 The account of the reception of this letter has been given ; but Mr. 
 Calhoun's " correspondence " contains no information of an answer, other 
 than that Mr. Calhoun, after having perused the letter, said to Mr. 
 Monroe, that it was a confidential one, which he (Mr. M.) must ansv/er. 
 Gen. Jackson in his " Exposition," says : " In accordance with the ad- 
 vice of Mr. Calhoun, and availing himself of the suggestion contained in 
 the letter, Mr. Monroe sent for Mr. John Rhea, (then a member of con- 
 gress,) showed him the confidential letter, and requested him to answer 
 it. In conformity with this request, Mr. Rhea did answer the letter, 
 and informed Gen. Jackson that the president had shown him the con- 
 fidential letter, and requested him to state that he approved of its sug- 
 gestions. This answer was received by the general on the second night 
 he remained at Big Creek, which is four miles in advance of Hartford, 
 Georgia, and before his arrival at Fort Scott, to take command of the 
 troops in that quarter. * # * J3y the secret act of congress, the 
 president was authorized, under circumstances then existing, to seize 
 and occupy all Florida. Orders had been given which were sufiiciently 
 gtricral in their terms to cover that object. The confidential corres- 
 pondence and general understanding, made them, so far as regarded the 
 parties, as effectually orders to take and occupy the province of Florida, 
 as if that object had been declared on their face." 
 
 The '' Exposition" quotes from several letters subsequently written 
 to him by Mr. Calhoun, expressions of approval of the measures adopted 
 by him to terminate the war ; and adds : " On the 25th of March, 1818^ 
 I informed Mr. Calhoun that I intended to occupy St. Marks, and on 
 the 8th of April, I informed him that it was done. Not a whisper of 
 disapprobation or of doubt reached me from the government. On the 
 5th of May, I wrote to Mr. Calhoun that I was about to move upon 
 Pensacola, with a view of occupying that place. Again, no reply was 
 ever given disapproving or discountenancing this movement.. On tha 
 
 35 
 
546 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 2d of June, I iuformed Mr. Calhoun that I had on the 24th of May en 
 tered Pensacola, and the 28th had received the surrender of the Baran- 
 cas. Again, no reply was given to this letter expressing any disapproval 
 of these acts. In fine, from the receipt of the president's reply to my 
 confidential letter of the 6th of January, 1818, through Mr. Rhea, until 
 the receipt of the president's private letter, dated 19th July, 1818, I 
 received no instructions or intimations from the government, public or 
 private, that my operations in Florida were other than such as the presi- 
 dent and secretary of war expected and approved." 
 
 To show, farther, that his course was approved by Mr. Calhoun, the 
 general gives extracts from letters of Col. A. P. Hayne, who had served 
 in this campaign, and had gone to Washington to settle his accounts 
 He was a friend and fellow-citizen of Mr. Calhoun. Writing to Gen. 
 Jackson on the 24th of September, 1818, he says: " The course the ad- 
 ministration has thought proper to adopt, is to me inexplicable. They 
 retain St. Marks, and in the same breath give up Pensacola. Who can 
 comprehend this ? [This is explained in the instructions to surrender 
 the posts, but of which, probably, Col. Hayne was not then apprised.] 
 
 * * * Indeed, sir, I fear that Mr. Monroe has on the present oc- 
 casion yielded to those about him. I can not believe that it is the 
 result of his honest convictions. Mr. Calhoun certainly thinks with 
 you altogether, although after the decision of the cabinet, he must of 
 course nominally support what has been done." And in another letter, 
 of Jan. 21, 1819, after stating that he had traveled through sevgral 
 states, and that the people of the states and the people of the United 
 States at large approved the conduct of the general in every respect, 
 Bays : " So does the administration, to wit : Mr. Monroe, Mr. Calhoun, 
 and Mr. Adams. Mr. Monroe is your friend. He has identified you 
 with himself. After the most mature reflection and deliberation upon 
 all of your operations, he has covered your conduct. But I am candid 
 to confess, that he did not adopt this line of conduct (in my mind) as 
 soon as he ought to have done. Mr. Adams has done honor to his 
 country and himself." 
 
 Gen. Jackson then gives the statements of several gentlemen, who 
 had told him in 1823, '24, and '25, that he had blamed Mr. Crawford 
 wrongfully, and that Mr. Calhoun was the instigator of the attacks 
 made upon him. Many other facts are given by the general to substan- 
 tiate his charge of duplicity against Mr. Calhoun ; but we have, per- 
 haps, already occupied too much space with details of this controversy 
 — more, certainly, than we should have done, but for the additional 
 light which this correspondence throws upon the transactions of the 
 Florida war. Upon this subject we take occasion to remark, that, 
 
DISBOLIIIION OF OEN. JACKSON's CABINET. 547 
 
 tTl *^''" f '"'^°-' '^'^ « ^'^ -' ■='"«ay and literallj conform to 
 
 he orders of the government, an unprejudiced mind can scarcely resist 
 
 the c„nelus,on, after a careful examination of the question, that Gen 
 
 Jackson &W<^h,s proceedings fullj authorized by his instructions 
 
 from the government. ^iuutiuns 
 
 foIerTrVr *^^"^«^-^*-°'a --ect opinion is not easily 
 formed. The statements and testimony of the parties are so directly 
 contradictory as to be irreconcilable with the honesty and veracity of 
 all concerned .n th:s affair ; and yet, after the lapse of twenty-five years 
 ..hen tnepubhc judgment is far less influenced by personal pre'd ee 
 tions .t would perhaps be as unsafe to fix the guilt upon any particular 
 individual as :t was at the time of the controversy. The integrity s 
 generally conceded to Mr. Calhoun during a long public careerf as wel 
 as the correctness of his private life, has been considered by hi friends 
 as sufficient to shield him even from a suspicion of falsehood And yet 
 whatever may be the facts of the case, it will scarcely be alleged that 
 tbe_ correspondence," on the whole, is sufficient to sustain his charges 
 agamst Gen. Jackson and Mr. Van Buren. 
 
 CHAPTER XLIY. 
 
 msSOLUTION OF GEN. JACKSON's CABINET.-MR. VAN BUREN's REJECTION 
 AS MINTSTER TO ENGLAND.— CASE OF THE CHEROKEES. 
 
 Scarcely had the last of the " Calhoun correspondence" been given 
 to the public, when an event occurred which served to increase and pro- 
 tract the excitement which the controversy had produced. It was the 
 dissolution of Gen. Jackson's cabinet-the consequence, as was alleged 
 ot the rupture between the president and vice-president. Other occur' 
 rences, however, seem to have had a large share in producing the cabinet 
 explosion. 
 
 Although 'the members of the cabinet were on friendly terms with each 
 other, they differed in their preferences as to the successor of Gen Jack- 
 Bon. The secretaries of the treasury and of the navy were the political 
 friends of Mr. Calhoun. The secretary of war and the postmaster- 
 general favored Mr. Yan Buren. secretary of state, the competitor of 
 Wr. Calhoun for the succession. The vice-president, who had been the 
 early supporter of Gen. Jackson had possessed a larger share of his- 
 
548 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 confidence than the secretary of state, who had more recently come over 
 to his support. The latter, however, had at this time acquired a con- 
 trolling influence over the president, and had secured his preference for 
 the succession. 
 
 On the 7th of April, 1831, Mr. Eaton, the secretary of war, tendered 
 his resignation to the president, assigning as the reason, that he had 
 entered the cabinet contrary to his own wishes, intending at " the first 
 favorable moment, after the administration should be in successful ope- 
 ration, to retire." This resignation was followed by that of Mi\ Van 
 Buren, on the 11th, who alleged, as the cause, the premature agitation 
 of the question of Gen. Jackson's successor, which it had been his 
 anxious wish and zealous endeavor to prevent. Continuing a member 
 of the cabinet while occupying the relation to the country which he then 
 did, (that of a candidate for the presidency,) might have an injurious 
 effect upon the conduct of public affairs ; and he therefore felt it his 
 duty to resign. 
 
 Having been informed of the president's purpose to reorganize his 
 cabinet, the secretaries of the treasury and of the navy communicated 
 their resignations on the 19th of April ; that of the attorney-general 
 was delayed until the 15th of June. The letters of acceptance of the 
 resignations of the retiring cabinet officers, bore full testimony to their 
 integrity and fidelity in the discharge of their official duties. In these 
 published resignations and the acceptance of them, there were no indica- 
 tions of any personal differences between any of these officers and tho 
 president. 
 
 The new cabinet was composed of Edward Livingston, of Louisiana, 
 secretary of state; Louis M'Lane, of Delaware, (recalled from London 
 for that purpose,) secretary of the treasury ; Lewis Cass, of Ohio, secre- 
 tary of war ; Levi Woodbury, secretary of the navy ; Roger B. Taney, 
 of Maryland, attorney-general ; and William T. Barry, of Kentucky, 
 was continued postmaster-general, until 1835, when, having been 
 appointed minister to Spain, he was succeeded by Amos Kendall, fourth 
 auditor of the treasury. Mr. Van Buren was appointed minister to 
 England in the place of Mr. M'Lane. Mr. Eaton was made governor 
 of Florida, and, in 1836, was appointed minister to Spain in the place 
 of Mr. Barry, deceased. 
 
 There had been much speculation as to the causes of the dissoliitior 
 of the cabinet ; and from certain remarks of Mr. Branch in a letter of 
 May 3, 1831, to a friend in North Carolina, some interesting develop- 
 ment was anticipated. Mr. B. says : " The people have a right to know 
 the whole truth ; from whence the alleged discord originated ; by whom 
 and for what purpose it had been fostered ; and in what respect and 
 
DISSOLUTION OF GEN. JACKSOn's CABINET. 549 
 
 wherefore it has been connected with the public administration of the 
 affairs of the nation." He had gcme as far as a man of honor could go, 
 to promote harmony in the cabinet ; but he had been expected to go 
 still farther, and not having done so, it had been held good cause for his 
 dismissal. 
 
 The public anxiety was soon relieved. The United States Telegraph, 
 which had become the organ of Mr. Calhoun and his friends, anticipated 
 forthcoming disclosures by the following among other significant ques- 
 tions : " Will the Globe deny that Mr. Ingham, Gov. Branch, and Mr. 
 Berrien were dismissed because they refused to compel their families to 
 associate with that of Major Eaton ?" There had been unfavorable 
 reports in circulation respecting Mrs. Eaton, who, though she may have 
 been as chaste as the wife of Caesar, was unfortunately not, like her, 
 above suspicion. As these reports had seriously affected her standing 
 in society at Washington, the three gentlemen above named had inter- 
 dicted social intercourse between their families and Mr. Eaton's. Mr, 
 Eaton and his wife being favorites of the president, this regulation of 
 the two secretaries and the attorney-general excited his resentment ; and 
 Col. Johnson, a member of congress, it was alleged, had previously 
 waited on them, and informed them that it was the president's determi- 
 nation to remove them unless they conformed to his wishes in this 
 matter. 
 
 A few days before Mr. Ingham left Washington for his residence in 
 Pennsylvania, he received a letter from Mr. Eaton, saying that the 
 Telegraph contained the remark, that " the families of the secretaries 
 of the treasury and of the navy and of the attorney-general refused to 
 associate with her," (Mrs. Eaton ;) and as that paper was friendly to Mr. 
 Ingham, he desired to know whether he (Mr. I.) sanctioned or would 
 disavow this publication. Mr. Ingham, in a brief reply, considers the 
 demand too absurd to merit an answer ; and concludes by saying : " I 
 take the occasion to say, that you must be not a little deranged to 
 imagine, that any blustering of yours could induce me to disavow what 
 all the inhabitants of this city know, and perhaps half the people of the 
 United States believe to be true." The answer charges Mr. Ingham 
 with having added insult to injury, and demands '■^satisfaction for the 
 wrong." In his reply Mr. I. says: " I perfectly understand the part you 
 are made to play in the farce you are made to act before the American 
 people. I am not to be intimidated by threats, or provoked by abuse, 
 to any act inconsistent with the pity and contempt which your conditiou 
 and conduct inspire." Mr. Eaton closes the correspondence — calls Mr. 
 1.3. " great coward" — a "contemptible fellow" — and says: "Nothing 
 more will be received short of an acceptance of my demand of Satur 
 
550 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 day, and nothing more be said to me until face to face we meet. It ?'■ 
 uot my nature to brook your insults, nor will they be submitted to." 
 
 The threats uttered in this letter, with certain movements by Mr 
 Eaton and his friends, excited apprehensions in the mind of Mr. I. 
 who, the next day, (June 21), addressed to the president a letter 
 expressing the belief, that certain " officers of the government supposed 
 to be in the special confidence of the president, had attempted to way- 
 lay him, (Mr. Ingham,) for the purpose of assassination." The officers 
 suspected of this design severally denied, in letters to the president, all 
 knowledge of any such purpose as that with which they had been 
 charged. These letters were forwarded by the president to Mr. Ing- 
 ham, who, in reply, mentioned facts and circumstances upon which hitt 
 apprehensions were founded, and challenged a legal investigation of the 
 aifair. The president directed an answer by N. P. Trist, informing 
 Mr. Ingham that he does not consider the facts stated by him sufficient 
 to sustain his charge; but assures him protection, if he will come to 
 the seat of government, and prosecute the supposed offenders in the 
 courts of the district. 
 
 But to return to the main question. The Globe editor, in his paper 
 of the 19th of July, 1831, said he had received a letter from Col. John- 
 son, in which he says: " Gen. Jackson never authorized me to require 
 social intercourse, &c, &c. He always dislcaimed it. I told the par- 
 ties so." Here, then, was a question of veracity to be settled between 
 the parties. And in a letter to Mr. Berrien the next day, Mr. Blair, 
 of the Globe, says it was in consequence of a supposed combination 
 *' to disgrace Major Eaton and coerce his dismission from the cabinet," 
 that he had taken the attitude he had assumed in relation to the cir- 
 cumstances which affected the harmony of his cabinet ; and that he 
 (Blair) had before him the identical paper which the president had 
 read to him (Berrien) and the two secretaries, Branch and Ingham, and 
 in which he expressly says : " I do not claim the right to interfere, in 
 any manner, in the domestic relations or personal intercourse of any 
 member of my cabinet ; nor have I in any manner attempted it." 
 
 Mr. Berrien, after a farther interchange of letters with Mr. iBlair, 
 addressed " the public" through the National Intelligencer. He dis- 
 claimed having had any part in an attempt to coerce Mr. Eaton to 
 retire from the cabinet ; and he endeavored to show that it was not in 
 reference to this that Col. Johnson called on him. It was shortly after 
 he had given an evening party, to which Mrs Eaton had not been 
 invited. He was surprised at the message of Col. Johnson. He says : 
 " I could make no mistake as to its character, for there was a repeated 
 reference to the large parties which had been then recently given hy 
 
DISSOLUTION OF GEN. JACKSOk's CABINET. 551 
 
 Messrs. Branch and Ingbam and myself. Such a mistake, if it had 
 been one, would have been instantly corrected from the nature of my 
 reply. If the complaint had been of a combination to evict Major 
 Eaton from office, and not to exclude his family from society, the refer- 
 ence to these evening parties would have been idle ; and my declaration 
 that I would not permit the president to control the social intercourse 
 of myself and family, would have been instantly met by an explanation, 
 which would have removed the impression from the minds of Messrs. 
 Branch and Ingham and myself Yet we all parted with Col. Johnson, 
 with a clear conviction that such a proposition had been made ; and 
 feeling as we all did, that an indignity had been offered to us, there was, 
 as I believe, no difference of opinion between us as to the course we 
 ought to pursue, if this proposition should be avowed and pressed by 
 the prcf^ident. 
 
 This ;ouversation, Mr. Berrien said, took place on Wednesday even- 
 lug, January 27. On Friday, his colleagues had their interview with 
 the president, and on Saturday he had his. The president's personal 
 friends having interposed, he had become sensible of the impropriety of his 
 projected course. He referred to the parties that had been given, and 
 said if he had been convinced that there had been a combination to 
 exclude Mrs. Eaton from society, he would have required the resigna- 
 tions of himself and his colleagues. But he had become satisfied that 
 ^here had been no such combination. Mr. B. says : " He showed me 
 no paper — spoke to me of none — intimated to me no terms which he 
 would hereafter require. By his declaration that he did not intend to 
 press the requisition made through Col. Johnson, I considered the object 
 of the interview to be, to explain to me the motives under which he 
 had acted, and to announce the change of his determination." 
 
 Mr. Ingham, who had taken full notes of the conversation with Col. 
 Johnson, corroborated the statement of Mr. Berrien, and gave a still 
 more minute detail of that conversation. Col. J, said the president had 
 hoped that their families would have been willing to invite Mrs. Eaton 
 to their large parties, to give the appearance of an ostensible inter- 
 course, adding that he was so much excited that he was like a roaring 
 lion. He had heard that the lady of a foreign minister had joined in 
 the conspiracy against Mrs. Eaton, and that he had sworn that he 
 would send her and her husband home, if he could not put an end to 
 such doings. This was said at an interview between Col. J. and Mr. 
 Ingham alone. In the evening of the same day was the meeting at 
 Mr. Berrien's, at which the conversation related by him took place. 
 They attended a party the same evening at Col. Towson's, where a 
 report was already current that they were to be removed. Col. John 
 
552 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 son called on him (Mr. Ingham) the next morning, and said he oughi 
 perhaps to have been more frank last evening, and to have told them 
 positively that the president would remove them, unless they agreed 
 that their families should visit Mrs. Eaton, and invite her to their 
 large parties. And the colonel mentioned the names of persons whom 
 the president had designated for the two secretaryships. In the even- 
 ing he called again, and said the president had drawn up a paper 
 explanatory of what he expected of them ; that some of his Tennessee 
 friends had been with him ; that his passion had subsided, ana he had 
 changed his ground ; he only wished that they should assist in putting 
 down the slanders against Mrs. Eaton, whom he believed to be inno- 
 cent. On the next day they had the interview with the president 
 which has been alluded to by Mr. Berrien. Mr. Ingham had no recol- 
 lection, nor had he taken any note, of any paper read to them by the 
 president. 
 
 The statements of Messrs. Ingham and Berrien are confirmed by Mr. 
 Branch, who, writing to Mr. Berrien, says: " You can very well ima 
 gine my surprise, on reading the colonel's letter, from what you your 
 self experienced. My recollections of the interview will most abun 
 dantly corroborate all that you have said," Mr. Branch also positively 
 declares that no paper was read to them by Gen. Jackson at the inter- 
 view with the president. 
 
 Coh Johnson, in letters to Messrs. Berrien and Ingham, in July, 1831 
 reiterates his former statement, that the president had disclaimed, in the 
 paper before referred to, all intention to regulate the social intercourse 
 of the members of his cabinet ; and that he (Col. J.) had, on his own re- 
 sponsibility, made the inquiry whether they could not, at those large and 
 promiscuous parties, invite Maj. Eaton and his family. 
 
 "We have thus sketched all that was deemed essential to an understand- 
 ing of this cabinet controversy — more, perhaps, than every one will 
 think the subject deserves. Different readers will regard the affair with 
 different degrees of interest; and lis prominence^ if not its importance, 
 as an item of political history, seemed to claim for it a place in our 
 record. In judging of its comparative influence as a cause of the dis- 
 ruption of the cabinet, it is to be borne in mind, that the difficulties bo- 
 tween the parties preceded the Calhoun controversy, although the explo' 
 sion did not occur until some time after the publication of his " corres- 
 pondence." 
 
 Mr. M'Laue having been appointed secretary of the treasury in presi- 
 dent Jackson's new cabinet, in the summer of 1831, Mr. Van Buren was 
 appointed to take his place as minister at London. The appointment 
 was made during the recess of the senate and the nomination was made 
 
MR. VAN BUREn's REJECTION AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. 553 
 
 to that body at the next session. An excited debate of several days" 
 continuance, and exhibiting a strong personal dislike to Mr. Van Buren, 
 took place on this nomination, which was finally rejected by the casting 
 vote of the vice president. The principal ground of opposition to the 
 nomination, was the character of his instructions to Mr. M'Lane, re- 
 specting the West India negotiation. 
 
 Mr. Holmes said he was against him because he had humbled us in 
 the eyes of foreign nations. He had surrendered the rights of his 
 country to Great Britian to sustain his party. He had also been ap- 
 pointed to fill a vacancy created in the recess of the senate. This he 
 disapproved, except for the most imperative reasons. It was compelling 
 the senate to approve the appointment, or subject us to the loss of the 
 outfit. Suspicion also rested on the nominee as having contrived, or 
 contributed to bring about, the dissolution of the cabinet. 
 
 Mr. Marcy challenged an inquiry into the causes of that event. Mr. 
 Van Buren had denied all agency in the matter, and had challenged the 
 world for proof 
 
 Mr. Chambers resisted the nomination exclusively on the ground of 
 Mr. Van Buren's instructions to Mr. M'Lane, in which he had violated 
 the honor of the nation, and insulted the American people in the person 
 of their government ; and had disclosed a total ignorance of the prin- 
 ciples and feelings which should adorn the diplomatist. He had in- 
 structed our minister to press upon a foreign government the misconduct 
 of one part of the American family in the relations of our government 
 with that foreign power, and the more amiable and kind feelings of an- 
 other division of it. A most revolting and unheard of experiment was 
 to be made, (other supplications having failed to move the royal sympa- 
 thy,) how far a condemnation of ourselves would disarm a British throne 
 of its haughty, supercilious disdain of a just and honest demand. 
 
 Mr. Smith, of Maryland, said the secretary was not responsible for 
 the instructions : they had been given by order of the president, -.vho 
 was the only responsible person known to the constitution. The secre- 
 tary was under oath, " well and faithfully to execute the trust committed 
 to him." The senator from Maine (Mr. Holmes) had said, " Mr.M'Lane 
 bad been sent to bow and cringe at the feet of the British minister." 
 Mr. M'Lane was not made of such suppliant materials. He had asked only 
 what was right, and what his country required. He had convinced the 
 British ministry that they had departed from the rigid construction of 
 the act of parliament of July, 1825, in the cases of France, Russia and 
 Spain ; and that they could not, therefore, in justice, refuse a similar de- 
 parture, in the demand of equal justice to the United States. Tha 
 great offense was, that the negotiation had succeeded under the instruc 
 
554 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tions given by Mr. Van Buren, and failed under those of another — a 
 crime never to be forgiven by the opponents of Gen. Jackson. 
 
 Mr. Clayton said the minister had been sent with instructions to fawn, 
 and beg as a boon, at the footstool of a foreign power, what we were en- 
 titled to as a right ; to abandon as untenable " pretensions" that had 
 always been insisted on as a matter of justice , and to consider our gov- 
 ftrnment in error for having " too long resisted the rights of Great 
 Britain." He (Mr. C.) would this day, by his vote, say to England, 
 we would never crouch for favors, and to all our ministers, now and for- 
 ever, that we would condemn every attempt to carry our family divisions 
 beyond our own household. 
 
 Mr. Clay based his opposition on the same ground, and went into an 
 examination of the " pretensions," as they had been called by Mr. Van 
 Buren, and which our government had been said to have unjustly put for- 
 ward, and pertinaciously maintained. He was opposed to the nomina- 
 tion also, because the nominee had, as he believed, introduced the odious 
 system of proscription into the general government ; the system prac- 
 ticed in the gentleman's own state by the party of which he was the re- 
 puted head. It was a detestable system, drawn from the worst periods cf 
 the Roman republic : and if the offices and honors of the American 
 people were to be put up to a scramble to be decided by every presiden- 
 tial election, our government would finally end in a despotism as inexor- 
 able as that at Constantinople. 
 
 Mr. Marcy replied. It was the habit, he said, of some gentlemen to 
 speak with reproach of the politics of New York. The state was large, 
 and had great and diversified interests. It had men of enterprise and 
 talents who aspired to distinction. It was natural, therefore, that her 
 politics should excite more interest at home, and attract more attention 
 abroad, than those of some other states. It might be that the politi- 
 cians of the United States were not so fastidious as some gentlemen were, 
 as t") disclosing their principles of action. They boldly preached what 
 they practiced. When they were contending for victory, they avowed 
 their intention of enjoying the fruits of it. If they were defeated, they 
 expected to retire from office. If they were successful, they claimed, as 
 a matter of right, the advantages of success. They saw nothing wrong 
 in the rule, that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy. 
 
 Mr. M. also replied to the main objection of gentlemen. The late 
 administration — probably in the hope of getting better terms — had 
 refused those offered by Great Britain, until, finding that better terms, 
 claimed as a right, could not be sustained, they concluded to take 
 those first off"ered ; which were then refused ; and the colonial trade was 
 lost. A^ negotiation had been refused to our government, it was neces- 
 
CASE OF THE CHEROKEES. 555 
 
 sary to offer some excuse for attempting it again. The administration 
 had been changed, as was publicly known, from the hands of those who 
 bad refused the offered terms, into the hands of those who thought they 
 ought to have been accepted ; and he saw nothing wrong in instructing 
 Mr. M'Lane to use this fact in removing any obstacle to negotiation. 
 
 Mr. Brown thought Mr. Van Buren's success in the management of 
 our diplomatic affairs bore honorable testimony to his abilities as a 
 statesman. He had, while secretary of state, accomplished more in less 
 time than any of his predecessors. A comparison of the present admin- 
 istration with that which preceded it, would redound greatly to the 
 credit of the existing administration. 
 
 Mv. Clay said it had been alleged, that the cause of the opposition to 
 the nomination was the mortification felt at the success of the adminis- 
 tration in recovering the colonial trade, and in its general success in the 
 management of our foreign affairs. He thought time would show that 
 what had been done had placed the colonial trade in a more disadvan- 
 tageous condition than it \sas in before. He compared the diplomatic 
 achievements of the two administrations. The successful negotiations 
 credited to the present had been commenced, and were in favorable pro- 
 gress, under the preceding administration, and one of them had proceed- 
 ed so far as to want little more than the signatm-e of the parties to the 
 treaty. The conclusion of the French treaty under this administration, 
 the world knew, would not have been obtained, but for the revolution of 
 July. He then enumerated the diplomatic acts of the preceding admin- 
 istration. Mr. C. remarked, in relation to the responsibility of a secre- 
 tary of state, that he was equally responsible with the president by 
 whom the instructions were sanctioned. 
 
 Other senators participated in the debate : Messrs. Foot, Webster, 
 Ewing, Poindexter, Miller, Hayne, Frelinghuysen and Moore, in oppo- 
 sition to the appointment ; and Messrs. Forsyth and Smith in its favor. 
 The four southern senators, Miller and Hayne, of South Carolina, Poin- 
 dexter, of Mississippi, and Moore, of Alabama, were friends of Mr. Cal- 
 houn ; and their opposition appeared to have proceeded from Mr. Van 
 Buren's supposed agency in causing the dissolution of the cabinet, and 
 from their dislike to him as a politician. They had been ardent sup- 
 porters of the administration of Gen. Jackson. 
 
 If party expediency was in any measure consulted in the rejection of 
 Mr. Van Buren, his opponents committed an error. The effect of their 
 hostility was rather to increase than to diminish his popularity. 
 
 The case of the Cherokees was rapidly approaching a crisis. An act 
 had been passed by the legislature of G-eorgia, in December, 1 830, an 
 ruUing the government and laws of the Indians, and enforcing the lawa 
 
556 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the state within the territory. This act also made it a misdemeanor 
 for white men to reside within the limits of the Cherokee nation after 
 the 1st jf March, 1831, without license from the governor or his agent, 
 and without having taken an oath to support the constitution and lawa 
 of the state. Under this act, the Rev. Mr. Worcester, a missionary, and 
 five others, were arrested soon after the law went into operation. A 
 writ of habeas corpus was issued, directed to the Georgia commissioner 
 having them in custody, requiring him to show cause for their capture 
 and detention ; who returned upon the writ that the prisoners had been 
 arrested under the act of the state, he having been duly appointed com- 
 missioner. 
 
 The discharge of the defendants was demanded by their counsel, on 
 the ground that the act under which they had been apprehended, was 
 contrary to the constitution of the United States, and to the constitu- 
 tion of the state of Greorgia. The judge gave an elaborate opinion, main- 
 taining the constitutionality of the laws and the legality of the arrest. 
 But as Worcester and one of the others were missionaries, and one of 
 them was a postmaster ; as they were there by the consent of the gene- 
 ral government for the purpose of civilizing and Christianizing the 
 Indians ; and as they were government agents for the disbursement of 
 public moneys for that purpose, he discharged them under the provision 
 of the state law which excepted all agents of the general government 
 from its provisions. The other four persons were bound over to answer 
 for the misdemeanor charged against them. 
 
 Mr. Worcester was soon after removed from the office of postmaster 
 at New Echota, with the view, as was supposed, to make way for his 
 arrest. This supposition was soon verified. Letters were addressed, 
 (May 16,) by Gov. Gilmer, to Rev. Messrs. Worcester and Thompson, 
 informing them that the general government did not recognize the mis- 
 sionaries as its agents, and advising them to remove from the territory' 
 without delay, or comply with the law of the state by taking the con- 
 stitutional oath, in order to avoid the punishment imposed by the law 
 for disobedience. 
 
 A number of persons were arrested, among whom were Dr. Butler, 
 and Rev. Messrs. Worcester and Thompson, Presbyterian missionaries, 
 and one or more Methodist pi-eachers. Several of them were most 
 cruelly treated by the guard, having been conveyed in chains, and one 
 of them. Dr. Butler, having a chain about his neck, and fastened to the 
 horse on which the soldier rode who conveyed him. Ten of them were 
 indicted, convicted, and sentenced to four years imprisonment. Only 
 Dr. Butler and Mr Worcester were imprisoned ; the others having been 
 pardoned by the governor on their giving assurance that they would not 
 
CASE OF THE CHE-IOKEES. 557 
 
 again violate the laws. Mr. Worcester applied to the supreme court of 
 the TTnited States for relief. 
 
 The conviction of the missionaries took place in September, 1831. 
 On the 1st of March, 1832, the case of Worcester against the state of 
 Georgia was decided by the supreme court ; and the laws of that state 
 under which possession had been taken of the Cherokee country, and per- 
 sons had been punished for residing therein, were declared to be contrary 
 tc the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States, and ought 
 to be reversed and annulled. Mr. Worcester was therefore ordered, by a 
 special mandate from this court to the superior court of Georgia, to be 
 discharged. 
 
 The opinion of the court was delivered by Chief Justice Marshall. 
 A separate opinion, concurring with that of the court, was delivered by 
 Justice M'Lean. Both opinions were elaborate, and of great length. 
 Justice Baldwin dissented. We give a synopsis of the opinion of the 
 court, as published in the National Intelligencer [Note, P, App ] 
 
 The mandate of the supreme court was disregarded, and the mission- 
 aries kept in prison, without any hope of liberation before another ses- 
 sion of the supreme court, January, 1833, when the court would pro- 
 bably enjoin the marshal of the district of Georgia to summon the posse 
 comitatus, and the president of the United States to place the army and 
 lavy at the service of the civil authority, if necessary, to carry the de- 
 c**ee into effect. 
 
 In the mean time, the survey of the Cherokee lands, and the disposal 
 of them by lottery, proceeded. The missionaries, indisposed to protract 
 the controversy, informed the authorities of Georgia that they had or- 
 dered the discontinuance of their suit; and the state being no longer 
 threatened with coercion, and the question of the continuance of the 
 confinement of the missionaries being left to the magnanimity of the state, 
 they were discharged, by order of the governor, on the 14th of January, 
 1833. 
 
 The Indians continued to be disturbed in the possession of their lands, 
 and the executive persisted in refusing them protection. An offer was 
 made them by the general government for their lands east of the Mis- 
 sissippi. A council was held in May to consider the subject ; but the 
 proposition was declined. The peculiar conduct of the government in 
 this matter did not escape the notice of the Cherokees. Their treaties 
 had been uniformly recognized by the government. Georgia herself had 
 recognized their validity ; and the supreme court had so decided. The 
 government still offered to pay them for their lands, which they consider- 
 ed as tantamount to a recognition of their right to them ; but in case 
 they refused to treat, allowed Georgia, in the face of solemn treaties, to 
 
558 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 grant the lands to her own citizens without compensation to the aborigi- 
 nal owners. 
 
 Various expedients were adopted to effect their removal. Agents 
 were sent among them to enrol all who could be persuaded to emigrate 
 on the conditions proposed by the government ; and a new attempt was 
 made to enter into a treaty, to which the Cherokees were indisposed. 
 
 The president was anxious to effect a settlement of this unpleasant 
 controversy. This anxiety was supposed to have been increased by the 
 dilemma in which he had placed himself. He had just aided in suppress- 
 ing an attempt by South Carolina to nullify an act of congress. He 
 had issued the proclamation, in which he had declared the authority of 
 the supreme court to decide questions involving the constitutionality of 
 laws; and he had recommended the passage of a law for the enforcement 
 of the collection of the revenues in that state ; while he refused to em- 
 ploy the force at his command to protect the Cherokees in the enjoy- 
 ment of rights guarantied to them by treaties which this same judicial 
 tribunal had pronounced binding upon the general government. Mr. 
 Calhoun had noticed this predicament of the president in the discussion 
 upon the " force bill," as it was called. He said : " The president had 
 laid it down that the tribunal of the supreme court was, in the last re- 
 sort, the only arbiter of the difference in the construction of the consti- 
 tutionality of the laws. On this point there seems to have been a great 
 change in the opinion of the executive within the last twelve months. 
 The president had not held this opinion in reference to the resistance 
 of the state of Georgia. A narrow river only divides the territory of 
 Georgia from that of South Carolina ; yet, on the one side, the power 
 of the supreme court, as the arbiter, in the last resort, is to be sustained, 
 while, on the other side, the will of the executive is to be supreme." 
 
 The course of the president on the Carolina question, raised for a 
 time the hopes of the Cherokees. Their paper remarked : " The su- 
 preme court of the United States have decided the question of our case 
 favorably, and the president in his proclamation to the people of South 
 Carolina having promptly declared the supremacy of the constitution 
 and laws of the United States over state authority, there was every rea- 
 son to believe that he would ultimately enforce the treaties and inter- 
 course act for our protection." 
 
 The protracted Indian difficulties were at length terminated by a 
 treaty concluded with their head men and chiefs, the 29th of December, 
 1835, by Wm. Carroll and John F. Schermerhorn, on behalf of the 
 United States. The sum stipulated to be paid for their lands, was 
 $5,000,000 ; to which a supplementary article adds $600,000 to defray 
 the expense of removal and to cover all claims for spoliations, and $100,- 
 000 more to the national fund. 
 
 II 
 
PUBLIC LANDS. 559 
 
 On the 18th of May, 1836, when the resolution for the ratification of 
 the treaty came up before the senate for consideration, Mr. Clay moved 
 an amendment, declaring, that the writing purporting to be a treaty had 
 not been made by authority on the part of the Cherokee tribe competent 
 to bind it, and was therefore not a valid treaty ; and advising the presi 
 dent to open a new negotiation. The motion of Mr. Clay, however, 
 was unsuccessful; and the treaty was confirmed, 31 to 15. 
 
 The Cherokees had for some time been divided into two parties, head- 
 ed, respectively, by Ross and Ridge. The party adhering to the latter, 
 had consented to the treaty, believing they could never prosper under 
 the laws of Georgia ; the former protested against the sale of their lands 
 and th^ir removal to the west. 
 
 CHAPTER XLV. 
 
 PXTBLIC LANDS. INTERNAL IMPKOVEMENTS. PRESIDENTIilL VETOES. 
 
 TARIFF OF 1832. APPORTIONMENT UNDER THE FIFTH CENSUS — 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. RETURN OF THE LAND BILL. 
 
 The 1st session of the 22d congress commenced the 5th of December 
 1831, and was protracted to the 16th of July, 1832. This session was 
 distinguished for the number of important subjects which engaged the 
 deliberations of congress, and for the free use of the executive veto. 
 
 The subject of the public lands, so prolific of discussion in former 
 years, was again agitated at the present session. Various propositions 
 in relation to the disposal of them were made, none of which received a 
 final and favorable action in both houses. In the senate, the subject 
 was referred to the committee on manufactures, with instructions to in- 
 quire into the expediency of reducing the price of public lands, and of 
 ceding them to the states in which they were situated, on reasonable 
 terms. The reference of the question of the public lands to the com- 
 mittee on manufactures^ was thought by some to be intended to tm- 
 Darrass Mr. Clay, as being both chairman of that committee, and a can- 
 didate for the presidency. Perhaps, however, this reference was made 
 from a supposed bearing of the question upon the tariff ; the modifica- 
 tion of which might in some measure be affected by the amount of rev- 
 enue thereafter to be derived from the sales of public lands. 
 
 Mr. Clay, on the 16th of April, made a report sustaining the form^^i 
 
560' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 policy of the government, and against the proposed reduction of theprioe 
 of the lauds, and their cession to the states. He thought, although the 
 revenue was not needed by the government at present, it would be wise 
 to provide against seasons of adversity. As the revenue from duties on 
 imports was sufficient for ordinary purposes, he proposed a distribution 
 of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the states, for a 
 limited time, subject to be resumed by the government in the contin- 
 gency of war. To the five per cent, reserved from these proceeds, ten 
 per cent, was to be added, for making internal improvements in the new 
 states ; which was intended to allay the complaints of the people of these 
 states, that the public lands were exempt from taxation until the expira- 
 tion of five years from the time of sale. The residue of the fund derived 
 from land sales was to be divided among all the states in proportion to 
 their federal population, to be applied to purposes of education, internal 
 improvements, or colonization, as each state should judge most condu- 
 cive to its interests. The time limited for the distribution of the land 
 proceeds was by the bill fixed at five years. 
 
 The report of Mr. Clay was followed, on the 18th of May, by a counter 
 report from the committee on public lands, to whom the bill reported 
 by liie committee on manufactures had been referred. This report was 
 made by Mr. King, of Alabama, and differed fundamentally from that 
 of Mr. Clay. A reduction of the price was recommended, because, the 
 public debt being nearly paid, the lands were released from the pledge 
 they were under for that object ; because a large proportion of them were 
 refuse lands, having been long in market ; because the extinction of the 
 government title to them was essential to the independence and prosper- 
 ity of the states in which they were situated, and for other reasons. 
 
 As the committee considered the public lands a subject of revenue, 
 and as the question of reducing the revenue from this source had been 
 referred to the committee on manufactures, who had reported " a bill 
 farther to amend the acts imposing duties on imports ;" they recom- 
 mended that an amendment be offered to that bill, to reduce the price 
 of fresh lands to one dollar per acre, and the price of lands having been 
 in market five years, to fifty cents per acre; and secondly, that the bill 
 relating to the public lands reported by the committee on manufactures, 
 and referred to this committee, be amended by striking out the whole, 
 except so much as proposes to allow ten per cent, to the new states, and 
 to increase the same to fifteen per ct. making the whole allowance twenty 
 per cent. The amendment proposed by the committee on public lands, 
 after considerable debate, was negatived by a large majority ; and the 
 bill reported by Mr. Clay was passed, 26 to 18, 
 
 The bill was sent to the house for concurrence, July 3, when its con 
 
 
THE " HARBOR BIL7. 561 
 
 sideration was postponed to the first Monday of December next ; which 
 was in effect a rejection of the bill. 
 
 Internal improvement,' another subject of almost incessant agitation, 
 was again discussed at this session. A bill originated in the house, 
 " making appropriations for certain internal improvements for the year 
 1832," which passed both houses, against a strenuous opposition from 
 the administration members from the southern and eastern states and 
 the state of New York ; and which received the approval of the presi- 
 dent, notwithstanding his previously expressed objections to a system 
 of internal improvement. The bill contained about fifty objects of 
 appropriation, some of which were considered of less importance than 
 those which had been negatived by the president at a previous sess-ion 
 The sums appropriated by this bill, exceeded, in the aggregate, 
 $1,200,000. 
 
 Another bill, making appropriations for the improvement of harbors 
 and rivers, also originated in the house, passed that body by a vote of 
 95 to 68. A motion by Mr. Polk to strike out the enacting clause had 
 been previously negatived, 101 to 72. In the senate the bill was ordered 
 to be engrossed by a vote of 25 to 16 ; and was passed the next day 
 July 5, by nearly the same vote. 
 
 The contradictory action of the president upon former bills for inter- 
 nal improvement and that which he had just approved, rendered the fate 
 of the " harbor bilP," as it was termed, somewhat doubtful. Its passage 
 by the senate having been indicated by the vote upon certain amendments 
 Mr. Miller, of South Carolina, said, he had 'oeen informed, that the 
 president had approved a bill for the benefit of internal improvements, 
 containing appropriations for the most limited and local purposes. He 
 hoped he should not again be referred to the vetoes of the Maysville and 
 Rockville roads, as security against this system. Both houses and the 
 president concurred in this power. Mr. Clay " expressed his astonish- 
 ment that they who held the Maysville and Rockville roads and other 
 objects to be unconstitutional, had, it was announced to-day, supported 
 the harbor bill, which contained objects standing precisely on the same 
 footing. It appeared that, under the present administration, the consti- 
 tutionality or unconstitutionality of a measure depended only upon cir- 
 cumstances of an accidental character." 
 
 This bill, though similar in principle to the other, did not receive the 
 signature of the president. It was received by him the 13th of July, 
 three days before the adjournment of congress; and instead of returning 
 it with his objections, he retained it until congress had adjourned, and 
 thus prevented further action upon it. 
 
 A bill was also passed at this session, making appropriations for the 
 36 
 
562 THE AMERICAN STATESMAIT. 
 
 final settlement of the claims of the several states for interest on moneyfi 
 advanced to the United States during the last war. This bill also, passed 
 the day after the passage of the other, was virtually negatived by its 
 retention until after the adjournment. The passage of three bills, there- 
 fore, was arrested by the president at this session. 
 
 At the session of 1831-32, a new tariff act was passed. A report was 
 made to the house, on the 8th of February, 1832, by Mr. M'Duffie, 
 chairman of the committee of ways and means, in conformity with the 
 views of the opponents of protection. It adopted a general system of 
 ad valorem duties, and proposed a reduction of duties to a standard 
 deemed necessary for the purpose of revenue, after the payment of the 
 public debt. It proposed a gradual reduction, which should leave a uni- 
 form duty of only 12 1-2 percent, on all goods imported into the United 
 States after the 30th of June, 1834. A counter report was made by 
 Messrs. Ingersoll, of Conn., and Gilmore, of Penn. Mr. Verplanck, of 
 New York, of the same committee, dissented from both. 
 
 Another report was made to the house, on the 27th of April, by Mr. 
 M'Lane, secretary of the treasury, in compliance with a resolution of the 
 house. The bill accompanying this report proposed to reduce the duty 
 on coarse wool to the mere nominal duty of 5 per cent., and on woolen 
 goods to 20 per cent. ; to abolish entirely the minimum system as lo 
 woolens, except the cheaper qualities ; and to reduce the duties generally 
 to an aggregate sum equal to the necessary expenditnres of the govern- 
 rrfent. Neither of these two bills seems to have received any action in 
 the house, except a very long speech of Mr. M'Duffie in support of tho 
 bill reported by himself. 
 
 At a late period of the session, (May 24,) John Quincy Adams, from 
 the committee on manufactures, made a long report, with a bill repeal- 
 ing the act of 1828, and essentially reducing the duties on some impor- 
 tant articles, as iron, coarse woolens, &c. As a whole, however, it seema 
 to have been more satisfactory to the friends of protection, than the act 
 of 1828. In South Carolina, it was considered by the "union" party 
 as a concession, while the " state rights" party regarded it as no lea? 
 objectionable than former acts. 
 
 The bill of Mr. M'Lane was intended as a compromise; and was satis- 
 factory to neither of the two great interests chiefly to be affected by a 
 reduction of the revenue. It proposed to reduce the revenue from duties 
 on imports to twelve millions ; a reduction of about ten millions. Mr. 
 Adams' report was exclusively his own, no other member of the commit 
 tee agreeing with him in every particular. The bill of the secretary 
 proposed a reduction equal to the amount now pledged for the paymert 
 of the national debt, which was nearly paid. Mr. Adams and a majority 
 
APPORTIONMENT C'NDER THE FIFTH CENSUS. 563 
 
 Of the committee thought a reduction to the full amount of the annual 
 appropriation which was to cease-ten millions-too great. Others of 
 the committee considered the reduction insufficient. Such modifications 
 had therefore been made in the bill of the secretary as to command for 
 Jt the support of a majority of the committee, although it was not, in all 
 Its details, satisfactory to any one of its members. 
 
 The discussion of the bill was a brief one; and, with a few amend- 
 ments, not materially altering its character, was passed by a vote of I30 
 to 65. In the senate, it received several amendments, some of which 
 were agreed to by the house. A conference was had; and the commit- 
 tee on the part of the senate, having recommended that they recede from 
 tlie amendments disagreed to by the house, the same was done The 
 bill, as amended in the senate, passed that body by a vote of 32 to 16 
 The votes on receding from the different amendments disagreed to by the 
 house, were various. The votes against it in both houses, were obiefly 
 from members who objected to it on the ground that it did not surrender 
 thf^ prtncipie of -protection. 
 
 A new apportionment of members of the house of representatives 
 under the fifth census was made at this session. A bill was reported in 
 the house of representatives by Mr. Polk, proposing one representative 
 for every 48,000 inhabitants entitled to representation, and declaring the 
 number of representatives in each state under this rule. The tatio 
 finally adopted, was 47,700; and to avoid the constitutional objection 
 made by president Washington to the apportionment bill under the 
 first census, no member was given to any state on a residuary fraction of 
 ^ population. The bill passed the house by a vote of 130 to 58, and was 
 sent to the senate. 
 
 In the senate, the bill was referred to a select committee of seven 
 members, Mr. Webster chairman, who proposed to amend the bill by 
 striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting a substitute 
 making the ratio 47,000, and giving to each state a representative for 
 that number of inhabitants. This would give to each state the same 
 number of representatives (240) a^ the original bill. And to states hav- 
 ing fractions of 25,000, an additional representative was to be given 
 increasing the number to 255. Mr. W. undertook to show that his 
 amendment was not liable to the objection of Gen. Washington, which 
 was, that no one number, or division, would yield the number of mem- 
 bers expressed in the bill, and that it allotted to eight of the states 
 more than one representative for every 30,000, contrary to an express 
 provision of the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Clayton also contended, that the bill of 1792, had been rejected 
 Golely because it rave more than om representative for each 30,000 to 
 
5G4 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 several of the states ; for, in the bill afterwards signed by Washington 
 tractions were in fact represented. 
 
 Opposite ground was taken by Messrs. Marcy, Frelinghuysen, and 
 others, who maintained, that Mr. Webster's bill was liable to the same 
 objection as that rejected in 1792; and the opinion of Mr. Madison waa 
 cited by Mr. Marcy, in support of his argument. Mr. Frelinghuysen 
 also brought the proposed amendment to the test of Washington's objec- 
 tions ; the first and principal one of which was, " that there was no one 
 pi-oportion or division which, applied to the respective numbers of the 
 states, would yield the number and- allotment of representatives proposed 
 by the bill ; and the second, not the only substantial difficulty with the 
 president, as some had insisted, but an inference from the former — that 
 " the bill allotted to eight of the states more than one for every 30,000." 
 After the bill had been returned, congress passed a new bill with a ratio 
 of 33,000, and applied that to the population of each state. 
 
 Several other senators participated in the discussion. The bill as it 
 came from the house, was finally ordered to a third reading ; ayes, 27 ; 
 noes, 20. 
 
 Another presidential election was approaching. Gen. Jackson had 
 been designated by his friends in all parts of the union, at an early period 
 after the commencement of his administration, as a candidate for reelec- 
 tion. Hence a national convention was necessary only to nominate a 
 candidate for vice-president. The convention for that purpose was held 
 at Baltimore, in May, 1832; and Mr. Van Buren was nominated. 
 Probably his rejection by the senate, as minister to England, contributed 
 to the unanimity with which the nomination was made ; the friends of 
 the president deeming his election necessary as a means of avenging the 
 dishonor cast upon himself by the rejection of Mr. Van Buren. 
 
 The opposition had selected Mr. Clay as their candidate. He had 
 been nominated by a convention of national republicans in December, 
 1831, with John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, for vice-president. The 
 anti-masons, whose rise and progress as a political party has been 
 described, supported William Wirt for president, and Amos Ellmaker, 
 of Pennsylvania, for vice-president ; who had been nominated by a 
 national convention, also held in Baltimore, in September, 1831. The 
 great body of the anti-masons agreed, in their views of national policy, 
 with the " national republicans," the appellation which had been assumed 
 by the opponents of the administration. Mr. Clay, however, being a 
 mason, the anti-masons were unwilling to give him their support. 
 
 The nomination of Mr. Wirt had not been anticipated. It had been 
 the purpose of the anti-masons to nominate John M'Lean, of Ohio, in 
 the hope of securing the cooperation of the national republicans in his 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 565 
 
 support. Aware that bis name would be brought before the convention, 
 he addressed to one of its members a letter, requesting tLat, as Gen. 
 Jackson, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Calhoun, had all been nominated by their 
 friends in public meetings and otherwise, and as he thought it inex- 
 pedient to distract still more the public mind, his name might be with- 
 diavn. And as leading masons among the national republicans had 
 expressed a determination not to form a union with the anti-masons, even 
 though Judge M'Lean were nominated, the selection of another person 
 became necessary. 
 
 The states represented in the anti-masonic national convention, were 
 Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- 
 necticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
 Ohio, and Indiana. John C. Spencer, of New York, was chosen presi- 
 dent of the convention. The convention was in session three days ; hav- 
 ing received, before its adjournment, letters of acceptance from both the 
 candidates. 
 
 The letter of Mr. Wirt was one of great length, stating his former con- 
 nection with the institution of masonry, and his limited knowledge of its 
 character, and of the obligations said to be assumed by those tentering 
 the higher degrees. But it had become manifest, from the trials in the 
 ease of Morgan, that these oaths were not considered by those who im- 
 posed and took them, as mere idle words ; but that they were viewed as 
 obligations to be practically enforced. This could not, however, be 
 masonry as understood by Washington. The suspicion would be parri- 
 cide. Nor could he believe, that, where he was best acquainted, intelli- 
 gent and honorable men, if they had been drawn in to take these shock- 
 ing and impious oaths, could consider them as paramount to their duties 
 to God and their country. He was unwilling to pledge himself to unite 
 in a war of indiscriminate proscription against all who had ever borne the 
 name of mason. 
 
 The numerous cases of defection from the ranks of the administration 
 party, had inspired some of its opponents with the hope of success, or at 
 least of a bare election of Gen. Jackson. The election, however, showed 
 a different result. Gen. Jackson received of the electoral votes, 219 ; 
 Mr. Clay, 49 ; and Mr. Wirt, 7. The 30 Pennsylvania electors voted 
 for William Wilkins, of that state, instead of Mr. Van Buren, for vice- 
 president ; and the 1 1 votes of South Carolina, were given for John 
 Floyd, of Virginia, and Henry Lee, of Massachusetts. 
 
 The electoral vote for president, however, was not a true indication of 
 the popular vote, which was less, in the aggregate, than at his first elec- 
 tion ; some of the states having been carried by small majorities. It 
 was hence inferred that a perfect cordial union of his opponents might 
 have defeated his election. 
 
566 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER XL VI. 
 
 UNITED STATES BANK BILL VETOED AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATSD., 
 
 A MEMORIAL, in behalf of the stockholders, was presented askingi 
 for a renewal of the charter of the bank. Among the reasons stated' 
 for making the application at so early a date, the memorial says ; 
 " Unless the question is decided by the present congress, no definitive 
 action can be expected until within two years of the expiration of the 
 charter — a period before which, in the opinion of your memorialists, it 
 is highly expedient, not merely in reference to the institution itself, 
 but to the interests of the nation, that the determination of congress 
 should be known. Independently of the influence which the bank was 
 designed to possess, and which it necessarily exercises over the state of 
 the currency, by which all the pecuniary transactions of the community 
 are regul!i,ted, its own immediate operations are connected intimately with 
 the local business of almost every section of the United States, with the 
 commercial interchanges between the several states, and the intercourse 
 of them all with foreign nations." 
 
 In the senate, the memorial was referred to a select committee, con- 
 sisting of Messrs, Dallas, Webster, Ewing, Hayne, and Johnston, of 
 Louisiana. In the house, it was referred to the committee of ways and 
 means, of which Mr. M'DuflBe was chairman. A bill was reported in 
 each house ; but that of Mr. Dallas in the senate was the one adopted 
 by both houses. It proposed a renewal for only fifteen years ; required 
 the same bonus, (Si, 500,000,) to be paid to the government as was 
 required by the charter of 1816. The new bill contained several modi- 
 fications of the existing charter, some of which Mr. Dallas deemed either 
 unnecessary or injurious; one of which compelled the bank, or any of 
 its branches, to receive in payment of balances due it by state banks, 
 the note's issued by, and payable at any other branch. The constitu- 
 tional power to establish a bank, Mr. Dallas said, had been asserted and 
 sustained, for so many years, by every department of thegovernaent, and 
 had been so long acquiesced in by the people, that he considered that 
 matter as definitively settled. 
 
 The report of Mr. M'Dufiie, of the house, consisted, chiefly, of his 
 report of 1830; and the bill reported by him provided for continuing 
 the bank for twenty years under its present charter, with some modifi- 
 cations ; one of which vas, that the president should appoint one of the 
 
UNITED STATES BANK. 567 
 
 directors of each branch ; another, that, for the exclusive privileges and 
 benefits conferred by the act, a certain rate of interest (not mentioned ip 
 the bill) should be paid upon the government deposits, instead of a spe 
 cific sum, as a bonus. Congress also reserved the right of revoking the 
 charter after ten years, by giving three years' notice. And the issue of 
 notes at branches where they were not payable, was prohibited. 
 
 The vote on the final passage of the bill, (that of the senate,) was, in 
 the senate, 28 to 20 ; in the house, 107 to 85. The hill was sent to the 
 president for his approval ; and returned with his objections to the 
 senate, where, on the question of its passage, notwithstanding the veto, 
 the vote was 22 to 19, lacking the constitutional majority necessary to 
 its passage. 
 
 This exercise of the veto drew upon the president the severe displea- 
 sure of the friends of the bank, and the highest commendations of its 
 opponents. By the former, his reasons were deemed frivolous and 
 unsatisfactory; by the latter, substantial and unanswerable. The pre- 
 sident regarded it as one objection to the renewal of the bank, that the 
 stockholders would immediately be largely benefited by an iiicrease of 
 the price of the stock ; apd for this gratuity to foreigners and some of 
 our opulent citizens, the act secured no equivalent. The present corpo- 
 ration had long enjoyed the monopoly; and if we must have such a cor- 
 poration, why should not the government sell out the whole stock, and 
 thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted, 
 by putting the premium upon the sales into the treasury ? 
 
 It had been urged in favor of a recharter, that calling in its loans 
 would produce embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close 
 its concerns was ample ; and if it had been well managed, its pressure 
 would be light, and heavy only in case its management had been bad. 
 
 Another objection was, that a large portion of the stock was held by 
 foreigners. In case of war, should the stock principally have passed 
 into the hands of foreigners, all its operations within would be in aid of 
 the hostile fleets and armies without. 
 
 The views of the president in relation to the constitutionality of 
 the bank deserve a careful consideration. His conclusions on this sub- 
 ject differ from those of Mr. Madison, wno, in 1816, waived his consti- 
 tutional scruples, and subsequently maintained, that precedent, the deci- 
 sion of the supreme court, and the long acquiescence of the people, 
 had settled the constitutionality of the bank. Congress, the president 
 said, had as often decided against, as in favor of a bank. And in the 
 states, the expressions of the legislative, executive, and judicial opinions 
 against the bank had been, probably, to those in its favor, as four t» 
 one. Precedent was therefore not in favor of the act. Mere precedent 
 
568 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 was dangerous authority, except where the acquiescence of the people 
 and the states could be considered as well settled. 
 
 The opinion of the supreme court, he contended, ought not to control 
 the coordinate authorities of the government. He said :' " The con- 
 gress, the executive, and the court, must each for itself be guided by its 
 own opinion of the constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath 
 to support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he under-' 
 stands it, and not as it is understood by others. * * * The opinion 
 of the judges has no more authority over congress than the opinion of 
 congress has over the judges; and on that point the president is inde- 
 pendent of both." [x\ppendix. Note E.] 
 
 The question of constitutionality was farther discussed; and othei 
 objections were presented in the message ; to which the reader is referred. 
 
 The veto of the bank bill was turned to the account of the president's 
 popularity. The veto message was extensively circulated and read, 
 and greatly increased the opposition to the institution. It" met general 
 favor among the friends of the administration, except in the state of 
 Pennsylvania, where a strong opposition to the president was created. 
 In Philadelphia, the excitement was intense A meeting was held in 
 that city, said to have been one of the largest ever assembled in it, com- 
 posed in great part of the former friends of the president ; from whom 
 the presiding officer, and a majority of the subordinate officers, were 
 selected, in order to render the meeting the more imposing. 
 
 The president and his message were treated with great severity, as 
 appears from the resolutions adopted by the meeting, which was truly an 
 " indignation meeting;" its members declaring that they had read the 
 message with "astonishment, indignation, and alarm." It was pro- 
 nounced a " discreditable document." Its " language, doctrines, tem- 
 per, and purposes," gave " additional evidence that the opinions and 
 actions of the president were controlled by the influence of designing 
 men, seeking their own continuance in power, at the sacrifice of the 
 country." His rejection of the bank bill, his assaults upon the prin- 
 ciples of protection to American industry, upon the supreme court, and 
 upon the independence of congress, had " severed the ties by which the 
 people of Pennsylvania had been connected with him ;" and they de- 
 clared, " that the reelection of a president whose official path had been 
 strewed with violated pledges," and who had " wantonly trampled upon 
 the interests of his fellow-citizens, would be a national calamity." He 
 had "shown an utter contempt of the inanimous voice of Pennsylvania, 
 expressed through her legislature and delegation in congress with regard 
 to the bank, the tariff, and the judiciary ;" and this they considered 
 " ungrateful," as it was to " ttie active and persevering support of that 
 
AFFAIUS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 569 
 
 state, that he was mainly indebted for his elevation to the presidency." 
 Besolutions were also passed, tendering thanks to their senators, Dallas 
 and Wilkins, for continuing to vote for the bank bill after it had been 
 returned. 
 
 On motion of Mr. A. S. Clayton, of Georgia, February 23, a com- 
 mittee was appointed in the house of representatives, on the 14th of 
 March, 1832, " to inspect thj books, and examine into the proceedings 
 cf the bank of the United States." The debate on the proposition was 
 one of the most animated that occurred during the session. Numerous 
 acts of misconduct were alleged against the bank as furnishing ground 
 for the inquiry. The charges were : The issue of $7,000,000 and more 
 of branch bank orders as a currency ; usury ; dealing in domestic bills 
 of exchange and disguised loans ; non-user of charter ; building houses 
 to rent ; deficiency of coin ; foreigners through their trustees voting for 
 directors ; with sundry minor abuses. 
 
 Mr. Clayton, who preferred these charges, was replied to by Mr. 
 M'Duffie, who denied some of the acts charged, and vindicated others, 
 as consistent with the charter, and agreeable to the ordinary course of 
 business. A large number of members participated in the debate, in 
 the course of which the merits and demerits of the institution were 
 closely canvassed. The committee appointed under the resolution con- 
 fiisted of Messrs. Clayton, Adams, M'Duffie, Johnson, of Kentucky, 
 Cambreleng, Thomas, of Maryland, and Watmough. Three different 
 reports were made by the members of this committee : the first, from 
 the majority, Messrs. Clayton, Johnson, Cambreleng, and Thomas ; the 
 second, from Messrs. M'Duffie, Adams, and Watmough ; and the third, 
 from Mr. Adams alone. 
 
 The inquiry of the committee was directed to two general objects : 
 1st. Whether the provisions of the charter had been violated. 2d. 
 Whether there had been any circumstances of mismanagement against 
 which future legislation might guard, or which should destroy its 
 claims to farther confidence. 
 
 In relation to the first general object of inquiry, the committee sub- 
 mitted six cases which had been made the subjects of imputation against 
 the bank, without expressing their own opinion as to their force. 
 
 1st. Usury. Under a former president of the bank, (Mr. Cheves,) 
 in 1822, the branch at Lexington, having on hand a large amount of 
 depreciated Kentucky bank notes, had loaned some of them to an 
 individual, who said they would answer his purpose as well as any 
 other bills, as they would be used in paying a debt. .The minority did 
 not consider this a case of usury. The bank of Kentucky had subse 
 quently redeemed its notes. The loan was made with reluctance, after 
 
570 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 repeated applications ; yet, after man y years, Mr. Biddlc being presi- 
 dent, the bank had refunded the difference betweon the nominal and 
 real value. The bank had also, in addition to the rate of interest, 
 charged the rate of exchange. The president of the bank said that was 
 the usual custom, and was not usury. 
 
 2d. Issuing branch drafts. It had been found impracticable for the 
 president and cashier to sign a sufficient number of small notes to sup- 
 ply the required circulation from the bank and all its branches. The 
 practice had therefore been adopted of the branches drawing checks on 
 the cashier of the bank for smaller sums than they had been in the habit 
 of furnishing. The opinions of Mr. Binney, Mr. Webster, and Mr. 
 Wirt, the attorney-general, had been taken on the issuing of the branch 
 drafts. 
 
 3d. Selling coin, and especially American coin. The bank was autho- 
 rized to deal in bullion. Foreign coins were considered bullion. Hav- 
 ing bought them at a premium, it had sold them at a premium. The 
 bank had in this also acted under legal advice. Dealing in coin, the 
 minority said, was the very end f«r which it had been created. 
 
 4th. Sale of stock obtained from government under special acts of 
 congress ; whereas the bank was forbidden by its charter to deal in 
 stocks- The minority, considered the right of the bank to sell the 
 stock for which it had been expressly authorized to subscribe, to be of 
 the very essence of the right of property. 
 
 5th. Donations for roads, canals, &c. The committee said there 
 might be a question whether the public funds of the bank could be thus 
 appropriated. The minority said the directors had, in two instances, 
 subscribed small sums to certain internal improvements in the vicinity 
 of the real estate of the bank, with a view to the improvement of its 
 value. For this they were responsible to the stockholders alone. 
 
 6th. Building houses to rent or sell. This was defended by the 
 minority. The bank was expressly authorized to purchase real estate 
 mortgaged to secure debts previously contracted, and also such as had 
 been sold on executions in its own favor ; and the directors had been 
 compelled to take real estate in order to avoid loss. On a part of it 
 they had erected improvements to prepare it for sale, and thus had 
 saved the stockholders from much loss. 
 
 Of the allegations under the second general head, we can make room 
 for but one, which was probably the subject of more general remark, as 
 evidence of corrupt management, than any other. It was the loan of 
 money to editors, and especially to Webb and Noah, proprietors and 
 editors of the New York Courier and Enquirer; to whom $15,000 had 
 been loaned at one time, and $20,000 at another. What had excited 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 571 
 
 fiuspicion in this case was, that this newspaper had been opposed to the 
 bank, but had come out in its favor. Of the whole sum loaned, 
 ($35,000,) about one-half had been paid — the whole of the $15,000 
 note, and $2,000 of the other. Mr. Webb had made to the directors a 
 statement, sworn to by their book-keepers, of the value and income of 
 their establishment, and showing a nett annual income of more than 
 $25,000. With these exhibits, Mr. Webb presented a letter of Walter 
 Bcwne, mayor of New York, and formerly a director of the Bank of 
 the United States, inclosing the application for the loan, and stating 
 that "he did so with pleasure, and saw no reason against this being 
 treated as a fair business transaction." That these transactions were so 
 considered, the president and several of .the directors testified on oath. 
 
 To this testimony was added the fact, that Webb and Co. had in 
 their paper declared themselves in favor of renewing the charter of the 
 bank, four months before their application for the first loan ($20,000) 
 was made. It was shown, too, that the other had not been received by 
 them from the bank; but had been borrowed of the bank by Silas E. 
 Burrows, a man of large fortune, upon his own responsibility, without 
 the knowledge of Webb or ^oah ; they both supposing, until near the 
 time of the visit of the committee to the bank, that Mr. B. had obtained 
 the money from his father. He had applied for the money, as Mr. 
 Biddle testified, to befriend Mr. Noah, and assist him in purchasing a 
 share of the newspaper of Mr. Webb, Mr, Biddle, from his owa 
 funds, gave Mr. Burrows the money, and took the notes into his own 
 possession, and retained them for a long time, having no occasion to use 
 the funds. They were subsequently entered on the books of the bank. 
 On the 2d of March, 1831, Mr. Burrows paid the notes. The minority, 
 (with the concurrence of Mr. Johnson, making a majority,) saw in these 
 transactions nothing to induce them to doubt the honor. or integrity of 
 the directors, most of whom were men of independent fortunes, and 
 having no connection with politics. 
 
 The other allegations of the majority were severally met and disposed 
 of by the minority, to the satisfaction, it is presumed, of the friends of 
 the bank, if not to others. 
 
 As has been observed, Mr. Adams alone submitted a third report, of 
 very great length, generally in favor of the bank. Of this report we 
 can not attempt even an analysis. A single subject will receive our 
 attention ; being deemed necessary from its supposed bearing upon the 
 character of the bank controversy, as well as from the consideration 
 that certain facts disclosed by the investigation were not noticed or com- 
 mented upon by the committee. They are thus alluded to by Mr. 
 Adams : " They are not noticed in the report of the chairn^au, but, iu 
 
572 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 the opinion of the suhscriber, are more deserving of the attention of 
 congress and of the nation, than any other papers commented upon in 
 the report." These papers tended to confirm the suspicions extensively 
 entertained, that the opposition to the bank arose from an unsuccessful 
 attempt, on the part of the executive department of the government, to 
 acquire a political and pecuniary control over the proceedings of the 
 bank and its branches. 
 
 On the 1 1th of July, 1829, Mr. Ingham, secretary of the treasury, 
 transmitted to Mr. Biddle a copy of a confidential letter from senator 
 Woodbury, of N. H., containing a complaint against the president of 
 the branch bank of the United States at Portsmouth, and stating that 
 complaints of a similar nature had been suggested from other places, 
 particularly from Kentucky and Louisiana. The charge -was, that the 
 influence of the bank was used "with a view to political efi"ect." The 
 letter of Mr. Woodbury represented the recent change in the presidency 
 of the bank as generally dissatisfactory. He said : " The new president, 
 Jeremiah Mason, is a particular friend of Mr. Webster, and his political 
 character is well known to you." He said the people desired the removal 
 of the present president ; and many of tljem had requested him to ask 
 his (Mr. Ingham's) influence at the mother bank in producing a change. 
 
 Mr. Biddle, in answer, says, that the inference of Mr. Woodbury's 
 letter is, that the former president had been removed to make way for 
 Mr. Mason with an increased salary, and that the bank was using its 
 influence against the present administration. He thought this view of 
 the subject erroneous. 1st. The presidency had not been changed by 
 the bank ; the former president having declined serving, in consequence 
 of advanced age and declining health. The bank had not desired a 
 change. 2d. The salary had not been increased. Mr. Mason was only 
 receiving an annual allowance as counsel for the bank, in addition to his 
 Balary. 3d. Mr Webster had had no agency in obtaining for him the 
 appointment. 4th. He (Mr. Biddle) was surprised that Mr. Woodbury 
 should consider the complaints about Mr. Mason as having any connec- 
 tion with politics ; and for this reason : Mr. Woodbury had -written to 
 him (Mr. B.) a letter on the same day on which he had written to him, 
 (Mr. I.,) asking the removal of Mr. Mason. He (Mr. B.) had answered 
 Mr. Woodbury's letter, and requested him to aid his inquiries, by stat- 
 ing the nature of the complaints against Mr. Mason, 
 
 In his reply to this request, Mr. Woodbury said : " It is due in per- 
 fect frankness to state, that the president of the present board, as a 
 politician, is not very acceptable to the majority of this town and state. 
 But it is at the same time notorious, that the charges against him, ii< 
 his present office, originated exclusively with his political friends." 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 573 
 
 This statement, that the complaints were made by Mr. Mason's political 
 friends, Mr. Biddle thought irreconcilable with the statement of the 
 same person to him, (Mr. Ingham,) that the bank was managed "with a 
 view to political effect ;" and he expressed the opinion, that it would 
 appear, " that Mr. Mason bad had the courage to do his duty, whether 
 be offended his political friends or not. He might have done his duty 
 too rigidly; that was a fit subject for examination, and should be exam- 
 ined." In another letter inclosed in the above, Mr. B. says : " It has 
 been the settled policy of the institution, pursued with the most fastidi- 
 ous care, to devote itself exclusively to the purposes for which it was 
 instituted ; to abstain from all political contests." He said he had not, 
 during his long acquaintance with the bank, known a single instance of 
 its perverting its power to any local or party purposes. He thought it 
 as necessary to a successful administration of the government as to that 
 of the bank, that the latter should be entirely independent of party 
 influence. 
 
 The secretary, in his answer, (July 23,) says, " it is impossible tlint 
 the character of all the acts of the directors, much less their motives, 
 could be known to the board ;" hence Mr. Biddle's declaration that 1.0 
 loans had been made or withheld from party considerations " must be 
 received rather as evidence of his own feelings, than as conclusive proof 
 of the fact so confidently vouched for." He claimed it as the right of 
 the department " to which was assigned the direction of the relations 
 between the government and the bank, to suggest its views as to their 
 proper management." And he intimated his objection to a course of 
 action, on the part of the bank, *' that either resisted inquiry, or what 
 was of the same tendency, entered upon it with a full persuasion that it 
 was not called for." 
 
 The directors, however, before this last letter was received, had deter- 
 mined on a rigorous examination of the complaints against the adminis- 
 tration of the branch at Portsmouth; and Mr. Biddle had already gone 
 thither for that purpose. The letter was therefore answered Dy Gen. 
 Cadwallader, acting president, by direction of the board. Among other 
 things stated in the letter, he reiterated the opinion of the board, that 
 no loans had been made or withheld from party considerations; and it 
 needed not to be thought surprising, that, "while hundreds of thou- 
 sands of our citizens, in the various pursuits of life, refuse to yield 
 their honest convictions to party prejudices, a few hundred of our coun- 
 trymen, carefully selected from the most independent, intelligent, and 
 upright, should be found sufficiently honest to prefer their duty to their 
 party." But if the offenses alleged should be found to exist in any 
 quarter, the offenders would be promptly visited " with the utmost 
 severity of censure and punishment." 
 
574 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 A short time previously to this, Mr. Isaac Hill, of ^ew Hampshire, 
 then second controller of the treasury at Washington, wrote to two ol 
 his friends at Philadelphia, and agreeably to the suggestions he had 
 made to them when he saw them there, sent them two petitions to the 
 president and directors of the bank, asking for a change in the board of 
 directors at Portsmouth ; one of which was signed by about sixty mem- 
 bers of the New Hampshire legislature. Mr. Hill remarked in this let- 
 ter, that " the friends of Gen. Jackson in New Hampshire have had but 
 too much reason to complain of the management of the branch at Ports- 
 mouth." Of the ten persons named in the petition for directors, four 
 were friends of the administration. 
 
 About the same time, an effort was made, the object of which will be 
 seen from the following extract of a letter from Mr. Mason to Mr. Bid- 
 die, dated July 21, 1829 : " An attempt is making to remove the pen- 
 sion agency from this office to Concord, in this state. During the ses- 
 sion of our legislature, in June, a memorial was gotten up by Mr. Isaac 
 Hill, second controller of the treasury of the United States, and signed 
 by divers of his warm political partisans, and others particularly inter- 
 ested in the matter, addressed to the secretary of the treasury, urging 
 the central situation of Concord as a reason for the removal. Mr. Hill's 
 object, doubtless, is to benefit a small bank at Concord, of which, till 
 his removal to Washington, he was the president." 
 
 Then follows a letter, from the secretary of war to Mr. Mason, direct- 
 ing the books, papers, and funds of the New Hampshire pension agency 
 to be transferred to Wm. Pickering, of Concord. Mr. Mason objected 
 to this order, as being contrary to law ; and it was eventually withdrawn. 
 It may not be known by every reader, that, by the cha^rter of the bank, it 
 was made the duty of the bank to make the disbursements of the public 
 moneys for the government; hence the funds for paying pension claims, 
 were placed for this purpose in the branches of the bank in the several 
 localities ; and Mr. Mason denied the legality both of the order of the 
 secretary, and of his own right to surrender the pension funds, papers 
 and books, as required. This opinion of Mr. Mason was sustained, in 
 1832, by secretary Cass, Mr. Eaton's successor in the department o^ 
 war. On account of the greater convenience to pensioners beyond the 
 southern counties of the state of New York in the vicinity of New 
 York city, the Mechanics' and Farmers' Bank in the city of Albany, 
 had been selected as the medium through which pensions were to be paid. 
 Against this Mr. Biddle had remonstrated as being illegal. But the 
 agency was continued until after Mr. Cass's appointment ; who wrote offi- 
 cially to Mr. Biddle, March 1, 1832: " I am satisfied, from a careful 
 examination of the laws of congress, that this department is not war- 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE BANK INVESTIGATED. 575 
 
 ranted in appointing a pension agent in any state or territory where the 
 United States bank has established one of us branches." 
 
 Mr. Biddle, after his return from New Hampshire, in one of his let- 
 ters to Mr. Ingham, notices the singular fact, that " on the eve of an 
 election for an officer of this bank in New Hampshire, the senator from 
 New Hampshire, the second controller from New Hampshire, the legis- 
 lature of New Hampshire, the merchants of all parties in New Hamp- 
 shire, were all arrayed to complain of his abuses, and to show how loudly 
 public opinion demanded his removal, just at the moment when the 
 administration had declared to the bank, that public opinion was the 
 only safe test of such accusations. * * * After a calm and thorough 
 investigation, 'they (the board) found that all these accusations were 
 entirely groundless ; that the most zealous of his enemies did not ven- 
 ture to assert that he had ever, on any occasion, been influenced by 
 political feelings, and that this public opinion, so imposing in the mist 
 cf distance, degenerated into the personal hostility of a very limited, 
 and, for the most part, very prejudiced circle. Mr. Mason was there- 
 fore immediately reelected," 
 
 Mr. Ingham, in reply, disclaimed any knowledge of Mr. Hill's move- 
 ment against Mr. Mason. He claimed for the government a supervis- 
 ing power over the bank, and a right to coerce it by withdrawing public 
 deposits, and otherwise. " The bank," he said, " can not, if it would, 
 avoid the action of the government in all its legitimate operations and 
 policy, however disposed it might be after calculating the immensity of 
 its coffers, and the expansion of its power, to assert a superiority or insen- 
 eibility to such action. The pretension could only excite a smile. Com- 
 pared to the government, the bank is essentially insignificant." He 
 said, however, " No one can more fervently desire than I do, that the 
 bank shall, in all its ramifications, be absolutely independent of party." 
 
 Another letter from Mr. Biddle to Mr. Ingham, closes the correspon- 
 dence; but any extracts from it are considered unnecessary. This cor- 
 respondence terminated in October, about two months before the appear- 
 ance of president Jackson's first annual message, disclosing his opposi- 
 tion to the bank. 
 
57(> THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER XL VII. 
 
 aOUTH CAROLINA NULLIFICATION. JACKSON's PROCLAMATION. FORCE 
 
 BILL. — COMPROMISE TARIFF. PEACE. LAND BILL. CLOSE OF JACK- 
 
 SON's FIRST TERM. 
 
 The anti- tariff excitement at the south continued without abatement. 
 Public meetings, especially in the state of South Carolina, the addresses 
 of M'Duffie, Hayne, Hamilton, and other high officials, and the acta 
 and proceedings of the state legislatui*e, kept the public mind in a state 
 of effervescence. Forcible resistance, so long threatened, was at length 
 resolved on, as " the last resort" — as the only remedy for the evils 
 inflicted upon them by the general government. It is not improbable that 
 the countenance given in several states to the doctrines of Hayne and 
 others in the senate had encouraged the Carolinians in their purposes 
 of practical nullification. The legislatures of Virginia and Georgia 
 had also asserted the principles of nullification; but these states were 
 unwilling to carry out those principles by a forcible opposition to the 
 tariff laws. Georgia, however, had denied the authority of the supreme 
 court to decide questions involving the validity of treaties, and of the 
 laws of congress ; and the executive had sanctioned her construction 
 of tho constitution. 
 
 The note of preparation for collision with the general government was 
 at length sounded. The legislature of South Carolina was convened by 
 the governor the 22d of October, 1832, for the purpose of authorizing 
 a convention " to consider the character and extent of the usurpations 
 of the general government." An act was accordingly passed for a con- 
 vention to be held on the 3d Monday of November. The passage of 
 the act was hailed at the seat of government by the firing of cannon, 
 and music from a band stationed near the doors of the capitol. The 
 members of the minority, belonging to the " union, state rights and 
 Jackson party," held a meeting, at which they declared their opposition 
 to the nullification scheme, and appealed to the people of the state to 
 discountenance it. 
 
 The convention assembled on the 19th of November, and on the 
 24th, adopted an ordinance declaring the tariff act null and void; 
 making it unlawful for the authorities of either the general or state 
 government to enforce the payment of duties within that state ; and 
 enjoining the legislature to pass laws giving effect to the ordinance. 
 No sanction was to be given to any appeal to the supreme court of the 
 
JACKSON S PROCLAMATION. 577 
 
 United States, from the decisions of the state courts, involving the 
 authority of the ordinance, or the validity of any acts of the legislature 
 giving effect thereto, or the validity of the tariff act of congress. All 
 public officers were required to take an oath to obey and execute the 
 ordinance, and the acts of the state passed in pursuance thereof Any 
 act that congress should pass to authorize the employment of force 
 against South Carolina, was declared to be null and void, and would 
 not be submitted to ; and from the time of its passage, the state would 
 consider herself absolved from farther obligations to the union, and 
 proceed to organize a separate government. The ordinance was to take 
 effect the 1st of February, 1833. 
 
 The president, in his message to congress, in December, briefly 
 alluded to the opposition to the revenue laws which had arisen in tliat 
 state. He expressed the belief that the laws themselves were adei^uate 
 to the suppression of any attempt that might be made to thwart their 
 execution; but said: "Should the exigency arise, rendering the execu- 
 tion of the existing laws impracticable, from any cause whatever, prompt 
 notice of it will be given to congress, with a suggestion of such views 
 and measures as may be deemed necessary to meet it." 
 
 The message had scarcely been delivered, when intelligence of the 
 passage of the ordinance by the South Carolina convention reached 
 Washington. On the 1 1 th of December was issued the celebrated pro- 
 clamation of president Jackson, in which he stated his views of the con- 
 stitution and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the conven- 
 tion, and declared the course which duty would require him to pursue. 
 
 A clearer, and, as is believed, a more correct exposition of the nature 
 and powers of the general government is hardly to be found in any 
 public document. The proclamation combatted the nullifying doctrine 
 of the convention, that there is no appeal from the decision of a state. 
 It regarded reasoning on the subject superfluous, as the constitution of 
 the United States expressly declared, that the constitution and the 
 treaties and laws made under it, wore " the supreme law of the land,.'' 
 and that " the judges in every state were bound tliereby, any thing in 
 the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," 
 Said the president : " No federative government could exist without a 
 similar provision. Look for a moment at the ooasequence. If South 
 Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right 
 to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a 
 clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and 
 no revenue could be collected anywhere ; for all imposts must be equaL 
 It is no answer to repeat, that an unconstitutional law is no law, t^o 
 long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the .state itself 
 
 37 
 
$n 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 for every law operating injuriously upon local interests will be perhapa 
 thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional ; and, as has 
 been shown, there is no appeal. 
 
 " If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the union 
 would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsyl- 
 vania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the eastern states, the 
 carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were 
 more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained 
 of; but fortunately none of those states discovered that they had the 
 right now claimed by South Carolina. # * * The discovery of thia 
 important feature in our constitution was reserved to the present day. 
 To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the 
 citizens of that state will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to 
 practice. 
 
 " If the doctrine of a state veto upon the laws of the union carries 
 with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our.constitutional 
 history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudi- 
 ated with indignation, had it been proposed to form a feature in our 
 government." 
 
 The president here adverts to the leagues formed during our colonial 
 state ; and to the confederation. Every state was to " abide by the de- 
 terminations of congress, on all questions, which, by the confederation, 
 should be submitted to them." He said : " Under the confederation, 
 then, no state could legally annul a decision of the congress, or refuse to 
 submit to its execution ; but no provision was made to enforce these de- 
 cisions. Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with. 
 The government could not operate on individuals. They had no judi- 
 ciary, no means of collecting revenue. * * • This state of things 
 could not b© endured ; and our present happy constitution was formed, 
 but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevail." A " more perfect 
 union" was then formed by " the people of the United States;" and he 
 asks : " Can it be conceived that an instrument made for the purpose of 
 forming a more perfect union than the confederation, could be so con- 
 structed by the assembled wisdom of our country, as to substitute for 
 that confederation a form of government dependent for its existence on 
 the local interest, the party spirit of a state, or of a prevailing faction 
 of a state ?" He then says : " The constitution declares that the judi- 
 cial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the lawp 
 of the United States, and that such laws, the constitution, and treaties 
 Bhall be paramount to the state constitutions and laws." 
 
 In relation to the threat of seceding from the union, in case of an at- 
 tempt to enforce the revenue laws, the president says : " This right to 
 
Jackson's proclamation. 579 
 
 secede is deduced from the nature of the constitution, which, they say, is 
 a compact between sovereign states who have preserved their whole 
 sovereignty, and therefore are subject to no superior ; that because they 
 made the compact, they can break it when, in their opinion, it has been 
 departed from by the other states. Fallacious as this reasoning is, it 
 enlists state pride, and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those 
 who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see 
 the radical error on which it rests." 
 
 The nature of the union under the constitution is thus described : — 
 " The people of the United States formed the constitution, acting through 
 the state legislatures in making the compact, to meet and discuss its 
 provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those 
 provisions ; but the terms used in its construction, show it to be a gov- 
 ernment in which the people of all the states collectively are represented. 
 We are one peopl'e in the choice of the president and vice-president. 
 Here the states have no other agency than to direct the mode in which 
 the votes shall be given. The candidates having the majority of all the 
 votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of the states may have 
 given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The 
 people, then, and not the states, are represented in the executive branch. 
 
 " In the house of representatives there is this difference, that the peo- 
 ple of one state do not, as in the case of president and vice-president, all 
 vote for the same officers. The people of all the states do not vote for 
 all the members, each state electing only its own representatives. But 
 this creates no material distinction. When chosen, they are all repre- 
 sentatives of the United States, not representatives of the particular 
 state from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not 
 by the state ; nor are they accountable to it for any act done in the per- 
 formance of their legislative functions ; and however they may in prac- 
 tice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their 
 particular constituents when they come in conflict with any other partial 
 or local interest, yet it is their first and highest duty, as representatives 
 of the United States, to promote tiie general good. 
 
 " The constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, 
 not a league; and whether it be formed by compact between the states, 
 or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government 
 in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the 
 people individually, not upon the states; they retained all the power 
 they did not grant. But each state having expressly parted with so 
 raauy powers as to constitute, jointly with the other states, a single na 
 tion, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such 
 •secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation; 
 
fe80 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result 
 from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the 
 whole union. To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the 
 union, is to say that the United States are not a nation ; because it 
 would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve 
 its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without com- 
 mitting any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may 
 be morally justified by the extremity of oppression ; but to call it a con- 
 stitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be 
 done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert 
 a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the 
 penalties consequent on a failure. * * * 
 
 " Because the union was formed by compact, it is said the parties tc 
 that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it ; 
 but it is precisely because it is a compact, that they can not. A com- 
 pact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may, by its terms, have 
 a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may noi. If it contains no 
 sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt ; 
 if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied 
 penalty. A league between independent nations, generally, has no sane* 
 tion other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there 
 is no common superior, it cannot be enforced. A government, on the 
 contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied ; and, in our case, 
 it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt, by 
 force of arms, to destroy a government, is an offense, by whatever means 
 the constitutional compact may have been formed ; and such government 
 has the right, by the law of self-defense, to pass acts to punish th<! 
 offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed, by the 
 constitutional act." 
 
 " The assumed right of secession," he repeated, '* rests on the alleged 
 undivided sovereignty of the states, and on their having formed, in this 
 sovereign capacity, a compact, which is called the constitution, from 
 which, because they made it, they have the right to secede." This posi- 
 tion he deemed erroneous, saying : " The states severally have not re- 
 tained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that, in becoming 
 parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of 
 their parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, 
 levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all of 
 them functions of sovereign power. The states, then, for all these im- 
 portant powers, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citi-- 
 zens was transferred, in the first instance, to the government of the 
 United States j they became American citizens, and owed obedience to 
 
Jackson's troclamation. 531 
 
 tbe constitution of the United States, and to the laws made in couformi- 
 tv with the powers it vested in congress." 
 
 The president admonishes the Carolinians not to incur the penalty of 
 the laws, and tells them they have been deluded by men who were either 
 deceived themselves, or wished to deceive others ; who had led the peo- 
 ple to the brink of insurrection and treason, under the pretense, that 
 the diminution of the price of their staple commodity, and the conse- 
 quent diminution in the value of their lands, caused by over production 
 in other quarters, were the sole eifect of the tariff. And he meutioned 
 the various arts and arguments and appeals of these men to induce them 
 to enter this dangerous course. 
 
 Again addressing his " fellow-citizens of the United States," he says * 
 " The threat of unhallowed disunion, the names of those, once respected, 
 by whom it is uttered, the arra}" of military force to support it, denote 
 the approach of a crisis in our affairs, on which the continuance of our 
 unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all 
 free governments, may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full, 
 and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles 
 of action ; and as the claim was asserted of a right by a state to annul 
 the laws of the union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank ex- 
 position of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our govern- 
 ment, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was 
 created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the just- 
 ness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been 
 expressed, I rely, with equal confidence, on your undivided support in 
 my determination to execute the laws, to preserve the union by all con- 
 stitutional means, to arrest, if possible, by moderate, but firm measures, 
 the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the will of Heaven, 
 that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a 
 brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by 
 any offensive act of the United States." 
 
 The views expressed in the foregoing exposition of the nature and 
 powers of the general government, are, as will be seen, the opposite of 
 those claimed for the president by his friends in the " great debate " in 
 the senate, in 1830. They are substantially those maintained by Mr. 
 Webster and other opposition senators ; and they differ in no particular, 
 it is believed, from the opinions expressed in that debate by senator 
 Livingston, who was at this time secretary of state, and who had the 
 credit of having prepared the proclamatiou. The authority so unquali- 
 fiedly denied to tho supreme court by Messrs. Hayne, Benton, Rowan, 
 and other administration senators, is here fully acknowledged as well ae 
 ubly maintained. 
 
5S2" THE AMERICAN STATESJfA?f. 
 
 Immediately after the adjournment of the South Carolina convention 
 on the 27th of November, 1832, the legislature assembled, and passed 
 the laws necessary to give effect to the ordinance. These laws prohibit- 
 ed the collection of the revenue by the officers of the United States, and 
 placed at the command of the governor the militia of the state, to resist 
 the enforcement of the laws. Arms and ammunition were ordered to be 
 purchased, and all needful preparation was made for that purpose. 
 
 The proclamation of the president met a most unwelcome reception in 
 that state. It was denounced as a " declaration of war by Andrew 
 Jackson against the state of South Carolina ;" the " edict of a dictator ;" 
 a " federal manifesto, palmed upon us as Andrew Jackson's, by Living- 
 ston or Van Buren, or some other intriguer behind the dictator's throne ;" 
 and the people of the state were exhorted to " take up arms" as the 
 " only course which honor and duty prescribed " for the defense of the 
 state. The proclamation was received with equal disfavor by the legis- 
 lature. In the house of representatives, Mr. Preston said : " We should 
 hurl back instant scorn and defiance for this impotent missile of des- 
 picable mallguity. Of answer to its paltry sophisms and disgraceful 
 invectives, it is utterly unworthy. But the country and the world 
 should know how perfectly we despise and defy him ; and they should 
 be told that before they plant such principles as his upon our free soil, 
 the bones of many an enemy shall whiten our shores — the carcasses of 
 many a caitiff and traitor blacken our air." The governor was request* 
 sd to issue a proclamation, warning the people not to be seduced by the 
 oresideut from their allegiance; " exhorting them to disregard his vaili 
 menaces, and to be prepared to sustain the dignity, and protect the 
 liberty of the state." 
 
 The governor of the state at this time was Mr. Hayne, who had just 
 been elected, and whose place in the senate of the United States had 
 been supplied by the appointment of Mr. Calhoun, who had for this pur- 
 pose resigned the office of vice-president in the latter part of December. 
 A proclamation was accordingly issued by Gov. Hayne. It opposes that 
 of the president by a constitutional exposition similar to that contained 
 in his speeches in 1830 ; and, claiming for the states " nullification as 
 the rightful remedy," he requires the people of the state to protect their 
 liberties, "if need be, with their lives and fortunes ;" concluding with an 
 invocation to " that great and good Being, who, as a ' father, careth foi 
 his children,' to inspire them with that holy zeal in a good cause, 
 which is the best safeguard of their rights and liberties." 
 
 Orders were also issued for increasing the military force of the state; 
 and the governor was authorized ' to accept the services of volunteers, 
 who were to be ready to take the field at a moment's warning, " to sup- 
 
FORCE BILL. 583 
 
 press insurrection, repel invasion, or support the civil authorities in the 
 execution of the laws." The " union party" men, however, were deter- 
 mined to sustain the general government. 
 
 The belligerent proceedings of the Carolina legislature were followed, 
 on the 16th of January, 1833, by a message of the president to congress, 
 communicating the proceedings of South Carolina, and suggesting the 
 adoption of such measures as the crisis seemed to demand. A bill ws^ 
 reported by the judiciary committee, empowering the president to employ 
 the laud and naval forces of the union, to enforce the collection of the 
 revenue, if resistance should be offered. 
 
 While preparations were making for the expected conflict, measures 
 were in progress designed to avert the dreaded calamity. The state of 
 Virginia assumed the office of mediator. Resolutions were adopted by 
 the legislature, requesting South Carolina to rescind her nullifying ordi- 
 nance, or at least to suspend its operation until the close of the first 
 session of the next congress ; requesting congress gradually and speedily 
 to reduce the revenue from duties on imports to the standard of the 
 necessary expenditures of the government ; and reasserting the doctrines 
 of state sovereignty and state rights as set forth in the resolutions of 
 1798, which neither sane*^ioned the ordinance of South Carolina, nor 
 countenanced all the principles of the proclamation, many of which, they 
 eaid; were in direct conflict with them. It was also resolved to appoint 
 a commissioner to proceed to South Carolina, with the resolutions, and 
 communicate them to the governor, to be laid before the legislature ; 
 and to expostulate with the public authorities and people of that state 
 for the preservation of the peace of the union. Benjamin Watkina 
 Leigh was appointed to the mission. 
 
 Another measure having in view the conciliation of the southern op 
 ponents of the tariff, was a new attempt to modify the tariff. The oecre' 
 tary of the treasury in his report to congress urged a reduction of the 
 duties to the revenue standard ; and in the house, the subject was re- 
 ferred to the committee of ways and means. On the 27th of .December, 
 Mr. Verplanck, chairman, reported a bill, proposing a gradual reduction 
 of duties, within two years, to little more than half the rates under 
 former tariffs. The discussion of this bill continued until late in Feb- 
 ruary, less than two weeks before the close of the session ; having under- 
 gone so many amendments as almost to have lost its identity. Although 
 there was little prospect of its passage at this session, the friends of a 
 protecting tariff feared that another attempt would be made in the next 
 congress, and perhaps with success, to destroy protection. 
 
 Under this apprehension, and while the " bill to provide further for 
 the collection of the duties on imports," or " force bill," was still pend- 
 
f>b!4 TPIE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ing in the seuate, Mr. Clay, on the 12th of February, 1833, iutroducod 
 his compromise tariff bill, which he explained and supported by a speech 
 of considerable length. The bill had t-wo objects : one was to prevent 
 the destruction of the tariff policy, -which was in imminent danger; the 
 other, to avert civil war, and restore peace and tranquillity to the country 
 By the provisions of this bill, as finally passed, in all cases where the 
 duties cm foreign goods exceeded 20 per cent., the excess was to be 
 gradually deducted by the 30th day of June, 1842, thus : one- 
 tenth from and after the 31st day of December, 1833 ; another tenth 
 after the olst day of December, 1835, and another tenth every second 
 year tliereafter, until the 31st of December, 1841 ; after %vhich day, 
 one-half of the remaining excess ; and after the 30th day of June, 
 1842, the residue of such excess. It was provided, however, that the 
 duty on coarse woolens costing not more than 35 cts. the square yard, 
 which had, by the tariff act of 1832, been reduced to 5 per cent., should 
 first be raised to 50 per cent., the same as was charged on other wool- 
 ens. To the list of articles free of duty, after the 31st of December, 1833, 
 were added, linens, silk manufactures coming from this side of the Cape 
 of Good Hope, and worsted stuff goods; and after 1842, a large number 
 of other articles, most of them, however, such as were not produced in 
 this country, or as did not need protection. After 1842, however, on all 
 goods then free, or paying a less duty than 20 per cent., congress might, 
 at discretion, impose duties not exceeding 20 per cent, on the home valu- 
 ation ; and all duties were, after 1S42, to be paid in cash, and credits 
 abolished. 
 
 On t!;e question of granting leave to introduce the bill, the objection 
 was made by some senators, that bills for raising revenue, (and auch were 
 all tariff bills,) could originate only in the house of representatives. Ou 
 the other hand it was contended, that tliis being a bill to reduce the 
 revenue, its originating in the seuate was not prohibited by the consti- 
 tution. 
 
 The opposition to the bill was chiefly from the advocates of protec- 
 tion. Mr. Webster opposed the bill, because, in giving up specific duties 
 and substituting ad falorem, the bill abandoned the protective policy. 
 It seemed to surrender the constitutional power of protection. He 
 opposed it because it restricted the future legislation of congress. After 
 a few of the first reductions, the manufacturers of some kinds of goods 
 would be ruined. Of these goods were boots, shoes, and clothing. 
 Calico printing establishments would be broken up. Woolen establish- 
 ments could not stand with a duty of 20 per cent. The protection on 
 iron, too, was insufficient. The change from specific to ad valorem 
 
COMPROMISE TARIFF. 585 
 
 duties would be injurious. The surrender once made, we could never 
 return to the present state of things. 
 
 Mr. Clay replied. He said the honorable gentleman apprehended no 
 danger to the tariff. Witness the recent elections — the message of the 
 president — the opposition of a majority of the friends of the administra- 
 tion to the tariff. The protection afforded by the bill would be ample 
 for several years, during which period manufactures would acquire 
 strength. He was willing the manufacturers themselves should decide 
 the question ; many of them, then in Washington, and others from whom 
 he had received letters, had expressed themselves in favor of tlie bill. 
 They now would know what to depend on, and could regulate their opera- 
 tions accordingly. He did not fear any misconstruction of the pledge con- 
 tained in the bill ; and he hoped the manufacturers would go on and 
 prosper, confident that the abandonment of protection was never intended, 
 and looking to more favorable times for a renewal of a more effective 
 tariff. Mr. C. also replied to the remarks of gentlemen who would 
 enforce the collection of duties under the existing laws, without making 
 any concession to South Carolina. He said : " The opponents of the 
 bill rely on force ; its friends cry out force and affection. One side 
 cries out, power! power! power! The other side cries out, .power, but 
 desires to see it restrained and tempered by discretion and mercy, 
 and not create a conflagration from one end of the union to the other." 
 
 On the day of the above debate, (Feb. 25,) on motion of Mr. Letcher, 
 of Kentucky, the committee of the whole, in the house of representatives, 
 struck out the body of Mr. Verplanck's bill, and inserted that of Mr. 
 Clay, from the senate. It was ordered the same day to its third read- 
 ing ; ayes, 1 05 ; noes, 7 1 ; and on the next day it was passed, 1 1 8 to 84, 
 
 On the first of March, the bill as passed by the house, was again 
 taken up in the senate, and supported by Messrs. Calhoun, Ewing, 
 Mangum, Clayton, Freliughuysen, Sprague, Holmes, Bibb, and Clay ; 
 and opposed by Messrs. Robbins, Dallas, Webster, Silsbee, For.syth, 
 and Wright, the last objecting, among other things, to the abolition of 
 specific and discriminating duties. Both he and Mr. Forsyth, however, 
 voted for the bill, probably on the ground of its being a measure of paci- 
 fication. The vote on its passage was, ayes, 29 ; noes, 16. 
 
 The final passage of the " enforcement bill," was delayed in the 
 senate, until the 20th of February, when it was passed : ayes, 32 ; nays 
 1 — Mr. Tyler ; other senators opposed to the bill, having withdrawn. 
 It passed the house on the 28th : ayes, 150 ; noes, 35. 
 
 The nullifying acts of South Carolina were to go into effect the first 
 of February. Their operation, however, was suspended. The interpo- 
 sition of Virginia would seem to have been most effectual, having accon: 
 plished its object in advance of the arrival of commissioner Leigh ia 
 
I 
 
 586 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. i 
 
 South Carolina. Gov. Hayne, in answer to the communication of Mr. 
 Leigh, conveying the request of the state of Virginia, said as soon as i^ 
 was known that that state had taken up the subject in a friendly spirit, 
 and that a bill for the modification of the tariff was before congress, it 
 was determined, by common consent, to suspend the operation of the 
 ordinance until after the adjournment of congress. The passage of the 
 compromise tariff act, though not altogether acceptable, was gladly, J i 
 accepted as furnishing an ostensible reason for retreating from the unen- 
 viable position she had rashly assumed. The convention was reassem- 
 bled on the 1 1th of March, at the call of the governor ; and the nullifying, 
 ordinance was repealed on the alleged ground of the modification of the 
 tariff, and the friendly disposition of the state of Virginia. 
 
 The enforcing act, however, was roundly reprobated. The president 
 of the convention, on its reassembling, pronounced the act of congress 
 "to coerce a sovereign state in this union," a " broad usurpation." As 
 far as its authority extended, it " changed the character of our govern- 
 ment into a military despotism." 
 
 The committee of the union convention, appointed to fix the time and^l 
 place for its reassembling, considering peace restored, postponed indefi- ' 
 nitely the contemplated meeting ; stating, however, that if new acts of 
 tyranny by the dominant party should call for opposition, the conventiou 
 would be convoked. 
 
 • As was expected, South Carolina claimed the glory of a triumph. 
 The 3e]|timents of the nullifying party generally, were correctly ex- 
 pressed in the following, from one of its leading newspapers : " Never 
 was there a prouder instance of the might of just principles, backed by 
 a high courage. This little state, in the mere panoply of courage and 
 high principles, has foiled the swaggering giant of the union. 30,000 
 Carolinians have not only awed the wild west into respect — compelled 
 Pennsylvania stolidity into something like sense — New York corruption 
 into something like decency — Yankee rapacity into a sort of image of 
 honesty ; but, (alluding to the union partyj all this has been loftily and 
 ateadily done in the face of 17,000 — what shall we call them? What 
 epithet is of a shame, wide, lasting and deep enough, for the betrayers of 
 the liberties of their own country — the instigators of merciless slaugh- 
 ter — the contrivers of irretrievable servitude, against their own strug- 
 gling state ? 
 
 " The tariff, then, is overthrown ; the corrupt majorities in congress 
 have yielded. The madness of the government has, at last, found a slight 
 lucid interval." Speaking of " Wilkins' bill ; the ' bloody bill,' " as the 
 collection act was called, the editor said he believed it had been 
 passed " in mere bravado, only to cover the shame of their defeat ;" 
 
 I 
 
LAND BILL. 587 
 
 it was " quite certain that it would not be submitted to b} that 
 state." 
 
 The three union members of congress, Blair, Drayton, and Mitchell, 
 were denounced as " natural wretches" — " miscreants" — for having voted 
 for the " bloody bill." 
 
 A writer in the Charleston Mercury, indulging in a pious vein, said : 
 " Who does not perceive in this the hand of the Almighty, supporting 
 the cause of the oppressed, and turning even the heart of the oppressor 
 to the purposes of justice ? * * # "What less than that Power could 
 have torn Mr. Clay from his darliug policy, and from all his cherished 
 notions of government, and have induced him to sacrifice them all upon 
 the altar of peace and union ?" The editor remarked in relation to the 
 passage of the enforcing bill : " It may be considered as nothing more 
 than an ebullition of spleen. It will record the spite of the administra- 
 tion against certain men, and show what enormities it would perpetrate, 
 were the opportunity aiforded. Our convention will do no more than 
 declare it void ; and it will remain dead upon the statute book, a monu- 
 ment of the corruption of the times, a record of treason to the constitu- 
 tion and liberty, which its authors will ere long wish in vain to have 
 utterly erased from the memory of the republic." 
 
 The bill of Mr. Clay, to distribute, for a limited time, the proceeds 
 of the sales of public lands, which passed the senate at the preceding ses- 
 sion, was renewed at the session of 1832-33, and with some amendments, 
 passed both houses : the senate by a vote of 24 to 20 ; the house, 96 to 
 40. An amendment had been made to it in the house, restricting the 
 application of the funds accruing to the several states, to three objects, 
 education, internal improvement and colonization. This amendment was 
 concurred in by the senate on the 1 st of March, the last day but one of 
 the session, the 3d of March happening this year on Sunday. The bill 
 was sent to the president for his approval, but was not returned by him 
 until the next session. It was believed that, had it been returned, it 
 would have passed both houses by the constitutional majority of two- 
 thirds, notwithstanding the president's objections. 
 
 Censures were unsparingly bestowed upon the president for his having 
 letained the bill. His friends, however, considered his course fully jus- 
 tified by the lateness of the hour at which the bill was received, which 
 rendered it impossible to give it due consideration, and to prepare a 
 statement of his objections. 
 
 Ou the 5th of December, 1833, the veto message, returning the bill, 
 was received by the senate. The following were the principal objections 
 stated in the message : 
 
 The bill contemplated no permanent arrangement. Being limited to 
 
588 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 five years, the question of the disposition of the public lands would again 
 become a source of agitation. 
 
 The rule of distribution proposed, was in violation of the condition on 
 which thcj were ceded by the states. They were to be disposed of for 
 the common benefit of the states, according to their respective propor- 
 tions in the general charge and expenditure, and for no other purpose. 
 But the bill provided that twelve and a half per cent, should be taken 
 out of the net proceeds of the sales, for the benefit of the states in which 
 the lands were, before the general distribution was made ; and then the 
 ratio of distribution was not to be according to the general charge and 
 expenditure, but in proportion to the federal representative population. 
 
 It was also liable to a constitutional objection. It would create a 
 surplus revenue for distribution among the states; and it reasserted the 
 principle contained in the Mays.ille road bill of 1830, proposing to ap- 
 propriate public money for local objects. 
 
 Besides, the proposed measure would be of no advantage to either the 
 old or new states. Whatever was taken from the treasury in this way, 
 must be replaced by collections from the people through other means. 
 
 Mr. Clay indulged in strong censures of the president for retaining 
 the bill. It had passed the senate at the session before the last, and, 
 having been before the country a whole year, and been made the subject 
 of commentary by the president himself iu his message, at the last 
 session, it must have been understood by him. The shortness of the 
 session, therefore, ought not to have prevented the return of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Benton vindicated the president. Of the one hundred and forty- 
 two acts of the last session, about ninety were signed on the last day of 
 the session, and thus a mass of business had been thrown on the president 
 which it was almost impossible to perform. And now the people were 
 called on to revolt, because the president had not on that day, in addi- 
 tion to this mass of business, written the paper now read, and sent the 
 bill back. He had made up his mind in opposition to the bill, but no 
 human hands could have written out the document itself 
 
 Mr. Clay, rejoining, said this press of business occurred with every 
 president on the day before the termination of the short session of con- 
 gress. But how did it happen that the president could find time to 
 decide upon so many new bills of most of which he had never heard, and 
 yet had not time to dispose of one upon which he had long before pro- 
 nounced judgment ? Mr. C. denied that the constitution gave the presi- 
 dent ten days to consider bills at the short session. To guard against a 
 sudden adjournment, depriving him of due time to consider an important 
 bill, the constitution allowed him ten days ; but the short session termi- 
 nated not by adjournment, but by a dissolution of congress, on the 3d 
 
LAND BILL, 589 
 
 nf March, a day fixed by the constitution, and known to all. Therefore, 
 the act of withholding the bill was unconstitutional and arbitrary ; bv 
 which congress had been deprived of the right of passing on the bill 
 after it had been considered by the president. If he had not had time 
 to lay his reasons befo»e the senate, respect to congress required of him 
 at least a communication to that effect. 
 
 Mr. Benton said that no quorum sat in either house on the evening 
 after the day on which the bill was sent to the president. 
 
 A new bill similar to the former, was introduced by Mr. Clay, and 
 referred, with the veto message, to the committee on public lands. The 
 committee reported the bill to the senate, with a review of all the ob- 
 jections of the president. Only two points will be here noticed. The 
 president had, in his annual message of 1832, and again in the veto 
 message, suggested, as the proper mode of disposing of the public lands, 
 that the price should be graduated, and after they had been offered for 
 a certain number of years, those remaining should be abandoned to the 
 states in which they lie. This plan, he said, would violate no compact. 
 Now if it was inconsistent with, the deeds of cession to distribute one- 
 eighth part of the proceeds of the lands to the new states, how could it 
 be otherwise to relinquish the whole of the lands after a few years, to 
 those states ? The distribution proposed by the bill did not introduce 
 a new principle. It had ever been the practice of congress to make 
 grants of land for the benefit of the new states. Eight millions of 
 acres had been thus granted. 
 
 i'he committee agreed with the president that the lands were ceded on 
 condition that they should be disposed of for the common benefit of the 
 states, and for no other purpose whatever; and that the public debt 
 might be considered as now paid, and the lands consequently released 
 from the lien. But they did not agree with him that the power of con- 
 gress over all the public lands remained the same under the constitution 
 as under the confederation. Most of them had been acquired by treaty. 
 These were not affected either by the articles of confederation, or by the 
 leeds of cession ; and congress could dispose of them at discretion. Ai:d 
 the practice had been to extend this power even to the ceded lands. It 
 was impossible to say whether eaoli state did derive benefit from the 
 public lands in proportion to its charge in the general expenditure, as 
 the amount of contribution could not be ascertained. That clause in 
 the deeds of cession had been inserted in reference to the articles of con- 
 federation, by which the contribution of each state was fixed and known; 
 whereas, revenue was now collected, not from states in their sovereign 
 character, but from the mass of the community, according to consumption. 
 The committee oi/public lands in the house, made a report at this se.«- 
 
590 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 sion in favor of reducing and graduating the price , and a similar pro- 
 position was made by Mr. Benton in the senate. But no decisive action 
 on the subject was taken in either house. 
 
 The first term of Gen. Jackson's administration, which closed the 
 3d of March, 1833, was distinguished no less by the unusual number 
 of important questions which were decided under it, than by the general 
 agitation of the public mind produced by the maimer in which many of 
 these questions were determined. Respecting its effects upon the inter- 
 ests of the country, public sentiment was much divided. This differ- 
 ence of opinion was principally confined to the domestic policy of the 
 administration. Even its opponents acknowledged our foreign relations, 
 except in the case of the West India arrangement, to have been ably 
 conducted. A commercial treaty was concluded with Austria ; a treaty 
 with the Ottoman Porte, (Turkey;) a treaty with the kingdom of the 
 Two Sicilies, by which $1,720,000 was tp be paid, as an indemnity for 
 claims of citizens of the United States for depredations upon our com- 
 merce by the king of Naples, (Murat,) from 1809 to 1812. A treaty 
 of commerce, and one relating to boundary, were concluded with Mexico. 
 
 An important treaty with France also was concluded at Paris, in 1831, 
 by Mr. Rives, on the part of the United States, by which the long 
 standing difiiculties between the two countries were adjusted. The claim 
 of our government for spoliations, so long resisted by a counter claim 
 for the alleged non-performance on our part of the stipulation in tho 
 treaty of 1778, guarantying to France assistance in defending her West 
 India islands against the attacks of Great Britain, was determined by 
 this treaty. The sum stipulated to be paid as indemnity to American 
 citizens for property taken, was 25 millions of francs, or nearly 
 $5,000,000 ; which, though not exceeding one-half or one-third of the 
 original claim, was probably as much as there was reason to expect : and 
 it was no inconsiderable point gained, that a long pending negotiation 
 was at length brought to an amicable termination. French claims 
 against the United States, to the amount of 1,500,000 francs, were 
 allowed to that government ; and a claim of France for duties on her 
 shipping in the ports of Louisiana, from which she claimed exemption 
 by the provisions of the Louisiana treaty, was yielded in the negotiation. 
 As a consideration for the abandonment of this claim, French wines 
 were to be admitted, for ten years, at very low rates of duty ; and 
 France stipulated to reduce the duties on American long staple cottons 
 to the rates charged on short staple cottons. 
 
 By the terms of the treaty, the French debt was payable in six annual 
 instalments, the first of which became due the 2d of February, 1833 
 A bill drawn on the French government, and to be sold on the best 
 
THE BANK CONTROVERSY 591 
 
 terms that could be obtained, was purchased by the bank of the United 
 States, and presented for payment ; but no appropriation having been 
 made for that purpose by the chamber of deputies, the bill was dishon- 
 ored. The subject was discussed at several successive sessions of tho 
 deputies, without making the necessary appropriations. 
 
 CHAPTER XLVIII. 
 
 THE BANK CONTROVEUSY. REMOVAL OF DEPOSITS. BANK INVESTIGATION. 
 
 The second term of Gen. Jackson's administration commenced the 
 4th of March, 1833. The southern excitement having been effectually 
 allayed by a modification of the tariff in which the south had agreed to 
 acquiesce, and the presidential contest having been decided by the 
 triumphant reelection of the incumbent who could not be suspected of 
 any future political aims ; a more tranquil state of the public miud dur- 
 ing the ensuing term, was generally anticipated. The settlement of the 
 bank question also, at least for the official term of Gren. Jackson, had 
 strengthened the general expectation of a comparatively peaceful admin- 
 istration. As the event will show, however, causes of high political ex- 
 citement were not wanting, among which the bank controversy was by 
 no means the least. 
 
 The question as to the recharter of the bank having been determined, 
 it was next intended to withdraw from it the public deposits, under the 
 expressed apprehension that they were not safe in that institution. In 
 his last annual message, (December, 1832,) the president said: "Such 
 measures as are within the reach of the secretary of the treasury, have 
 been taken to enable him to judge whether the public deposits in this 
 institution may be regarded as entirely safe ; but as his limited power 
 may prove inadequate to this object, I recommend the subject to the 
 attention of congress, under the firm belief that it is worthy of their 
 serious investigation. An inquiry into the transactions of the institu- 
 tion, embracing the branches as well as the principal bank, seems called 
 for by the credit which is given throughout the country to many serious 
 charges impeaching its character, and which, if true, may justly excite 
 the apprehension, that it is no longer a safe depository of the money of 
 the people." 
 
 The " measure" t^'.en by secretary M'Lane to ascertain the security of 
 
592 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the public money, was the appointment of Henry Toland to make the 
 investigation. Mr. T. reported to the secretary the 4th of December, 
 the day of the date of the message, that the liabilities of the batik 
 amounted to $37,296,950 ; and the fund to meet them, $79,593,870 ; 
 bhowing an excess of $42,296,920. As all its liabilities must be first 
 paid in case of insolvency or dissolution, he considered the security of 
 the public money, unquestionable. Nor was there any doubt of the 
 solvency of the bank. 
 
 The committee of wa3-s and means also, to whom wore referred the 
 transactions of the bank, in relation to the pa3''ment of the public debt, 
 and the inquiry into the present pecuniary and financial state and man- 
 agement of the institution, made a report through Mr. Verplanck, chair- 
 man, at a later period of the session, showing the resources of the bank 
 to be upwards of $43,000,000 beyond its liabilities, and concluding with 
 a resolution, " That the government deposits, may, in the opinion of 
 the house, be safely continued in the bank of the United States." 
 
 The resolution was opposed by Mr. Polk, who thought it unnecessary 
 to sustain the credit of the bank by adopting this resolution. Whenever 
 the secretary of the treasury deemed the deposits in the bank unsafe, it 
 was made his duty to withdraw them, and to lay his reasons before con- 
 gress. After replies from Messrs. Ingersoll, of Conn., and M'Duffie, 
 the resolution was adopted: ayes, 109; noes, 46. 
 
 The 2d session of the 22d congress was closed the 3d day of March, 
 1833, by the expiration of its oflBcial terra. In May, William J. Duane 
 of Pennsylvania, was appointed secretary of the treasury, in the place of 
 Mr. M'Lane, who was transferred to the head of the state department, 
 made vacant by the appointment of Mr. Livingston as minister to France. 
 
 The president, having determined on the withdrawal of the deposits 
 from the bank of the United States, appointed Amos Kendal to confer 
 with state banks in relation to future deposits and distribution of the 
 publiv; revenue. On the 18th of September, he read to the cabinet a 
 manifesto, giving his reasons for removing the deposits, among whiclr 
 were, his belief of the dangerous tendency of the bank, and his suspicions 
 that its motive in asking for a rccharter was to influence the presidential 
 election. Documents and articles had been printed and circulated, at 
 the expense of the bank, to influence public sentiment The people had, 
 by electing him, decided against its recharter, and he desired to evince 
 his gratitude by carrying their decision into effect. He assigned, aa 
 additional reasons, the necessity of a new arrangement before the dipso- 
 lution of the bank, the misapplication of public funds, its efi'orts to 
 deprive vhe government directors of a full knowledge of its concerns; and 
 an attempt to indace the holders of a portion of the three per cent, stocks, 
 
THE BANK CONTROTERSY. 593 
 
 not to demand payment for one or more years after notice should be 
 given by the treasury department. 
 
 The charge against the bank of having expended money for political 
 purposes, was founded upon a disclosure made by four of the government 
 directors. Resolutions had been adopted by the board, authorizing the 
 president of the bank, at his discretion, " to cause to be prepared and cir- 
 culated such documents and papers as might communicate to the people 
 information in regard to the nature and operations of the bank." About 
 $S0,000 were alleged to have been expended in the years 1831 and 
 1832, under these resolutions, for the printing of congressional speeches, 
 reports, and other documents, and for the purchase of pamphlets and 
 newspapers, designed to operate on elections, and to secure a renewal of 
 the charter. These directors had proposed the rescinding of these reso- 
 lutions ; but the board, instead of favoring the proposition, adopted a 
 resolution, commending "the wisdom and integrity of the president," 
 and requesting him " to continue his exertions for the promotion of said 
 object." 
 
 With respect to the postponement of the payment of the public debt, 
 the president alleged, that in sixteen months ending in May, 1832, the 
 bank had extended its loans more than $28,000,000, although it knew 
 the government intended to appropriate most of its large deposit during 
 that year in payment of the public debt. Sensible of its inability to pay 
 over the deposits, a secret negotiation was commenced for the holding 
 back of about $2,700,000 of the three per cent, stock held in Holland. 
 Having been informed by the secretary of his intention to pay off one- 
 half of the three per cents on the 1st of J||jly following, which amounted 
 to about $6,500,000, the president of the bank came forthwith to Wash- 
 ington, under the pretext of accommodating the importing merchants of 
 New York, (which it had failed to do,) and undertaking to pay the inter- 
 est itself, procured the consent of the secretary, after consultation with 
 the president, to postpone the payment until the 1st of October. Con- 
 scious that it would then be unable to pay, and that no farther indul- 
 gence was to be had of the government, an agent was sent secretly to 
 England to negotiate with the holders of public debt in Europe to hold 
 back their claims for one year, offering them an increased rate of interests 
 Thus the bank expected to retain the use of $5,000,000 of money which 
 the government should set apart for the payment of that debt. Tho- 
 president believed, had all these facts been known at the last session of 
 congress, the house of representatives would have come to a different 
 conclusion. 
 
 The law declared that the deposits should be made in the bank and" 
 its branches, " unless the secretary of the treasury should at any time; 
 
594 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 otherwise order and direct, in which case he should immediately lay 
 before congress, if in session, and if not, immediately after the commence- 
 ment of the ntxt session, the reason of such order and direction." This, 
 said the president, gave the secretary unqualified power over the depo- 
 sits ; the provision that he should report his reasons being no limitation. 
 
 Mr. Duane, having been directed to remove the deposits, and declining 
 to obey the direction, addressed the president a letter on the 21st of 
 September, accompanied by a copy of his commission ; a copy of hia 
 oath of office, pledging himself to execute his official trust with fidelity ; 
 a copy of the section of the law chartering the bank committing to him 
 alone the discretion to discontinue the deposits therein ; an extract from 
 a letter of the president of the 26th of June, promising not to interfere 
 with that discretion ; and an extract from his exposition to the cabinet 
 of the 18th instant, in which he had stated that he did not expect him 
 (Duane) to do, at his order or dictation, any act which he believed to be 
 illegal, or which his conscience condemned. And he also gave his 
 reasons for refusing to carry the directions into effect ; among which 
 were, that the change, without necessity, was a breach of faith ; that the 
 measure appeared vindictive and arbitrary ; that, if the bank had abused 
 its powers, the judiciary, and in the last resort, the representatives of 
 the people, were able and willing to punish ; that the latter had at the 
 last session pronounced the deposits safe ; that it was hazardous to place 
 them in the local banks, which were not, on an average, able to pay in 
 specie one dollar in six of their paper in circulation ; that it would place 
 in the hands of a secretary, dependent for office on the executive will, 
 a power to favor or punis]^ those banks, and make them political 
 machines ; that he believed the efforts to hasten the removal of the 
 deposits, had originated in schemes to promote selfish and factious pur- 
 poses ; and that persons and presses in the confidence and pay of tho 
 administration had attempted to intimidate and constrain the secretary 
 to execute an act in direct opposition to his own solemn convictions. 
 
 The refusal of secretary Duane was followed, on the 23d, by his remo- 
 val, and the appointment of Roger B. Taney, then attorney-general, in 
 his place. Benjamin F. Butler, of New York, was appointed to the 
 office of attorney-general. Mr. Taney, concirring with the president in 
 his views on the subject of the removal of the deposits, directed their 
 removal to the state banks selected as the fiscal agents of the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 This act was the causo of an unusual excitement, and of general dis- 
 cussion. That it would be strongly reprehended by the opponents of 
 the administration, who were generally friendly to the bank, was to have 
 been expected. But the dissatisfaction was not confined to that party 
 
SEMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 595 
 
 Many of the president's friends concurred in condemning the act, not 
 merely as inexpedient and unnecessary, but as an arbitrary exercise of 
 power ; others expressed their disapproval in more moderate terms. 
 Of the former class was a writer in a Charleston paper, who, in rela- 
 tion to the conduct of the president, observed : " He has usurped to 
 himself the right of disposing and removing, as he pleases, the reve- 
 nues of the country, and thus virtually of establishing banks, without 
 even the consent of congress, or of any other branch of the federal govern- 
 ment, to the wTiole of whose branches combined this competency has 
 been so frequently denied, not only by himself, but by many of our most 
 able and illustrious statesmen from the time of the immortal JeflFerson." 
 Of the latter class was Mr. Ritchie, the well known editor of the Rich- 
 mond Enquirer, who said : " If these (the president's) views were not 
 conclusive upon the mind of the secretary, it appears to us that the pre- 
 sident ought to have been content with doing his duty, and leaving the 
 responsibility where the law had left it, in the hands of the secretary. 
 The president might have, in the mean time, obtained information as to 
 the best mode of depositing the public money in the state banks. For 
 this cause alone he should not have removed the secretary, and appointed 
 a substitute. * * * We doubted the policy of the measure in rela- 
 tion to the bank as well as to the public. We also entertain doubts 
 about the power of the president to control the administration of the 
 treasury department in this behalf." 
 
 The directors of the bank having appointed a committee to whom 
 were referred the president's paper read to the cabinet on the 18th of 
 September, and that of the government directors, to which allusion has 
 just been made, this committee made their report to a meeting of the 
 board of directors on the 3d of December, which was adopted, 12 to 3. 
 The report is very long and elaborate, and designed as a full vindica- 
 tion of their course and a refutation of the charges brought against it 
 by its opponents. 
 
 It commences with an allusion to some of the eiforts made in the 
 summer of 1829, to eflfect the removal of Mr. Mason and the public 
 funds from the branch at Portsmouth, with the view to satisfy Mr. Isaac 
 Hill, who requested a change, because " the friends of Gen. Jackson 
 had but too much reason to complain of the management of the branch 
 at Portsmouth;" manifesting thus early " a combined effort to render 
 the institution subservient to party purposes." Hence it became neces- 
 sary to come to some immediate and distinct understanding of its rights 
 and duties. Extracts from the correspondence between Mr. Biddle and 
 the treasury department are given, in which he maintained, that the 
 management of the bank was committed to twenty-five directors, who 
 
596 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 were responsible to congress alone ; and no executive officer from the 
 president down had authority to interfere in it. " These extracts," the 
 report said, " revealed the whole secret of the hostility to the bank of 
 those who, finding it impossible to bend it to their purposes, had resolved 
 to break it." 
 
 The president had said, that " the money was to be deposited in the 
 bank during the continuance of its charter, unless the secretary of the 
 treasury should otherwise direct ;" and, " unless the secretary first acted, 
 congress had no power over the subject." He had declared that " the 
 power of the secretary over the deposits was unqualified," and that he 
 did not " require that any member of the cabinet should at his request, 
 order or dictation, perform any act which he believed unlawful, or his 
 conscience condemned;" yet the moment the secretary refused to do what 
 his conscience condemned, he was dismissed from office, and denounced 
 in the official gazette as a " refractory subordinate." 
 
 The report said, the paper read to the cabinet not having brought a 
 majority of its members into his views, the subject was postponed, and 
 in the mean time this document was put into the newspapers, as was 
 believed, for two reasons : the first was to influence the members of the 
 cabinet by bringing to bear upon their immediate decision the first pub- 
 lic impression excited by that document ; and secondly, to aff"ect the 
 approaching elections in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey ; as 
 was indicated by the triumphant exultation of the Globe at the result 
 of the elections in these states, and by its ascribing the same in part to 
 the expositions of the corruptions of the bank, read by the president to 
 the cabinet. 
 
 The directors pronounced the removal " a violation of the rights of 
 the bank and of the laws of the country." The bank had paid a bonus 
 of $1,500,000, and had agreed to render other services, for the uae of 
 the government deposits ; and they could not be taken out but for rea- 
 sons which the secretary must lay before congress. The purpose of 
 giving this power of removal was obviously to prevent loss to the reve- 
 nue ; and this seemed to have been so considered by the president him- 
 self, when, in his message, he suggested the inquiry into the safety of 
 the public moneys. But even if there were other reasons for their remo- 
 val, the secretary alone had the power to remove them. They alsr 
 adverted to the acts establishing the several departments, from which it 
 appeared, that the secretaries of state, war, and the navy, were to exe- 
 cute the orders of the president, and make their reports to him, and the 
 secretary of the treasury was to report and give information directly to 
 congress. In the charter of the bank, there was not a single power given 
 to the president over its administration, except in the provision author- 
 
BANK INVESTIGATION. 597 
 
 izing congress or the president to order a writ of scire facias, requiring 
 the corporation to show cause why the chartor should not be declared 
 void. 
 
 The directors say : " The main purpose of the president's manifesto 
 appears to be, to prove that the bank was unfriendly to his election ; 
 and he endeavors to trace this opposition to him and his measures : 
 
 '* 1st. In the application to congress for a renewal of the charter; 
 
 " 2d. In the extension of the loans of the bank in 1831 and 1832 ; 
 
 " 3d. In the claim for damages on the French bill ; 
 
 " 4th. In the circulation of documents vindicating the bank from the 
 imputations he had cast upon it." 
 
 In answering the first of these assertions, the report refers to the fact, 
 that the president did not think it too early to agitate the question of 
 rechartering the bank more than six years before its charter was to ex- 
 pire ; and after having called the attention of congress to the subject in 
 three successive annual messages, the bank, having asked for a renewal 
 of its charter only four years before its expiration, was charged with the 
 design, in this early application, to influence the election. 
 
 In regard to the extension of loans, designed, as the president be- 
 lieved, "■ to bring as large a portion of the people as possible under its 
 power and influence," he was in error, both as to the amount and the 
 motives. The sixteen months in which the increase of loans was alleged 
 to have been made, was from January 1, 1831, to May 1, 1832. In the 
 year 1831, the active foreign and interior trade required unusual facili- 
 ties for its operations. The bank, having received the reimbursement of 
 its loan to government, amounting to $8,674,681, and having called in 
 its funds in Europe, and employed its credit there, to the amount of 
 $4,000,000 — thus possessing additional means of loaning to the amount 
 of nearly thirteen millions — had increased its loans seventeen millions, 
 making in fact, a mere increase of its investments less than five millions, 
 of which increase the new branch at Natchez, established within that 
 period, alone contributed nearly three millions. 
 
 The report says farther : " There are several circumstances which 
 make this misstatement peculiarly improper. He reproaches the bank 
 with this increase, although ' the bank was aware of the intention of the 
 government to use the public deposit as fast as it accrued, in the paj^menfc 
 of the public debt.' Now the fact is, that the public deposit was used 
 as we have just seen, in paying off the public debt owned by the bank 
 itself; so that instead of increasing its loans in such a way as to interfere 
 with the payment of the public debt to others, this very public debt was 
 paid to the bank itself, and furnished the very means of increasing the 
 loans. What makes it still worse is, that this very public debt was in 
 
598 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. ^ 
 
 fact paid to tlie bank on the solicitation of the treasury itself, before the 
 bank was bound to receive it." In relation to this, the secretary wrote 
 to the bank, September 29th, 1831, saying: " The department fully ap- 
 preciates the disposition which the board of directors have manifested by 
 this arrangement, to cooperate in the accomplishment of its desire for 
 the discharge of the public debt as early as the means of the treasury 
 will permit." 
 
 The points of comparison, too, were said to be fallacious. It was im 
 proper to compare May and January. The southern crop, with all its 
 business, enlarged the spring operations of the bank. By comparing 
 January with January, or May with May, the increase would be found 
 comparatively small. 
 
 In regard to the alleged inability of the bank to meet the demands of 
 the government, and the necessity of obtaining a postponement, the 
 directors said, the truth was, the government wished to make the post- 
 ponement, but could not without the aid of the bank. Mr. M'Duffie and 
 Mr. Cambreleng, members of the committee of investigation at Phila- 
 delphia, wrote letters to the secretary of the treasury, dissuading ths 
 government from making the payment. But the commissioners of the 
 sinking fund having no authority to postpone the payment, as they 
 would be obliged to pay the quarter's interest during the three months' 
 delay, the president of the bank agreed to pay the interest, as the money 
 would remain in the hands of the bank. The secretary had himself de- 
 cided on the postponement, after he had seen the recommendation of 
 M'DufRe and Cambreleng. 
 
 " Much stress," they said, " was laid on the visit of the president of 
 the bank to Washington while the committee of investigation were in 
 Phikdelphia. The truth was, the letter of the acting secretary was re- 
 ceived so immediately before the period fixed for issuing the notice of 
 payment, that, if any thing were to be done at ail, it was to be done only 
 by personal communication with the secretary, as there was no time for 
 correspondence. The committee were aware of his going, and two of 
 its members wrote letters to promote his object. Besides, his leaving 
 the committee in full possession of the bank and all its papers, was the 
 surest mark of his entire confidence that there was nothing in the con- 
 cerns of the bank which they might not examine at leisure during his ab- 
 sence, and was the best proof of his confidence in them as well as him- 
 self Tlie whole subject was before the committee of investigation of 
 1832 ; and that committee acknowledged, as would be seen from theij 
 report, that this postponement was not the work of the bank." 
 
 Another evidence adduced of the bank's opposition to him, was its 
 claim for damages from the non-payment of the bill drawn by our gov- 
 
BANK INVESTIGATION. 599 
 
 Grnment on that of France for about $900,000, being the first instalment 
 of the French indemnif 7, and which the bank had purchased. The pur- 
 chase money was left in the use of the bank, being simply added to the 
 treasury deposit ; and yet the bank demanded fifteen per cent, as 
 damages, when no damage beyond a trifling expense had been sustained. 
 Such a fiscal agent of the government was not worthy of further trust. 
 To this the directors reply, that the bank, in this operation, was not the 
 fiscal agent of the government. The bank did not wish to purchase the 
 bill at all, but proposed to collect it, paying the money only after it had 
 been received by its agents in France. It was not true that the money 
 was left in the use of the bank, and simply added to the treasury de- 
 posit. The sum was passed to the credit of the treasurer, and the pro- 
 ceeds of this identical bill had been used by the government for paying 
 its ordinary expenses. And when the bill was protested in Paris, the 
 agents of the bank there came forward and paid it : it had thus been 
 paid twice over ; so that the disbursements by the bank on account of 
 the bill had actually been $1,800,000. It had called on the government 
 for the principal and damages ; and the government was bound on the 
 principles of common honesty to pay the damages. It had been the uni- 
 form practice of the government itself, when it had purchased bills from 
 private citizens which had been returned protested, to enforce its claim 
 for damages. 
 
 All the allegations of the president against the bank were separately 
 considered, and explained or denied. There had been no studied exclu- 
 sion of government directors from committees. Nor had there been 
 any " unusual i-emodeling " of committees. Nor was it tru^that " the 
 president of the bank, by his single will, originated and executed many 
 of the most important measures," &c. 
 
 The expenditures during the years 1831 and 1832, under authority of 
 certain resolutions, were not $80,000 ; they were exactly $48,278 90, 
 as explained in the report. 
 
 It was not true, as charged, " that publications had been prepared 
 and circulated, containing the grossest invectives against the ofiicers of 
 the government ;" or that the president of the bank had unlimited dis- 
 cretion to expend its funds," in the manner alleged, " to operate on 
 elections and secure a renewal of its charter." The power actually 
 given which had been exercised, and would continue to be exercised, was 
 for the defense of the bank against the calumnies with which, for four 
 years, the institution had been pursued. 
 
 The report of the directors also reviews the report of the four " gov- 
 ernment directors;" but we may not extend this reply. 
 
 At the commencement of the next session of congress in December 
 
600 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 1833, secretary Taney made a long report to congress, giving his reasone 
 for removing the deposits. His reasons were founded mainly upon the 
 statements and allegations of the president and government directors, aa 
 given in preceding pages. 
 
 CHAPTEK XLIX. 
 
 COMTINUATION OF THE BANK AND DEPOSIT QUESTION. CLAY's RESOLTT- 
 
 TIONS, AND THE PRESIDENT'S PROTEST. POST-OFFICE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 The removal of the deposits took place the 1st of October, 1833 ; or, 
 strictly speaking, the public moneys were no longer deposited in the bank 
 of the United States ; those remaining therein, being only drawn out as 
 they wore wanted by the government. The loans of the bank were cur- 
 tailed ; and a severe money pressure soon pervaded the country. Busi- 
 ness of most kinds was greatly depressed. Bills of state banks depre- 
 ciated in value on account of the demand for money ; and banks were 
 compelled to reduce their discounts. Public meetings were held in 
 many places, and memorials to congress were prepared, praying for a 
 return of the deposits to the bank of the United States. The memorial 
 of the Philadelphia chamber of commerce, in enumerating the effects of 
 this measure, mentioned the decline in the price of public stocks from 
 10 to 30 ipcr cent.; the depression of the foreign and domestic ex- 
 changes ; the fall in value of all the principal articles of domestic pro- 
 duce; the impossibility of borrowing on mortgage as formerly, even at 
 the highest legal rates of interest; the ruinous discount on good mercan- 
 tile paper, which varied from 12 to 18 per cent. ; the difficulty of obtaining 
 cash advances on produce or merchandise ; the discharge of laborers, and 
 the suspension of mechanical and manufacturing business; the decline 
 in the value of real estate, &c. 
 
 While the friends of the bank regarded this state of things as a natural 
 and necessary consequence of the removal of the deposits, its opponents 
 considered the scarcity of money as only artificial, and attributed the 
 pressure to the panic produced by the bank and its friends for political 
 purposes, or with a view to the renewal of its charter. Its discounts, 
 they said, had been unnecessarily reduced, with a design to embarrass 
 the state banks, which had been compelled to contract their issues. 
 
 At no former stage of the bank controversy was there so intense ao 
 excitement on this question. This act of the president alineated many 
 
CONTINUATION OF THE BANK AND DEPOSIT QUESTION. GOl 
 
 of his former supporters. Meetings in many places were called, irrespec- 
 tive of party, and numerously attended by the friends of the administra- 
 tion ; and resolutions unanimously adopted, condemning the removal of 
 the deposits. Similar resolutions were also passed by the legislatures 
 of several of the states. Those adopted by the Virginia house of dele- 
 gates, while they reiterated the opinion of the general assembly against 
 the power of congress to establish a bank, pronounced the act of the 
 president in exerting a control over the federal revenue, by causing its 
 removal, on his own responsibility, from the bank, where it had been 
 deposited under the authority of congress, " an unauthorized assumption 
 and dangerous exercise of executive power;" and instructed their sena- 
 tors, and requested their representatives, in congress, to vindicate the 
 constitution, and redress the evils thus occasioned. The legislatures of 
 New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, on the other hand passed 
 resolutions approving the course of the president. 
 
 The reality of the scarcity of money was a fact too palpable to be 
 disputed; the great point in controversy was the cause. The aggregate 
 loans of the bank, on the 1st of January, 1833, were $61,695,613, when 
 it had in deposit, $20,271,221. January 1st, 1834, three months after 
 the deposits were removed, the amount of loans was $54,911,461, and 
 of deposits, $10,965,375 ; showing the reduction of loans to have been 
 $2,521,393 less than the reduction of deposits, during the year. 
 
 One of the reasons alleged for the curtailment of its operations, was 
 the apprehension of an attempt, on the part of the government, to em- 
 barrass it. Mr. Kendall, the government agent, in a letter to a New 
 Yoi'k editor, a few days after the removal of the deposits, spoke of the 
 effects of a sudden withdrawal of the public moneys, (then nearly ten 
 millions,) from the bank, and added: " Yes, sir, this boasting giant is 
 but a reptile beneath the feet of the secretary of the treasury, which he 
 can crush at will. It exists by his forbearance, and will, for the next 
 forty days ; and great forbearance will it require to save it from de- 
 struction." 
 
 A few weeks after, the bank was surprised by the presentation of a 
 number of large drafts, one of $100,000 at the branch in Baltimore, and 
 two others, one of $100,000, and another of $500,000, at the bank in 
 Philadelphia, all of which were paid. Three others, of $500,000 each, 
 had been drawn upon the branch in New York. These drafts were all 
 in favor of the state banks in these places selected fo receive the deposits. 
 It had been the uniform practice of the treasury to transmit to the bank 
 a weekly statement of drafts to be made upon it ; but these large sums 
 were drawn for without the usual previous notice. The belief that the 
 unexpected demand of these secret drafts was designed to embarrass the 
 
602 "the AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 bank, was strengthened by certain articles in the official paper, the 
 Globe, in one of •which, alluding to the " runs upon Mr. Biddle's bank,' 
 the editor said : "In more ways than one can the people make their 
 power manifest ; and the trepidation displayed in the bank hive when 
 the people, in a portion of Kentucky, by a spontaneous movement, began 
 last year to cash its paper, has taught us how to make war with effect, 
 whenever the conduct of the bank shall make it necessary or expedient." 
 
 The 23d congress met on the 3d of December, 1833 ; and some hopes 
 were entertained that measures would be adopted to mitigate the dis 
 tress which pervaded the whole union, and affected almost every branch 
 of business. Durii:\g the winter and spring of 1834, many banks were 
 compelled to stop payment. A large number of memorials were sent in 
 to congress, praying for a restoration of the deposits to the bank of the 
 United States. Numerous remonstrances also were presented against 
 their retui'n to that institution. • The "ate of parties in congress at this 
 time was such as to forbid the adoption of the measure prayed for, or of 
 an}^ other which was designed to afford relief. 
 
 In the senate, Mr. Calhoun and his friends now acting with the opp(>- 
 sitiou, the administration party was in the minority. In the house, 
 parties were subdivided into the Jackson party proper ; the Jackson 
 Van Burcn party ; the Jackson anti-Van Buren party ; the anti- Jack- 
 son party ; the nullifying anti- Jackson party ; and the anti-masonic and 
 anti-Jackson party. The three first named generally acting together, 
 gave the administration a considerable majority, as appeared from the 
 vote in the choice of speaker ; Andrew Stevenson, of- Virginia, being 
 reelected by a vote of 142 to 66, and 9 blanks. 
 
 In the senate, the practice which had existed in that body since 1828, 
 of the appointment of committees by the president of the senate, was 
 changed. Their appointment by the senate itself was reestablished. 
 
 The removal of the deposits occupied a large share of the attention of 
 congress at this session. It was brought to their consideration, both 
 by the message of the president, and the report of the secretary of the 
 treasury communicating his reasons for the removal. It was discussed 
 on a great variety of motions, resolutions, calls for information, &c. 
 
 In the house, on the motion to refer the secretary's report to the 
 committee of ways and means, Mr. M'Duffie moved to instruct the 
 committee " to report a resolution, providing that the public revenue 
 hereafter collected shall be deposited in the bank of the United States, 
 in compliance with the public faith, pledged by the charter of the said 
 bank." He supported his motion by a long speech, in which he re- 
 viewed the conduct of the president and secretary in removing the 
 deposits, alleging that the a^ithor of the act was the president, who had 
 
CONTINUATION OF THE BANK AND DEPOSIT QUESTION. 603 
 
 Tio power over the deposits. He spoke of the distress produced by that 
 measure, aud he vindicated the bank from the numerous charges pre- 
 ferred against it by the president and secretary. 
 
 He was replied to by Mr. Polk, at great length, in defense of the 
 president, and in reprehending the conduct of the bank. Mr. P. main- 
 tained that the president had power over the heads of the departments. 
 Being responsible to the people for the faithful execution of the laws, 
 he must have the power to control the conduct of his assistants, not 
 excepting the secretary of the treasury. It would not be pretended 
 that congress could either appoint or remove that officer ; they could 
 reach him only by the tedious process of impeachment. Mr P. 
 referred to Mr. Madison and his cotemporaries to prove the respon- 
 sibility of the president for the executive department, and the conse- 
 quent power of removal. He also referred to the act of secretary 
 Crawford, in 1817, who informed congress that he had made deposits 
 in local banks, to aid them in resuming specie payments, and for other 
 purposes. 
 
 Mr. Polk considered the several allegations against the bank of mis- 
 conduct, and endeavored to show that they were well founded; that 
 there was no necessity for the system of curtailment adopted by the 
 bank. The secretary had stated in his report, aud the bank returns 
 corroborated the statement, that from August 1, to October 1, 1833, 
 the bank had curtailed its discounts upwards of $4,000,000, while its 
 means of discounting had been increased by an increase of deposits. 
 He said the bank had so timed its reduction as to produce a pressure 
 about the time of the meeting of congress, to induce the state banks to 
 appeal to congress for a recharter of the bank of the United States. 
 The mere transfer of the public money could not have produced the 
 pressure ; the money was still in the country. Nor must the pressure 
 be charged to the local banks ; their curtailments had become necessary 
 to protect themselves from the effect of the excessive reductions by the 
 bank of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Polk, in noticing the reasons assigned for the large increase of 
 loans by the bank from Jan. 1, 1831, to May 1, 1832, said, if it had 
 become necessary, in consequence of the unusually large importations, 
 for the bank to extend its business, to enable the merchants to sustain 
 themselves and the credit of the country, it was equally incumbent on 
 the bank to extend its accommodations to the importing merchants 
 in 1833, when the importations exceeded those of 1831, by eight mil- 
 lions. But it was apparent that the course of the bank was governed 
 by political considerations. 
 
 Against the statement of the president of the bank, that the post- 
 
604 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ponement of the payment of the three per cent, stocks was desired by 
 the government instead of the bank, Mr. P. adduced the testimony 
 of two of the directors, and of Mr. Dickens, chief clerk of the treasury, 
 from whose statements it appears, that " the arrangement was made by 
 the government, at the solicitation of tke bank." And he quoted from 
 the report of the committee of ways and means of the preceding session 
 their opinion "that in the arrangement made by the agent in England for 
 the purchase of the three per cent, stock, and the detention of the cer- 
 tificates, (which measure was afterwards disclaimed by the bank,) the 
 institution exceeded its legitimate authority." 
 
 The expenditures for printing were also examined, and evidence was 
 presented to convict the president of the bank of misstatements, and of 
 a corrupt expenditure of money. Mr. P. read extracts from some of 
 the pamphlets paid for by the bank, which, he thought, did not appear 
 to have been designed for the defense of the bank, as had been pre- 
 tended. 
 
 Mr. Binney, of Pennsylvania, replied to Mr. Polk; but on two 
 points only can we present his arguments. The first is, the establish- 
 ment of the treasury department, which involved the question of the 
 power of the president to control its affairs. The act of 1789 establish- 
 ing the state department, then called " department of foreign affairs " 
 was entitled, " An act for establishing an executive departnient," &c. • 
 and the secretary was to execute the duties enjoined on and intrusted to 
 him by the president. So the departments of war and the navy were 
 denominated executive departments, in the titles of the acts establishing 
 them. But in the act for establishing the treasury department, the 
 denomination of " executive " was omitted, not by accident, but by 
 design, as the word was in the title of the bill when reported by the 
 committee. And what was more material, after enumerating the duties 
 devolved upon him in relation to the finances, the act farther requires 
 him to make report to either branch of the legislature : in all of which 
 the name of the president was not even mentioned. Hence, so far as 
 the acts of the secretary related to the custody and security of the 
 public moneys, his department was not a presidential department. 
 "To have placed the custody of the public treasury within the execu- 
 tive department, would have been a constitutional incongruity, to say 
 nothing of the mischiefs of placing the power of the sword and the 
 purse in the same hand. It would have marred the harmony and sim- 
 plicity of the whole scheme of the constitution, by leaving to congress 
 the duty of paying the debts and providing for the common defense and 
 welfare, while the money collected for these objects was not under their 
 control, but in the hands of a different department." Mr. B. did not 
 
clay's resolutions. 60ff 
 
 adopt the conclusion of Mr. Polk, that because the president had the 
 power of removal, he had the right to direct the secretary of the trea- 
 sury in the discharge of his duties of every description. 
 
 The other point in the speech of Mr. B. which it proposed to present, 
 is his vindication of the bank in diminishing its discounts. It had been 
 said that the ability of the bank to discount had been increased by the 
 receipt of $4,000,000 of the public moneys in August and September. 
 But the inference was erroneous. The bank not only had debtors, but 
 was herself a debtor for private, as well as public deposits, and for her 
 notes in circulation and balances due other banks ; and when she called 
 on her debtors for a part of her demands, these very persons might be 
 her creditors by deposit, or might borrow from such as were, and might 
 call on the bank for what she owed them. And it appeared, that during 
 these two months, the private deposits had actually fallen more than two 
 millions. 
 
 Said Mr. Binney : " Although the removal of the deposits did not 
 take place until the 1st of October, the intention to remove them was 
 fully known in July. The agency to negotiate with the state banks was 
 announced in the Globe of the 25th of July ; and whatever the public 
 might think, it was not for the bank to act in any other faith than that 
 the purpose would be immediately and relentlessly executed. It was 
 the clear duty of the board to prepare itself without a moment's delay. 
 The position of the bank was every where known to the treasury depart- 
 ment by the weekly statements. Her widely dispersed branches were to 
 be strengthened wherever they required it. Her circulation was large, 
 and she was in the practice of assisting it by an almost universal pay- 
 ment at all points, without regard to the tenor of the notes. The house 
 may judge of the extent of the accommodation which the bank was in 
 the practice of giving, by the thirty-nine millions of these notes paid 
 out of place in the year 1832. They may know it farther, by the fact, 
 that of these branch notes, $1,540,000 were paid at the bank in Philadel- 
 phia, during the very months of August and September, 1833. This 
 circulation was to be sustained and increased, to be still more facilitated, 
 as it since has been, to keep the people and the bank from feeling the 
 consequences of the measure. All this required that the bank should 
 not sleep upon her post. The least dishonor suffered by that bank, 
 would have produced universal disorder in the country." 
 
 In the senate, on the 5th of December, Mr. Clay offered a resolution, 
 requesting the president to inform the senate whether the paper read to 
 the cabinet on the 18th of September, and alleged to have been pub- 
 lished by his authority, was genuine or not ; and if genuine, to cause a 
 copy of it to be laid before the senate. The resolution was adopted on 
 
606 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the llth, by a vote of 23 to 18. The call was answered the next day 
 by a message, questioning the constitutional right of the senate to 
 require of him, a coordinate and independent branch of the government, 
 an account of any communication made to the heads of the departments 
 acting as a cabinet council, and adding as follows : " Feeling my respon- 
 sibility to the American people, I am willing, upon all occasions, to ex- 
 plain the grounds of my conduct; and to give to either branch of the 
 legislature any information in my possession that may be useful in the 
 execution of the appropriate duties confided to them. Knowing the con- 
 stitutional rights of the senate, I shall be the last man, under any cir- 
 cumstances, to interfere with them. Knowing those of the executive, I 
 shall, at all times, endeavor to maintain them, agreeably to the provisions 
 of the constitution, and the solemn oath I have taken to support and 
 defend it. I am constrained, therefore, by a proper sense of my own 
 self-respect, and by the rights secured by the constitution to the execu- 
 tive branch of the government, to decline a compliance with your 
 request." 
 
 On the 26th of December, Mr. Clay offered two resolutions : the first, 
 declaring the dismissal of the late secretary because he would not, con- 
 trary to his sense of duty, remove the public moneys, in conformity with 
 the president's opinion, and the appointment of another to do the act, to 
 be an exercise of a power over the treasury not granted to him by the 
 constitution and laws, and dangerous to the liberties of the people. 
 Second, that the reasons assigned by the secretary for the removal, were 
 unsatisfactory and insuflficient. 
 
 Mr. Clay supported these resolutions in a speech of two days. The 
 theme, as will be readily imagined, was well adapted to elicit one of 
 those " splendid efforts" for which that gentleman was celebrated, and 
 which, how much soever they might come short of convincing, could not 
 fail of charming his auditory. He was several times interrupted by ap- 
 plause from the galleries which occasioned the interference of the vice- 
 president. At the conclusion of the speech, it became necessary to 
 order the galleries cleared to enforce the respect due to the senate. 
 
 Mr. Benton replied to Mr. Clay on four successive days, in a speech 
 characteristic of its distinguished author, a large portion of it consisting 
 of documentary and historical extracts to fortify his positions. He con 
 eluded his speech with a motion to strike out the second resolution and 
 insert, " That Nicholas Biddle, president of the bank of the United 
 
 States, and , be summoned to appear at the bar of the senate, on 
 
 the day of , then and there to be examined on oath, touch* 
 
 ing the causes of the late large curtailment of debts due to the bank of 
 the United States, and the manner of conducting the said curtailment; 
 
CLAY S RESOLUTIONS, AND THE PRESIDENT'S PROTEST. 607 
 
 also to be then and there examined touching the application of the moneys 
 of the bank to electioneering and political objects." 
 
 The debate was continued by Messrs. Southard, Calhoun, Ewing 
 Preston, Sprague, Frelinghuysen, and Tyler, in favor of Mr. Clay's reso- 
 lutions; and by Messrs. Shepley, Rives, Forsyth, Grrundy, Wilkins, Hill, 
 Tallmadge and Wright, in opposition. With few exceptions, the 
 speeches were of unusual length. The discussion was protracted until 
 the 28th of March, during a period of more than three months It was 
 interspersed, however, with debates upon sundry other questions, some 
 of which were incidental to, or growing out of, the principal one, the 
 removal of the deposits. Among these questions were numerous memo- ' 
 rials from diflFerent parts of the union ; resolutions and proceedings of 
 state legislatures ; the public distress, &c. 
 
 On the 5th of February, Mr. Webster, from the committee of finance, 
 to whom had been referred the secretary's report on the removal of the 
 deposits, and the second of the two resolutions of Mr. Clay, made a 
 report which recommended the adoption of that resolution. At the 
 close of the debate on this resolution, (March 28,) the question was taken 
 upon its adoption, and decided in the affirmative : ayes, 28 ; noes, 18. 
 
 Mr. Clay, then, at the instance of some of his friends, modified hia 
 other resolution, so as to read as follows : " Resolved, That the presi- 
 dent, in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, 
 has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the 
 constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." The resolution was 
 agreed to : ayes, 26 ; noes, 20. 
 
 The passage of this resolution, which took place on the 28th of March, 
 was followed, on the l5th of April, by a message from the president, 
 protesting against this act of the senate. He pronounced the resolution, 
 in substance, an impeachment of the president, contrary to the form 
 prescribed by the constitution. It abstained from averring in which of 
 his proceedings the president had assumed unauthorized power. It was 
 too general and indefinite to be easily repelled, yet sufficiently precise to 
 bring into discredit the conduct and motives of the executive. And if 
 this act of the senate, said the president, " shall be approved and sus- 
 tained by an intelligent people, then will that great contest with arbi- 
 trary power, which had established in statutes, in bills of rights, in sacred 
 charters, and in constitutions of government, the right of every citizen 
 to a notice before trial, to a hearing before conviction, and an impartial 
 tribunal for deciding on the charge, have been waged in vain." 
 
 He referred to the debate in the congress of 1789, on the establish- 
 ment of the department of foreign affairs, in which the motion to strike 
 but the clause declaring the secretary "to be removable by the presi- 
 
608 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 dent," was cJeoivJed in the negative. This debate, he said, covered the 
 whole ground, including the treasury department. He adverted to the 
 fact, that four of the senators who had voted for the resolution, were 
 from states whose legislatures had approved the course of the president 
 and the secretary in relation to the bank, to wit : one from Maine, the 
 two from New Jersey, and one from Ohio, 
 
 After having stated the objects and reasons which impelled him to 
 make this communication, he says : " I do hereby solemnly protest 
 against the aforementioned proceedings of the senate, as unauthorized 
 by the constitution ; contrary to its spirit and to several of its express 
 ' provisions ; subversive of that distribution of the powers of government 
 jyhich it has ordained and established ; . . . and calculated, by their 
 immediate and collateral effects, by their character and tendency, to 
 concentrate in the hands of a body not directly amenable to the people, 
 a decree of influence and power dangerous to their liberties, and fatal 
 to the constitution of their choice." And after referring to his services 
 in the two wars In which liberty was purchased and defended, to shield 
 him from the imputation iipon his private as well as public character, 
 which was contained in this resolution of the senate which must stand 
 forever on their journals, he concludes : " To the end that the resolu- 
 tion of the senate may not be hereafter drawn into precedent, and to the 
 end, also, that my motives and views in the executive proceeding 
 denounced in that resolution may be known to my fellow-citizens, to the 
 world, and to all posterity, I respectfully request that this message and 
 protest may be entered at length on the journals of the senate." 
 
 Immediately after the protest w»s read, Mr. Poindexter rose, as he 
 said, " to enter his solemn protest against the reception of this paper, 
 and to submit a motion that it be not received;" which motion at the 
 conclusion of his remarks, he accordingly made. This was the com 
 mencement of a highly interesting and animating, though somewhat 
 acrimonious debate, which continued until the 7th of May. Those who 
 farther participated in the debate were, Messrs. Sprague, Frelinghuysen, 
 Southard, Leigh, Ewing, Bibb, Clay, Calhoun, Preston, and Webster, 
 in favor of the motion of Mr. Poindexter ; and Messrs. Benton, King, 
 Kane, Grundy, Wright, and Forsyth, in opposition. 
 
 After the debate had proceeded a few days, an explanatory message 
 was received from the president, designed to prevent a misconstruction 
 of his former message into an " intention to deny the power and right 
 of the legislative department to provide by law for the custody, safe- 
 keeping, and disposition of the public money and property of the United 
 States." Among the passages in the first message liable to the construc- 
 tion apprehended by the president, and to which senators had taken 
 
clay's resolutions, and the president's protest. 609 
 
 exceptions, with the silent acquiescence on the part of the executive 
 department, were the following: 
 
 " The custody of the public property, under such regulations as may 
 be prescribed by legislative authority, has always been considered an 
 appropriate function of the executive department, in this and all other 
 governments. * * * The superintendents and keepers of the whole 
 are appointed by the president, and removable at his will. Public 
 money is but a species of public property. * * * No officer can 
 be created by congress for the purpose of taking charge of it, whose 
 appointment would not, by the constitution, at once devolve on the pre- 
 sident, and who would not be responsible to him for the faithful perform- 
 ance of his duties. * » * Were the congress to assume, with or 
 without legislative act, the power of appointing officers, independently 
 of the president, to take the charge and custody of the public property 
 contained in the military and naval arsenals, magazines and store-houses, 
 it is believed such an act would be regarded as a palpable usurpation of 
 executive power, subversive of the form, as well as the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of our government. But where is the diflference of principle, 
 whether public property be in the form of arms, munitions of war, and 
 supplies, in gold and silver, or bank notes ?" 
 
 Mr. Poindexter moved that this (the last) message also be not received, 
 and gave notice of his intention to move certain resolutions modifying 
 his resolution then under consideration. 
 
 It was objected to receiving the protest, that it was extra-official, not 
 coming within the rule prescribed in the constitution regulating inter- 
 course between the president and congress ; that it was vindictive and 
 calumnious ; that it was an unauthorized executive interference with the 
 legislative action of the senate; that it falsely assumed the declaration 
 of the senate to be* criminal procedure against him; that no such paper 
 had ever been presented to either house of congress ; that it was intended 
 as a popular appeal to the people, and to make the senate itself the medi- 
 um through which to promulgate his unfounded charges against that body. 
 
 It was argued on the other hand, that the senate had condemned the 
 president, and would not allow him to be heard in his defense ; that he 
 had respectfully requested that his defense might be entered upon the 
 journals of the body that had condemned him ; that the resolution of 
 the senate was of an impeaching character and foreign to all legislation, 
 as was evident from the fact that it was not a joint resolution requiring 
 the action of the house of representatives. As a precedent for the pro- 
 test, a case was cited which had occurred under Washington's adminis- 
 tration. The senate had rejected a nomination; Gen. Washington felt 
 aggrieved, and, on a subsequent day, sent in the name of another indi- 
 
 39 
 
610 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 vidual, with a message complaining of the rejection of the former, and 
 assigning his reasons for having nominated him. 
 
 The debate on the resolutions of Mr. Poindexter closed on the 7th of 
 May, when they were adopted: ayes, 27; noes, 16. The resolutions 
 were agreed to in the following form : 
 
 *' Resolved, That the protest communicated to the senate on 17th 
 instant, (April,) by the president of the United States, asserts powers 
 as belonging to the president, which are inconsistent with the just authority 
 of the two houses of congress, and inconsistent with the constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 " Resolved, That while the senate is, and ever will be, ready to receive 
 from the president all such messages and communications as the consti- 
 tution and lawSj and the usual course of business authorize him to 
 transmit to it; yet it can not recognize any right in him to make a formal 
 protest against votes and proceedings of the senate, declaring such votes 
 and proceedings to be illegal and unconstitutional, and requesting the 
 senate to enter such protest on its journals. 
 
 " Resolved, That the aforesaid protest is a breach of the privileges of 
 the senate, and that it be not entered on the journal. 
 
 ** Resolved, That the president of the United States has no right to 
 send a protest to the senate against any of its proceedings." 
 
 The material point in this controversy about the removal of the 
 deposits, was the power claimed by and for the president over the custody 
 of the public moneys ; for, although the removal was made by order of 
 the secretary, the "responsibility was assumed " by the president, who 
 acknowledged the act as his own. The right of interference on his part 
 was defended on the ground, first, that the treasury department was an 
 executive department, designed, as were the other departments, to aid 
 the executive in his constitutional duty, " to see that the laws are faith- 
 fully executed ; " and secondly, that under the power of appointment 
 and removal, possessed by the president, he could displace any executive 
 officer who would not cooperate with him in the execution of the laws. 
 
 It was contended, on the other hand, that the power here asserted, 
 gave the president entire control of the treasury — -a power never con- 
 templated by the act establishing that department. That act was 
 designed to make the secretary of the treasury, so far as his duties 
 related to the public moneys, directly responsible to congress. Yet the 
 president expressly declares : " Congress can not take out of the hands 
 of the executive department the custody of the public property or 
 money, without an assumption of executive power." Exercising the 
 power of removal and appointment at pleasure, and if necessary, dispens* 
 ing with the confirmations of the senate to his appointments, by appoint- 
 
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 611 
 
 ing and reappointing in the recess, as in a certain instance he had done 
 he could evade any provision which congress might make for the custody 
 and disposition of the public money, and the union of the purse and the 
 sword in the hands of the executive would be complete. [Appendix, 
 Note H.] 
 
 Several reports and counter-reports, in relation to the bank, and the 
 removal of the deposits, were made during the session. A project for 
 the recharter of the bank for six years, was proposed by Mr. Webster. 
 The question on granting leave to introduce his bill, was, on his own 
 motion, laid on the table, to be called up at a future day, which, how- 
 ever, was not done 
 
 Among the reports above mentioned, were those of the majority and 
 minority of a committee of the house of representatives, appointed to 
 investigate the affairs of the bank of the United States. The objects 
 of this investigation were, to ascertain the cause of the commercial dis- 
 tress complained of in the memorials presented to congress ; whether 
 the bank had violated its charter ; what corruptions and abuses existed 
 in its management ; whether it had used its corporate power or money 
 to control the press or interfere in politics ; and whether it had any 
 agency in producing the existing pressure. The committee had power 
 to visit the bank, to inspect its books, to send for persons and papers, 
 and to summon and examine witnesses. 
 
 The majority of the committee, in their report, complain of the treat- 
 ment which they received from the bank directors. Although they had 
 not been utterly denied the means of making the required investigation, 
 their proceedings were so embarrassed, and their privileges so restricted, 
 as to prevent the performance of the duties enjoined on them. They 
 state, at the conclusion of their report : 
 
 " Thus, your committee conclude, the just power and authority of 
 the house of representatives have been set at naught, defied, and con 
 temned. 
 
 " Thus the charter of the bank has been deliberately violated by re- 
 fusals of directors to submit their books and papers to the inspection 
 of this committee. 
 
 " Thus have the just expectations of the house and their constituents 
 been disappointed, and all means of obtaining the best and most accurate 
 information concerning the operations of a controlling moneyed institu- 
 tion been cut off and denied." 
 
 The report concludes with a series of resolutions, asserting the right 
 of congress, by the charter of the bank, to examine the books and pro- 
 ceedings of the bank; declaring the president and directors, by withhold- 
 ing books and papers called for by the committee, to have contemned the 
 
612 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 legitimate authority of the house ; and ordering the president and direc- 
 tors of the bank to be arrested and brought to the bar of the house to 
 answer for their contempt of its lawful authority. 
 
 Mr. Everett, from the minority, reported, that the power of inquiring 
 into the affairs of the bank extended only to the objects for which it was 
 given, viz., to enable a committee to report " whether the provisions of 
 the charter had been violated or not;" but did not embrace the right to 
 search the bank for objects not made subjects of search by the charter. 
 A general search for any purpose was unreasonable ; and the corporators 
 of the bank, as well as other citizens, had the right " to be secure in 
 their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches 
 md seizures." A room in the banking-house had been oifered for the 
 accommodation of the committee of investigation. The committee of the 
 directors proposed- to exhibit their books in person, and to withdraw 
 whenever the congress committee wished to deliberate without the pre- 
 sence of any other person ; the latter committee insisted on the right to 
 exclude all other persons from the room. In the opinion of the minority, 
 the right of the committee " to inspect the books" did not involve the 
 right of withdrawing the books of the bank from the custody of the 
 directors, and taking them into their own exclusive possession, detaining 
 them as long as they pleased, and carrying them whithersoever they 
 pleased. The committee of investigation having withdrawn from tho 
 room in the banking-house, the president and directors were required to 
 submit certain of their books to the inspection of the committee at their 
 room at the North American hotel. The committee of directors declined, 
 for reasons which appeared in their resolutions. 
 
 The directors required of the committee of investigation, when they 
 should ask for books and papers, to specify the objects of their inquiry. 
 This ground, assumed by the directors under the circumstances of the 
 case, the minority regarded as a legal right. They expressed the opinion 
 that the directors were disposed to afford any information for which the 
 committee had a right to call, and concluded their report thus : " Firmly 
 believing that they are innocent of the crimes and corruptions with which 
 they have been charged, and that, if guilty, they ought not to be com- 
 pelled to criminate themselves, the undersigned are clearly of opinion, 
 that the directors of the bank have been guilty of no contempt of the 
 authority of this house, in having respectfully declined to submit their 
 books for inspection, except as required by the charter." 
 
 These reports were made the 22d of May. On the 27th, the printing 
 of 30,000 copies of both reports together was ordered. In the debate 
 on printing, Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, said he wished the minor- 
 ity repgrl; extensively circulated for its sound and correct constitutional 
 
THR BANK AND THE PENSION LAW. 613 
 
 views, although it did not go far enough ; he was therefore in fiivor of 
 printing the largest number. But he particularly wished the largest 
 proposed number of the report of the majority published, that the people 
 might see the monstrous powers arrogated for that house. The citizens 
 of Pennsylvania knew that their meritorious sons, Ingham and Duane, 
 had been igaominiously dismissed from office without cause; but they 
 might not know that it was contemplated to drag fourteen of her distin- 
 guished citizens as criminals before that house. 
 
 Mr. Bynum, of North Carolina, replied to Mr. Pinckney. He thought 
 nis object in denouncing, in advance, the report of the majority, was to 
 prejudge it, and to forestall public opinion. 
 
 On the 29th of May, Mr. J. Q. Adams obtained the unanimous con- 
 sent of the house to submit as a substitute for the resolutions of the 
 majority, three resolutions, declaring, 1st. That the committee of investi- 
 gation be discharged ; 2dly, That no contempt of the lawful authority 
 of the house had been offered by the president and directors of the bank ; 
 and 3dly, That the order to arraign them as proposed, would be an 
 unconstitutional, arbitrary, and oppressive abuse of power. These reso- 
 lutions, also, were ordered printed. 
 
 During this session of congress, occurred another collision between 
 the government and the bank, in which the interposition of congress was 
 invoked. A message from the president, under date of February 4, 1834, 
 was sent to both houses, informing them of the refusal, by the bank, to 
 deliver to the order of the executive, certain books, funds, &c., relating 
 to the payment of certain pensioners, under the act of June 7, 1832. 
 Hl charged upon the bank " the claim to usurp the function of the judi- 
 cih\ power, and to prescribe to the executive department the manner in 
 which it shall execute the trust confided to it by law." The occasion 
 of this controversy was the difference of construction, by the parties, of 
 the law above mentioned. The bank insisted that it was the lawfully 
 constituted agent for the payment of pensions, and that it was bound to 
 a performance of the duty, and had no right to make the transfer directed 
 by the war department. Mr. Bidule, in a letter to the secretary of war, 
 (Mr. Cass,) refers to the several acts of congress devolving upon the bank 
 and its branches the business of paying pensions. 
 
 The attorney-general, to whom the president had referred the question, 
 considered the act of 1832, as not properly a pension law. It provided 
 for the payment of certain officers and other persons for services in the 
 war of the revolution, wider the direction of the secretary of the treasury^ 
 and at such places and titnes as he may direct. The duties devolved 
 upon this officer by this act, were soon after transferred to the secretary 
 of war. The pension office being a bureau of the war department, tho 
 
614 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 secretary of war had assigned to the pension office, of which the bank 
 was the agent, the business of receiving, examining, and deciding on 
 applications for the benefit of this act, not because the law was, strictly 
 speaking, ?l pension law, but because the whole subject bore so much 
 analogy to the pension system, as to make it proper to commit its gen- 
 eral management to the pension office. But having thought proper to 
 discontinue the employment of the bank and its branches so far as related 
 to payments under the act of 1832, the order to this effect had been 
 accordingly issued by virtue of the authority of that law. 
 
 The president of the bank considered the errcr of the government to 
 lie in the construction of the law as to the jo/aces of payment. The word 
 " places" must be used in its ordinary and common sense meaning. 
 Philadelphia was a place ; New York was a place ; and in authorizing 
 the secretary to designate a place, it must have been intended that he 
 should point out the general locality of the city or town, and not the 
 banking-house, where payment was to be made ; that he should arrange 
 the pensioners according to localities, by paying them at the agencies 
 most convenient to their respective residences. Such arrangements had 
 often been authorized before. But the instructions did not direct the 
 place where, but the person by whom, payment should be made in that 
 place. No authority was given to the secretary to change the agent. 
 
 In the senate, the message of the president was referred to the com- 
 mittee on the judiciary, who made a report in accordance with the views 
 of the bank, concluding with a resolution, " That the department of 
 war is not warranted in appointing pension agents in any state or terri- 
 tory where the bank of the United States or one of its branches has been 
 established." 
 
 In the house, the committee of ways and means, to whom the message 
 was referred, reported in coincidence with the views of the president and 
 secretary. They also recommended a repeal of the several provisions 
 constituting the bank and its branches pension agents under the invalid 
 acts, and the acts of 1818 and 1820, and reported a bill accordingly. 
 
 Early in the session, (December 17, 1833,) the president nominated 
 to the senate, as directors of the bank of the United States, on the part 
 of the government, for the year 1834, James A. Bayard, of Delaware, in 
 the place of Saul Alley, and Peter Wager, Henry D. Gilpin, and John 
 T. Sullivan, of Philadelphia, and Hugh McElderry, of Baltimore, to the 
 same offices. The last four named gentlemen were the government 
 directors who made the report to which allusion has been made, and 
 which animadverted upon the conduct of the board of directors. The 
 nomination of Mr. Bayard was confirmed on the 21st of January, 1331. 
 The question on the nomination of the others was several times post 
 
POST-OFFIfiE INVE8TIOATION. 615 
 
 pOBed, until the 27th of February, when it was decided in the negative • 
 the voles averaging about 20 to 25. 
 
 On the 1 1th of March, a message was sent to the senate, renominating 
 the same gentlemen. The president disclaimed the right to call in ques- 
 tion the reasons of the senate for rejecting any nomination. He thinks 
 proper, however, to communicate his views of the consequences of the 
 act of the senate, if it should not be reconsidered. He then defends 
 the conduct of these directors, for which he conceives that they had been 
 rejected. If, for performing a duty lawfully required of them by the 
 executive, they were to be punished by rejection, it would be useless and 
 cruel to place men of character and honor in that situation. Hence, if 
 the nomination of these men was not confirmed, the bank would hereafter 
 be without government directors, and the people must be deprived of 
 their chief means of protection against its abuses. Mr. Bayard having 
 refused to accept his appointment, there was now no government director. 
 
 The message was referred to the committee on finance. A report 
 from the committee, by Mr. Tyler, was made the 1st of May. The re- 
 port said that the president disclaimed all right to inquire into the rea- 
 sons of the senate ; yet he undertook to infer from circumstances what 
 these reasons must have been, and argued at large against their validity. 
 If he could not inquire into them, he could not with propriety assume 
 them, and make them the subject of comment. The committee regretted 
 the intimation that the names of other persons might not be sent to the 
 senate. They could not see why no others should be nominated in this 
 case as well as in other cases of rejection. If the offices should remain 
 unfilled, the fault would not be the fault of the senate. 
 
 The message renominating Messrs. Wager, Gilpin, Sullivan, and 
 McElderry was considered, and the question on their appointment was 
 determined in the negative : ayes, 1 1 ; noes, 30. 
 
 No farther nominations were made during the session. 
 
 An investigation was made at this session into the affairs of the post- 
 office department. A report was presented by Mr. Ewing, from the post- 
 office committee, representing the department in a state of embarrass- 
 ment, its debt being upwards of $800,000 beyond its resources, and 
 mainly attributable to mal -administration and favoritism in making con- 
 tracts and extra allowances, of which a number of cases are particular- 
 ized. Its reports, statements and estimates were declared to be so erro- 
 neous and defective, as to be unreliable. The report ends with resolu- 
 lutions declaring not only existing errors and abuses, but defects in the 
 system itself, which needed improvement. 
 
 Mr. Grundy, chairman of the committee, in behalf of the minority, 
 made a counter report, which accounted for the insolvency of the depart- 
 
610 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ment, by sli owing that the deficiency of the yearly income Lad com- 
 menced before the present incumbent came into office, being about 
 $100,000 on his taking possession of the department. This report 
 stated that the debt of the department beyond its available means, waa 
 only about $300,000 ; that this was owing to an illusory system which 
 had ever prevailed of accounting for the expenses of the department ; 
 and that the postmaster-general, as soon as the cause was disclosed, had 
 applied the corrective. It showed that sundry improvements had been 
 introduced into the department by the present postmaster-general ; and 
 it assumed to correct several statements contained in the report of the 
 majority. It also recommended a more perfect organization of the de- 
 partment. 
 
 A few days before the close of the session, the fijst resolution reported 
 by Mr. Ewing, declaring that large sums of money had been borrowed 
 at banks by the postmaster-general to make up deficiencies in the means 
 of the department, without authority of law ; and that, as congress alone 
 has power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, all such 
 contracts of loans by the postmaster-general were illegal and void, waa 
 unanimously adopted : ayes, 41. 
 
 The remaining resolutions were then laid on the table ; and the com- 
 mittee on the post-office and post-roads was authorized to continue the 
 investigations into the afi'airs of the department during the recess : ayes, 
 33; noes, 10. 
 
 A committee for the same purpose was appointed by the house. Very 
 full and voluminous reports were made at the next session — the minority 
 of each committee also reporting. Although these reports were on 
 many points discordant, they all concurred in the general conclusion, 
 that a reform in the management of the department was imperiously de- 
 manded. The committee of the house, a majority of whom were friendly 
 to the administration, admitted, that " the finances of the department 
 had been managed without frugality, system, intelligence, or adequate 
 public utility ;" that " the practice of granting extra allowances had 
 run into wild excesses;" &c. They say in their concluding paragraph : 
 " The committee, in surveying the wide field of their labors, regret only 
 that their reward had not been discoveries of a more pleasing character. 
 They had hoped that their researches would have brought to light the 
 fruits of an enlightened and well directed labor, instead of proofs of 
 error and neglect. But they have finished the task assigned them with 
 an honest purpose, and to the best of their ability." 
 
 A bill was reported by the senate committee for reforming the admin- 
 istration of the post-office, which passed that body unanimously and 
 Boon after became a law. 
 
CABINET CHANGES MISSION TO ENGLAND. ' 617 
 
 CHAPTER L. 
 
 CABINET CHANGES, MISSION TO ENGLAND, BENTON's EXPUNGING RESO- 
 LUTION. FRENCH INDEMNITY. POWER OF REMOVAL, BRANCH MINTS 
 
 In June, 1834, Mr, M'Lane resigned the office of secretary of state, 
 and John Forsj'th, senator in congress from Georgia, was appointed in 
 his place. Levi Woodbury, secretary of the navy, was appointed secre- 
 tary of the treasury, in the place of Mr. Taney, whose appointment 
 during the recess, the senate refused to confirm, Mahlon Dickerson 
 late senator in congress from New Jersey, was appointed secretary of 
 the navy. Mr. Butler's previous appointment as attorney-general was 
 confirmed. 
 
 Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, and speaker of the house, was nomi- 
 nated as minister to Great Britain, and rejected by the senate. No 
 nomination to this office had been made since the rejection of Mr. Van 
 Buren, in 1832; and the mission remained vacant until March, 1836, 
 when Mr. Stevenson was again nominated, and the nomination confirmed. 
 During this vacancy, the affairs of the United States with the govern- 
 ment of Great Britain, were in the charge of Aaron Vail, who had been 
 secretary of legation under Mr. Van Buren. 
 
 The long delay in making a nomination to fill this vacancy, and the 
 rejection of Mr. Stevenson, were the subject of much speculation and 
 remark. It was said that the president had, at the time of Mr. Van 
 Buren's rejection, avowed the intention of sending no successor. The 
 alleged cause of Mr. Stevenson's rejection was the fact that he had for a 
 year had the assurance of the mission. The facts in this case were dis- 
 closed by letters of Mr. Livingston, secretary of state, Mr. Ritchie 
 editor of the Richmond Enquirer, and Wm. B. Lewis. The letter of 
 Mr. Livingston to Mr. Stevenson was communicated by the president on 
 the call of the senate. Mr. Livingston's letter to Mr. Stevenson, of 
 March, 1833, requested him " to hold himself in readiness to embark 
 in the course of the summer." And he held this assurance when he 
 sufi'ered himself to be reelected to congress, and to the office of speaker ; 
 and when the bill passed the house, (himself in the chair,) making thn 
 appropriation for an outfit of $9,000, with an annual salary of the same 
 amonnt. It was presumed, that, if this fact had been known to his COU' 
 etituents, they would not have elected him. 
 
 Some senators found an additional objection in the unprecedented 
 
618 THE AMERICAN" STATESMAN. 
 
 extent to which the practice had been carried of appointing members of 
 congress to office. Thirty-eight — thirteen senators and twenty-five 
 representatives, including Mr. Stevenson — holding, or having within a 
 year held, these offices, h^d received appointments during the first five 
 years of the administration ; a number nearly equal, it was said, to that 
 of similar appointments under all preceding administrations : a practice 
 the President himself had condemned as tending to corruption. [See 
 letter to Tennessee legislature.] 
 
 Tn explanation of this affair, the president, in his message communi- 
 cating the correspondence, stated, that the appointment had been made 
 upon the contingency of the consent of Great Britain to open a negotia- 
 tion in Loudon, which was afterward commenced at Washington. What 
 the negotiation was, or whether there was any motive for the appoint- 
 ment in 1834 which did not exist in 1833, the president did not say. 
 In farther explanation of the transaction, the other letters above men- 
 tioned were, at the instance of Mr. Stevenson, presented to the senate. 
 The letter of Mr. Ritchie to Mr. Stevenson was written August 15, 
 1834, after the message of the president with Mr. Livingston's letter 
 had been communicated to the senate. Mr. R. says : 
 
 ** I well recollect the circumstances to which you refer. When you 
 Bhowed me the note of Mr. Livingston, we had a great deal of conversa- 
 tion about it. Neither of us regarded the notice in the light of an ap- 
 pointment. In fact, it presented itself as a mere contingency ; and we 
 considered it extremely doubtful whether or when you would be appoint- 
 ed, or, if at all ; for if the British declined a negotiation, it seemed to 
 be the president's intention to make no nomination at all, not even dur- 
 ing the ensuing session of congress. But this idea struck me, that he 
 might appoint you in case the contingency happened during the recess, 
 and not send you, but Mr. Livingston to France. I suggested that these 
 appointments ought not, and could not be made according to the spirit 
 of the constitution, during the recess of the senate. You promptly and 
 cordially concurred in this view of the subject; and I then determined 
 to write to a friend in Washington, for the purpose of laying this view 
 before the president himself. You approved of my doing so ; and, in 
 fact, we agreed perfectly in the course that ought to be taken. We 
 determined to take no notice of Mr. Livingston's letter, to act yourself 
 as if no such letter had been written ; that it would be best not to offei 
 to accept the appointment if made in the summer, and to await the 
 action of the senate, &c., &c." 
 
 The " friend in Washington" to whom Mr. Ritchie wrote, was Wil- 
 liam B. Lewis, who, on the 21st of June, 1834, communicated to Mr. 
 Stevenson extracts of two letters received from Mr. Ritchie m 1833, in 
 
REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF FINANCE. 619 
 
 which the latter says : " One of the highest powers which attaches to 
 the executive, is that of appointment ; over its exercise is accordingly 
 thrown, and wisely thrown, the check of concurrence by the senate. 
 Now, sir, doubts do exist, whether the vacancy in the missions to Lon- 
 don and Paris did not originally occur during the recess of the senate. 
 Secondly, whether the vacancy does not still elist ; and thirdly, whether 
 it ought now to ht filled without a consultation with the senate." 
 
 These explanations, however, did not satisfy the opposition. They 
 flaw a secret design in holding back the appointment. If he wished to 
 bring the president back to a constitutional practice of appointment, 
 why did he not object at the time to receiving the appointment during 
 the recess ? If he did not desire it to be kept back for some special 
 purpose, why did he employ the agency of Mr. Ritchie, through which 
 the promise of the office had been kept alive ? And why was the nomi- 
 nation withheld until near the close of the session ? It was insinuated 
 that the president had a certain design to accomplish, which required 
 the services of Mr. Stevenson in congress during another session ; of 
 which a sufficient explanation was furnished by the cast given to certain 
 important committees, and the dissatisfaction excited in the discharge 
 of the ordinary duties of presiding officer of the house. He had resign- 
 ed the speaker's chair the last of May. The customary resolution of 
 thanks was not moved until near the close of the session, when it re- 
 ceived unusual opposition. It was adopted by 97 ayes to 49 noes. 
 
 On the resignation of Mr. Stevenson, John Bell, of Tennessee, was 
 chosen speaker, on the tenth ballot. He received 114 votes; James 
 K. Polk, 78; scattering and blanks, 26. Mr. Bell was one of thor^e 
 members who, though friendly to the administration, was opposed to the 
 claims of Mr. Van Buren for the presidency ; and was elected by a 
 union of that branch of the party with the opposition. 
 
 The committee on finance, in the senate, who had been insjjructed, at 
 the preceding session, to investigate the afiairs and conduct of the bank 
 of the United States during the recess, made a very voluminous report 
 on the subject, on the 18th of December, 1834. Mr. Webster, the chair- 
 man, not having acted with the committee, the report was drawn up by 
 Mr. Tyler. The subjects upon which they reported, were, the allege«l 
 violation of the charter of the bank; the safety of the public deposits; 
 the management of the bank ; the French bill ; intermeddling with 
 politics ; rewarding editors ; &c., &c. The report, as was generally 
 expected, was in the main favorable to the bank. It conveys, however, 
 some censure for having expended too much in the printing and distribu- 
 tion of speeches and pamphlets. While the committee approved the 
 regulation authorizing the bank to pay for publications "necessary for a 
 
620 THE AMERICAN STATE9MAN. 
 
 true exposition of its condition, or to defend itself against unjust or in- 
 jurious accusations," they gave it as their decided opinion, that this 
 expense for printing had for the last few years been unnecessarily in- 
 creased. The information would have reached the people through the 
 ordinary channels of communication ; and the attitude of the bank 
 would have lost nothing in the public estimation by the practice of more, 
 reserve. 
 
 The committee also disapproved the practice which had grown up 
 under the resolution of March 11, 1831, which authorized the president 
 of the bank, by the circulation of documents and papers, " to communi- 
 cate to the people information in regard to the nature and operations of 
 the bank." Expenditures had been made under it, resting on the orders 
 of the president, without vouchers or defined purpose. 
 
 The necessity or importance of this investigation was much doubted. 
 As a measure of party policy, its expediency was perhaps still more 
 questionable. Whether justly or unjustly, the bank was growing into 
 disfavor ; and occasion was taken by its opponents to impute to the 
 authors of this investigation the design of attempting to retrieve the 
 popularity of the institution. Hence the committee became known by 
 the name of the " white-washing committee." 
 
 A bill to regulate the deposits in the state banks, had passed the 
 house at the session of 1833-34, a few days before its close. It was 
 taken up in the senate on the last day of the session, and laid on the 
 table. At an early day of the next session, a similar bill was reported 
 in the house by Mr. Polk, which was discussed until the 13th of Feb- 
 ruary; after which no farther action appears from the journal to have 
 been taken upon it. 
 
 In the senate, Mr. Calhoun, from a select committee on executive 
 patronage, on the 9th of February, also reported, among other things^ 
 a bill to regulate the deposits of the public money, which passed the 
 senate, 28 to 12. All the senators who voted in the negative, except 
 two or three, were political friends of the president. Their opposition to 
 the bill, however, was chiefly owing, it is believed, not to making de- 
 posits in the banks, but to the terms and conditions upon which they 
 were to be made. Depositing in these banks had from the beginning 
 been recommended by the president as his favorite measui-e ; from which 
 fact, the selected banks came to be called the " pet banks." 
 
 In the discussion of the bill in the house, was suggested the plan of 
 what was afterwards called the " sub-treasury." It was similai to the 
 present established system. It was moved by Mr. Gordon, of \'irginia, 
 as an amendment, and proposed the appointment of agents of the trea- 
 surer of the United States, to keep and disburse the revenue, giving 
 
Benton's expunging resolution. 621 
 
 bonds for the faithful execution of their oflSce. It proposed also, that 
 the whole revenue from customs, lands, and other sources, should be paid 
 in current coin of the United States. It was treated as a whig or opposi- 
 tion measure, from its having received a majority of its votes from mem- 
 bers of that party, and disaffected democrats — most of them, it is be- 
 lieved, the latter. Mr. Gordon had been a Jackson man, and probably 
 was still a supporter of the measures of the administration generally. 
 He was opposed to the United States bank as unconstitutional and dan- 
 gerous, and had carried his opposition to the extreme. But disapprov- 
 ing of the president's interference with the public revenues, he had, since 
 the removal of the deposits, generally voted on this and kindred ques- 
 tions with the opposition. Opposed to the use of banks altogether, he 
 had at the preceding session offered a similar amendment to the bill then 
 pending. The amendment now offered was rejected : ayes, 33, noes, 161. 
 
 It is worthy of note, that the state bank system of deposit, which was 
 adopted by the administration party with almost entire unanimity, was, 
 within two or three years thereafter, abandoned in favor of the sub- 
 treasury scheme, which it had so generally and unqualifiedly condemned ; 
 and that the whigs, preferring the state banks to the sub-treasury as a 
 place of deposit, became the advocates of the former system rejected by 
 their opponents. 
 
 At the time of the adoption, by the senate, March 28, 1834, of the 
 resolution of Mr. Clay, pronouncing the president's proceedings in 
 relation to the deposits to be in derogation of the constitution and laws, 
 Mr. Benton gave notice of his intention to move, from time to time, 
 that the resolution be expunged from the journal, until it should be 
 done, or until he should cease to be a member of that body. In pur- 
 suance of that intention, on the 18th of February, 1835, he moved a 
 resolution, ordering the obnoxious resolution to be expunged, because 
 it was " illegal and unjust, of evil example, indefinite and vague, ex- 
 pressing a criminal charge without specification ; and was irregularly 
 and unconstitutionally adopted by the senate in subversion of the rights 
 of defense which belong to an accused and impeachable officer ; and at a. 
 time and under circumstances to endanger the political rights, and to 
 injure the pecuniary interests of the people of the United States." 
 
 Mr. Poindexter objected to the reception of the resolution, on the 
 ground that it was out of order. The constitution made it the duty of 
 each house to keep a journal of their proceedings, and the senate had 
 no right to expunge any of those proceedings from its journal. 
 
 Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, said, that to pronounce the alteration 
 of the journal unconstitutional, was anticipating a conclusion that 
 could be reached only through an investigation ; yet the senator from 
 
622 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mississippi would arrest the inquiry in its incipient stage. Besides, 
 several states — four or five, he believed — had, by their legislatures, 
 sent instructions to their senators to vote for expunging the resolution. 
 And would the senate refuse to entertain a proposition in defiance of the 
 action of so many sovereign states ? 
 
 Mr. Leigh, though opposed to the resolution, was in favor of its 
 reception; and at his request, Mr. Poindexter withdrew his objection. 
 
 Mr. Benton went into an exposition of the several reasons enumer- 
 ated in his resolution, for the expurgation of the record. The conduct 
 of the bank which gave occasion for the removal of the deposits, the 
 removal of Mr. Duane, and kindred topics, were made the subject of 
 remark, and were severally treated in the same manner as they had been 
 on former occasions. 
 
 The speech of Mr. Southard in reply, or that part of it which related 
 directly to the main subject under consideration, was also chiefly a 
 reproduction of the arguments before used in condemnation of the 
 course of the president and the defense of the senate. The greater 
 part of his speech is a discussion of the incidental question of the right 
 of instruction. This subject was argued with much ability, and the 
 more fully, perhaps, from his representing a state whose senators were 
 under instructions. [Appendix, Note I.] 
 
 On the last day of the session, March 3, Mi. White, of Tennessee, 
 moved to amend the resolution, by striking out the word " expunge," 
 and inserting " rescind, reverse, and to make null and void." He said 
 he oould not vote to obliterate and deface the journal; and he wished 
 the resolution so framed as to express his feelings on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Benton considered the word " expunge" strictly parliamentary. 
 He did not wish to obliterate the journal, but to use words which would 
 express that the resolution ought never to have been put there. The 
 word " rescind" was not strong enough; it admitted the lawfulness of 
 the act at the time it was done. Every senator might vote to rescind 
 the resolution without altering his opinion. 
 
 Mr. White, at the suggestion of Mr. M'Kean, of Pennsylvania, 
 modified his amendment by adopting the words '•'■repeal and reverse f 
 and then proceeded to give additional reasons in favor of his amend- 
 ment. After a discussion of considerable length, Mr. King, of Ala- 
 bama, moved to amend that part of the resolution proposed to be 
 stricken out, by first striking out the words, " ordered to be expunged 
 from the journals," which motion was carried : ayes, 39 ; noes, 7. 
 
 Mr. Webster then congratulated the senate on the failure of the 
 attempt to deface its journal, and moved that the resolution be laid 
 upon the table, which was done without farther debate ; ayes, 27 ; 
 noes, 20. 
 
FRENCH INDEMNITY. 623^ 
 
 A claim for indemnity for spoliations of the property of American 
 citizens by France prior to the year 1800, was presented at the session 
 of 1834-35. The pretension of the claimants was, that, by the treaty 
 of 1800, the United States, in order to obtain from France a discharge 
 from liabilities incurred by a non-fulfillment of the stipulations of the 
 treaties of 1778, had surrendered to the French government these 
 claims of our citizens, and had thereby become justly liable for their 
 payment. The bill proposed to pay to the claimants $5,000,000. 
 
 The question was ably argued in the senate, on both sides. Mr. 
 Webster, the author of the bill, was its leading advocate; and Mr. 
 Wright its most prominent opponent. Their speeches were not only 
 powerful in argument, but highly valuable for the historical facts which 
 they contained in respect to the relations between the two countries. 
 The speech of Mr. Wright, especially, gives a minute and full history 
 of our afi"airs with France. 
 
 Mr. Tyler, in stating the general ground of opposition to the bill, 
 said, our government had not neglected any efforts to obtain recompense 
 for the claimants. Minister after minister had been sent to France to 
 negotiate on this point. The object had been pursued up to the year 
 1800, with the utmost assiduity; and the government had thus fulfilled 
 its duties to its citizens. These claims had been pressed on the ground 
 that the United States had, by the treaty of 1800, made provision for 
 the payment, and, for a valid consideration, had discharged France from 
 liability, and assumed these claims. And what was that consideration ? 
 It was one upon which no payment could be made, on which no payment 
 could rest. By the treaty of 1778, there were mutual stipulations. 
 One was that France should guaranty the independence of the United 
 States, while the United States should guaranty to France the two West 
 India Islands, Guadaloupe and Martinique, 
 
 In the war between Great Britain and France, our obligation to fulfill 
 the treaty remained in full force. Was it expected that we should take 
 a part in that war ? He asked if there was not a great anxiety on the 
 part of the United States to get rid of that guaranty. And now, be- 
 cause, by a subsequent treaty, we had got rid of the guaranty, had citi- 
 zens a right to demand compensation for losses ? Such a conclusion was 
 in opposition to every authority which could be brought forward. 
 • The bill was supported by Messrs. Webster, Preston, Shepley, Rob- 
 bins, and Prentiss; and opposed by Messrs. Tyler, Benton, Hill, Wright, 
 King, of Georgia, and Bibb. It passed the senate on the 28th of Janu- 
 ary, 25 to 21. In the house, the committee to whom the bill was refer- 
 red, reported that there was not time at this session to investigate the 
 subject, and were discharged. 
 
624 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 At the session of 1834-35, a committee was appointed in the senate 
 to consider the expediency of reducing the executive pacronage, of which 
 Mr. Calhoun was chairman. Tte other members of the committee were, 
 Messrs. Webster, Southard, King, of Georgia, Bibb and Benton. Messrs. 
 Benton and King were friends of the administration; Mr. Bibb had for 
 some time acted with the opposition. 
 
 On the 9th of February, a long report was made, which occupied 
 about an hour and a half in the reading. It concluded with a joint reso- 
 lution, proposing to amend the constitution so as to provide for a distri- 
 bution of the surplus revenues among the states and territories. A bill 
 was reported to regulate the deposits of the public moneys ; and another 
 •to repeal certain sections of an act of 1820, limiting the term of certain 
 officers. The senate ordered 10,000 copies of the report printed, and 
 the usual number of the report of Mr. Benton and others in 1826. 
 
 The report showed the annual public expenditures to have been in 
 1825, $11,490,460, and in 1833, to have risen to $22,713,755, not 
 including payments on account of the public debt. This increase of 
 expenditure was attributed to several causes ; among which was the 
 large increase of officers, agents, contractors, &c., who were paid from 
 the treasury. Their number was stated at upwards of 60,000, of whom 
 31,917 were connected with the post-office. The practice of removing 
 faithful and well qualified persons from office to make place for those 
 who were of the party in power — a practice of recent date — was advert- 
 ed to and reprehended. Such cases, though they had occurred under 
 former administrations, had been comparatively rare. 
 
 Increased power had also been acquired by the executive in the con- 
 trol recently assumed over the public funds ; and facts were stated to 
 show the extent of patronage exercised through this power of controlling 
 the deposits. The average amount of deposits was about $10,000,000, 
 and the estimated value of their use to the banks was about four per 
 cent.; making $400,000 per annum. This immense gain to these influ- 
 ential monopolies depended upon the will and pleasure of the executive, 
 and gave him a control over them. Anticipating, during the existence of 
 the compromise tariff acts, an annual surplus of revenue of $9,000,000, 
 and protesting against its accumulating in the banks in which it was de- 
 posited, the committee proposed an annual distribution of the surplus, 
 until the year 1 842, when the compromise act would expire. 
 
 The report was warmly opposed by Mr. Benton. He concurred with 
 the general purport and object of the report, as to the augmentation of 
 money expended, and of men employed and fed by the government, and 
 the necessity of retrenchment. But the objects of expenditure which 
 were of questionable propriety, had their origin in preceding administra- 
 
POWER OF R ^MOVAL. 625 
 
 tionj, and some of them in the aclministration of Mr. Monroe, when the 
 author of the report was a member of it; others under Mr. Adams, 
 while those of real expediency owed their origin to the present adminis- 
 tration ; among which were the removal of the Indians, and the great 
 acquisition of lands, by the extinction of the Indian title. He pro- 
 nounced the report fallacious and delusive. Those great additional pay- 
 ments in 1833, were for unusual, extraordinary objects, occurring but 
 once. And he mentioned the Black Hawk war in 1832, the expenses of 
 which were principally paid in 1833 ; the large sum paid under the pen- 
 sion act of 1832, the provisions of which extended back to 1831 ; the 
 sum thus accumulated, amounting to three and a half millions. These, 
 with certain other special expenditures which he mentioned, amounted to 
 $7,000,000. 
 
 Mr. B. noticed the several points of the report in detail. He ridiculed 
 the idea of altering the constitution for the period of eight years to get 
 rid of surplus revenue. Nine millions to be distributed annually for eight 
 years ! A most dazzling, seductive and fascinating scheme ! He had 
 seen a gentleman who looked upon it as establishing a new era in our 
 public affairs, a new test for the formation of parties, operation the po- 
 litical salvation and elevation of all who supported it, and the immedi- 
 ate aad utter political damnation of all who opposed it. Mr. B. denied 
 that there would be so large a surplus. And it might be reduced with- 
 out disturbing the compromise act. The price of public lands might be 
 reduced. But whether this was done or not, the revenue from that 
 source would be diminished : there had been unusual quantities of land 
 sold for three or four years ; but these large sales would not continue. 
 There were national objects upon which the surplus revenues might be 
 expended : the fortifying of our coasts, both on the Atlantic and on the 
 lakes ; the increase of the navy, &c. 
 
 Mr. Leigh said the credit or discredit of originating the proposition 
 to divide the surplus revenue among the states, did not belong to the 
 committee, but to the president himself, who had recommended it in his 
 annual messages of 1829 and 1830 ; and he read extracts from the mes- 
 sage of IS 30, containing such recommendation. 
 
 The principal debate on executive patronage took place in discussing 
 the bill reported by the committee, proposing to repeal the first and 
 second sections of the act of 1820, and to require the president every 
 four years to lay before congress the names of all defaulting offi- 
 cers and agents ; and, in cases of nomination to fill vacancies caused by 
 removal from office, to assign the reasons for removal. The provisions 
 of the bill were the same as those of the bill reported by Mr. Benton in 
 1326. The principal participators in the debate were Messrs. Calhoun, 
 
 40 
 
626 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Ewing, Southard, Webster, White, Clayton, Preston, and Clay, in favor 
 of the bill ; and Messrs. Benton, Shepley, Wright, Buchanan, Grundy, 
 and Hill, in opposition. Mr. Benton, though opposed to certain parts 
 of the report, as well as certain points discussed in the debate, finally 
 voted for the bill. The vote on its passage was, 31 ayes to 16 noes. 
 
 The provisions in the act of 1820 proposed to be repealed, limited the 
 term of certain officers, (receiving and disbursing officers,) to four years. 
 It was proposed by this bill, that, if their accounts were regularly settled, 
 and the money faithfully collected and disbursed, they were to remain in 
 office, unless for other cause their removal should be required. 
 
 The debate on this bill was one of much interest ; the power of 
 removal by the executive being one of the topics of discussion. This 
 subject was ably argued by Mr. Webster ; and as his opinion, or at least 
 the argument by which it is sustained, differs somewhat from any which 
 we have elsewhere given on this controverted question, a sketch of it is 
 presented. 
 
 Mr. W. admitted that the power of the president to remove officers at 
 will, was settled by construction, by precedent, by practice, and by 
 statute. li^But he believed that the original decision, by the first congress, 
 was wrong. The constitution did not expressly confer this power : those 
 who maintain its existence, in the single hands of the president, derived 
 it from the clause which says, " the executive power shall be vested in 
 a president." The power of removal, it was said, was an executive 
 power, and was therefore included. But the question was. What is exe- 
 cutive power ; and what are its boundaries ? He thought it was not 
 the intention of the framers of our written constitution to confer it in the 
 lump. When speaking of executive power, did they mean executive 
 power as known in England, or as in France, or as in Russia? It differed 
 in all these countries. He thought they meant that one magistrate, to 
 be called president, should hold the executive authority ; but they meant, 
 further, that he should hold it according to the grants and limitations 
 of the constitution itself They did not intend a sweeping gift of prero- 
 gative, as was evident from their proceeding immediately after using 
 these general words, to enumerate and define specifically the several dis- 
 tinct and particular authorities of the president. 
 
 If the power was an executive power, it must be implied from the gen- 
 eral words. But the power of appointment was not left to be so implied ; 
 why should the power of removal have been so left ? Both were closely 
 connected ; one was indispensable to the other ; why then was one care- 
 fully expressed and defined, and not a word said about the other ? 
 Nothing was said in the constitution about the power of removal, because 
 it was not a separate and distinct power. It was a part of the power of 
 
POWER OF REMOVAL. 627 
 
 appointment, going with it, or resulting from it. The constitution or 
 the laws might separate these powers, or in prescribing the tenure of 
 office, might place the officer beyond the reach of the appointing power- 
 But where officers hold their places at will, that will is necessarily the 
 will of the appointing power, because the exercise of the power of appoint- 
 ment at once displaces such officers, without any previous act of removal. 
 There was no such thing as a distinct official act of removal. Hence it 
 was manifest, that whoever held the power of appointment held also the 
 power of removal. And as it was the president and senate, not the pre- 
 sident alone, who had the power of appointment, they must, according 
 to the construction of the constitution, hold the power of removal. 
 
 The decision of 1789, he said, had been followed by a strange anomaly, 
 showing that it did not rest on a just principle. The natural connection 
 between the appointing power and the removing power, had always led 
 the president to bring about a removal by the process of a new appoint- 
 ment. But the senate sometimes rejected the new nomination. What 
 then became of the old incumbent ? Was he out of office ? or was he 
 still in ? He had not been turned out by any exercise of the power of 
 appointment, for no appointment had been made. He had not been 
 removed by any distinct and separate act of removal, for no such act had 
 been performed or attempted. Those, therefore, who maintained that 
 the power of removal existed in the president alone were driven to very 
 near absurdity. They were forced to the necessity of holding that the 
 removal had been accomplished by the mere nomination of a successor, 
 80 that the removing power was made incident, not to the appointing 
 power, but to a part of it, the nominating power. The nomination, 
 though rendered null and void in its main object by the non-concurrence 
 of the senate, was nevertheless held to be good and valid to bring about 
 that which resulted from an appointment, that is, the removal of the 
 person actually in office. In other words, the nomination produced the 
 consequences of an appointment, or some of them, though it were itself 
 no appointment, and effected no appointment. This appeared to him 
 any thing but sound reasoning and just construction. 
 
 Again : a nomination to an office already filled, had sometimes been 
 sent to the senate, and, before it had been acted on, withdrawn. What 
 was the effect of such a nomination ? If a mere nomination turned out 
 an incumbent, then he was out, whatever became of the nomination. 
 But the president had acted upon the idea that a nomination made, and 
 afterwards withdrawn, did not remove the incumbent. Even this was 
 not the end of the inconsistencies to which the prevailing doctrine had 
 led. Nominations to offices already filled had been before the senate 
 for months, the incumbents continuing to discharge their official duties 
 
628 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 until tbeir successors had been confirmed, and received their commissiona 
 So that, if the nomination were confirmed, the nomination itself made no 
 removal. The removal, then, waited to be brought about by the appoint- 
 ment; but if the nomination should be rejected, then the nomination 
 itself, it was contended, had effected the removal. Who could defend 
 opinions which led to such results ? 
 
 We subjoin the substance of some of the remarks of Mr. White, of 
 Tennessee, on the practice of removing from ofiice on the ground of 
 party differences, or, as it is sometimes expressed, of " punishing men 
 for their political opinions." Mr. White was a friend and supporter of 
 the administration, and was one of the committee, who, in 1826, reported 
 the bill similar to the one now under consideration, and entitled, " A 
 bill to secure in office the faithful collectors and disbursers of the reve- 
 nue, and to displace defaulters." That bill, like the present, contained 
 the provision for the repeal of the first and second sections of the act 
 of 1820. These sections had been intended to insure fidelity in account- 
 ing officers, by making them periodically accountable. 
 
 But in 1826, the committee believed, said Mr. White, that in the 
 struggles for place and power between parties, evils not foreseen were 
 apprehended. All these officers going out at the end of every four years, 
 and being entirely dependent on the will of the president for the renewal 
 of their commissions, might induce them to look more to their own situa- 
 tion than to the public welfare, and to conform their opinions to the 
 wishes of the president. If he was a candidate for reelection himself, 
 they would be likely to vote for him ; or, if one of his friends was the 
 candidate, they would vote for him, although they might believe the pub- 
 lic interest wpuld be most promoted by the election of his opponent. 
 It was no answer to this argument to say it cast reproach upon these offi- 
 cers to suppose their opinions would be thus surrendered. Was it, he 
 asked, a reproach to say that they were men, and must have the means 
 of living ? When a man obtained one of these offices, he and his family 
 became dependent on the quarter's salary for food and clothing. To be 
 deprived of the office, was to be deprived of his present means of obtain- 
 ing an honest livelihood. Under such circumstances, it was likely he 
 would not give his judgment fair play, but would conform his opinion to 
 that of the man who had his all in his power ; or, if he had formed aa 
 unbiased opinion of the merits of opposing candidates, he might not 
 have the fortitude to express it, either in his conversation or by his vote. 
 The probability was, that he would soon lose that manly independence 
 no essential to the preservation of a free government. 
 
 But this influence extended, he said, to all the family connections of 
 this vast array of officers — an influence increased by the fact of hifl 
 
BRANCH MINT. 629 
 
 "being a public officer, being presumed to be a better judge, in that situa- 
 tion, of the fitness of a presidential candidate, than if he were a private 
 man. Hence, in 1826, he, as a member of the committee, came to the 
 conclusion that it was dangerous to leave so vast a power in the hands 
 of the executive ; and through their chairman, (Mr. Benton) expressed 
 that opinion to the world. . The change of administration had not 
 changed his views. His opinions were not controlled by party consid- 
 erations. 
 
 Under the laws as they then were, office-hunting would become a 
 Bcieuce. Men would come to Washington, to get one set turned out and 
 another put in by misrepresentations and stratagem. This practice the 
 proposed law would discourage. It would also check the thirst for office 
 because, if a man was removed, his fault, whether incapacity, dishonesty 
 or intemperance, would be exposed. And if a man should be injured 
 he would know how and by whom, and he could vindicate his character 
 not by a controversy with the president, but against him by whose false 
 hood the president had been misled. It would also secure honest offi' 
 cers with honest political opinions. No president would remove an offi' 
 cer for a mere diiferenee in polities, when he knew this reason was to be 
 put on record, and to remain through all time. 
 
 We very much mistake if these sentiments do not meet with a cordial 
 response in every intelligent, unprejudiced mind. The practice of dis- 
 pensing rewards and punishments according to services rendered or 
 refused to the successful candidate for the executive chair, naturally 
 tends to destroy the independence of those who seek to secure a partici- 
 pation in the patronage which it has to bestow. If a man depends for 
 his bread upon his political opinions, there is no assurance that these 
 opinions will be honestly and fearlessly expressed. And in proportion 
 as the elective franchise is corrupted, will the tenure of our liberties be 
 impaired. 
 
 An act was passed at this session establishing three branches of the 
 mint : one at New Orleans for coining gold and silver ; one at Charlotte, 
 in North Carolina, and one at Dahlonega, in Georgia. On the question 
 of the passage of the bill for creating these mints, Mr. Hill spoke in 
 opposition to it. If he believed it would be the means of displacing a 
 paper circulation by one of specie, he would consent to some expense to 
 effect the object. But he believed the quantity of gold to be coined at 
 those places was insufficient to justify the expense necessary to erect 
 these establishments and to keep them in operation. The mint at Phila- 
 delphia had been found ample for all the wants of the country. The 
 senator from Missouri had declared the system of mints to be a part of 
 the hard money system and supposed hard money could not be diffused 
 
630 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 through the west and south if these mints were not established. He 
 (Mr. H.) also was a friend of a hard money currency; but it should be 
 recollected that banks were the natural enemies of a hard money circu- 
 lation. Small bank notes would destroy the circulation of hard money. 
 He objected also to the bill, that it would increase the executive patron 
 age to the amount of at least one hundred thousand dollars. 
 
 Mr. Benton viewed the question as one of currency. Not less than 
 six hundred banks in the union were employed in coining paper money. 
 It was time that this miserable trash should be utterly proscribed. He 
 wished to see the country return to that species of currency w'hich 
 existed forty-five years ago, when the federal revenues were paid in 
 gold and silver. The gold bill passed at the last session was the first 
 step towards a sound circulating medium — gold and silver. This was 
 a question of paper on one side, and of gold on the other. 
 
 The bill was supported farther by Messrs. Calhoun, Waggaman, 
 Brown, of N. C, and King, of Georgia; and opposed by Messrs. Clay^ 
 Freiinghuysen, and others. It was passed by ayes, 24, against 19 noes 
 In the house, ayes, 115; noes, 60. 
 
 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 FRENCH SPOLIATIONS. PROSPECT OF WAR WITH FRANCE. DEBATE ON 
 
 THE LOST FORTIFICATION BILL. 
 
 The delay of the French government in making provision for the 
 debt due the United States under the treaty of 1831, has been already 
 mentioned. The chambers having repeatedly refused to make the 
 necessary appropriations, the president, in his annual message of Decem- 
 ber, 1834, suggested, as a measure of redress, reprisals upon French 
 commerce, in case the chambers should again adjourn without making 
 provision for the indemnity. The subject was in each house referred to 
 the committee on foreign relations. 
 
 On the 6th of January, 1835, the senate committee made a report 
 concluding with a resolution, that it was inexpedient to pass such a law dur- 
 ing the present session of the chambers. It was thought most proper 
 to await the issue of the new appeal to that body. The act, though 
 contingent on that issue, would imply a distrust of the French govern- 
 ment, and by being construed into a menace, might prevent the passag-j 
 
FKENCH SPOLIATIONS, 631 
 
 of the bill. This opinion was afterward strengthened by that of Mr 
 Livingston, our minister at Paris, who in a despatch to the secretary of 
 state, dated January 11, advised the same course. 
 
 On the 7th of February, 1835, in compliance with a request of the 
 3iouse, the president communicated to that body extracts from despatches 
 received from Mr. Livingston at Paris, representing the passage of the 
 bill by the chambers as improbable. The house was surprised by a 
 motion from M** Adams, that the message and extracts be referred to 
 the committee un foreign relations, with instructions to report on the 
 subject forthwith. The papers were read, and after an animated debate, 
 were referred without instructions. The singular motion to require, on 
 a subject so important, an immediate report, which is usually asked for 
 only on subjects already well understood, induced the belief that it was 
 intended to propose a speedy resort to reprisals, if not a declaration of 
 war itself. He onl}' wished, however, as he afterwards explained his 
 remarks, that the house should avail itself of all the time it had remaining 
 in deliberating on the posture of aifairs, as the measure of the president, 
 or some other which the national honor might require, might possibly 
 eventuate in war. The senate had deliberated, and determined to dodge 
 the question : the house might come to a like conclusion. 
 
 In the house, on the 27 th of February, the committee made a report, 
 and submitted three resolutions: (1.) That it was incompatible with our 
 rights and honor farther to negotiate in relation to the treaty, and that 
 the house would insist on its execution. (2.) Discharging the committee 
 from the farther consideration of the subject. (3.) That contingent 
 preparation ought to be made to meet any emergency growing out of 
 our relations with France. The resolutions were unanimously adopted, 
 after the first had been modified by striking out the first part of it which 
 declared against farther negotiation, leaving that optional with the 
 president. This modification was the result of a motion of Mr. Adams. 
 The debate on this question was not one of a party character. Mr. 
 Adams went farther in support of the measures proposed by the presi- 
 dent, than others of the same party, and most of the administration 
 members. It may be inferred from the general tenor of the debate, 
 that if the chambers again adjourned without making the appropriation, 
 some retaliatory measure would thereafter receive the sanction of the 
 house. 
 
 On the 25th of February, the president communicated to the senate 
 fresh correspondence between the two governments, which was referred 
 to the committee on foreign relations, who reported, the 3d of March, 
 t/hat nothing in the correspondence gave cause for changing the position! 
 which the senate had taken on the subject. It appeared that the king 
 
632 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of France had been greatly irritated by the president's recoinmendatioli 
 of reprisals, and by what he conceived an imputation to him of bad faith. 
 Efe recalled his minister at Washington, and directed the substitution 
 of a charge d'aflFaires; and passports were tendered to Mr. Livingston 
 at Paris. Mr. L., however, remained, awaiting the orders of his gov- 
 ernment. These had been transmitted, and required him to return to 
 the United States ; and in the event of the passage of the bill, to leave 
 a charg^ d'affaires. 
 
 The passage of the bill by the French chambers was supposed to have 
 been retarded by the injudicious publication of extracts from Mr. Rives' 
 correspondence, boasting that he had overmatched the French ministers 
 in the negotiation, and also of certain portions of Mr. Livingston's cor- 
 respondence, equally offensive, he having suggested that the French gov- 
 ernment might be influenced by fear. These, and especially the recom- 
 mendation of the president's message of a law authorizing reprisals, 
 which was regarded as peculiarly offensive to the dignity of France, 
 were made the pretext for delaying justice. In April, the bill was 
 passed, by the strong vote of 289 to 137. Before its passage, however, 
 it received an amendment — intended, probably, as a salvo to their 
 wounded pride — providing, that certain payments should be made only 
 after a satisfactory explanation or apology as to the message of the presi- 
 dent should have been received by the French government. 
 
 Before leaving Paris, (April 25, 1835,) Mr. Livingston, with the ap- 
 probation of the president, addressed a letter to the duke de Broglie, 
 with the view of satisfying that government in regard to the required 
 explanation. The -form of our government, and the functions of the 
 president were such, that no foreign power had a right to ask for ex- 
 planations of any communication he might make to congress. Mr. L. 
 said there was no just ground for the charge, that the message impeached 
 the good faith of his majesty's government. As to the measure of redress 
 proposed in the message, it was in accordance with the law and practice 
 of nations ; it was necessary, and not objectionable, unless couched in 
 offensive language. Mr. L. cited a case. While France and England 
 were making aggressions upon our commerce, congress passed a law de- 
 claring that if these aggressions did not cease, we should hold no inter- 
 course with them. But neither government complained of the act as a 
 threat, or thought it dishonorable to deliberate under its pressure. 
 France was even induced to accept its condition, and repealed her Berlin 
 and Milan decrees. 
 
 Although war was not generally apprehended, yet as preparation for 
 Buch an emergency might become necessary before the next meeting of 
 congress, on the last night of the session, March 3, 1835, and without 
 
PROSPECT OF WAR WITH FRANCE. 633 
 
 any previous intimatioD, as was alleged, an amendment to the fortifica- 
 tion bill vas offered in the house, proposing to add $3,000,000, to be ex- 
 pended under the direction of the president, if he should deem it neces- 
 sary, for the defense of the country. The amendment was adopted by 
 the house ; but it was opposed in the senate as conferring on the presi- 
 dent unlimited military power, and rejected, 29 to 16. The house in- 
 sisted on its amendment ; and the senate adhered to its disagreement, 
 by a vote of 29 to 17. A committee of conference was appointed. In- 
 stead of three millions, there was inserted, $300,000 for arming the forti- 
 fications, and $500,000 for repairing and equipping the ships of war. 
 The senate awaited the action of the house; and, at eleven o'clock at 
 night, sent a message to that body, which, for some cause not stated, did 
 not act upon it : and, as a consequence, the whole bill was lost ; and not 
 a dollar for fortifications of any kind was appropriated ! 
 
 The loss of this bill, became, at the next session, a subject of exciting 
 debate in both houses ; each house, or rather, members of each house, 
 charging it to the neglect or dereliction of the other. In the house of 
 representatives, particularly, the debate was criminating and virulent. 
 
 The explanation of Mr. Livingston failed to satisfy the French gov- 
 ernment ; and the bill wltich had passed the chamber of deputies, after- 
 wards received the sanction of the chamber of peers and the king : and 
 no farther steps were taken for the payment of the indemnity. 
 
 The president, in his next annual message, December, 1H35, again 
 presented the subject to congress. He vindicated the message of 1834, 
 as giving no just cause of offense ; and although he firmly maintained 
 the ground he had taken, his language was of a pacific character. 
 Advices, he said, were daily expected from France, which would be 
 promptly communicated. Accordingly, on the 18th of January, 1836, 
 a message, accompanied by the ofiicial correspondence between the two 
 governments, was communicated to congress ; from which it appeared, 
 that France still required, as a condition of paying the indemnity, an 
 apology, which the president considered " incompatible with the honor 
 and independence of the United States." And he says: " This preten- 
 sion (that of interfering in the communications between the different 
 branches of our government) is rendered the more unreasonable by the 
 fact, that the substance of the required explanation has been repeatedly 
 and voluntarily given before it was insisted on as a condition — a condi- 
 tion the more humiliating, because it is demanded as the equivalent of a 
 pecuniary consideration." 
 
 In this state of affairs, the president recommended, as a just measure 
 of retaliation, the prohibition of French vessels and French products 
 from our ports, oi the adoption of some other proper remedy. The 
 
634 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 same message informed congress, that France was preparing a fleet des 
 tined for our seas. This, however, would not deter the government from 
 the discharge of its duties. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan expressed his entire approbation of the general tone 
 and spirit of the message, and his disappointment at the non-acceptance, 
 by France, of the president's explanation. lie hoped, however, that, on 
 the receipt of this message, the French government would reconsider the 
 determination. He had expected a message of a stronger character. 
 But the recommendation was merely the exclusion of French ships and 
 productions from our ports. The wines and silks had, for the four 
 years since the ratification of the treaty, been admitted on the favorable 
 terms stipulated in the treaty. The withdrawal of these advantages was 
 the mildest measure that could have been recommended. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun said he had heard the message, not with the agreeable 
 sensations of the senator from Pennsylvania, but with profound regret. 
 He had apprehended no war ; but if the recommendations of the presi- 
 dent were adopted, it would be almost inevitable. The president's 
 course throughout had been such as tended to produce a conflict between 
 the two nations ; and if it should come, our government would be the 
 responsible party. He believed the king was disposed to pay our claims , 
 but the president published to the world Mr. Rives' boastful communi- 
 cation, which caused the chambei's to hesitate. Knowing the appropria- 
 tion depended upon the chamber, and without waiting for its action, the 
 bill was drawn for the first instalment before it could possibly be paid. 
 A protest and much irritation followed. Next came the president's 
 message, asking for authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal if 
 the appropriation were not made — a measure that naturally leads to 
 war. The appropriation was made, but with the condition which caused 
 the present difficulty. The honor of France did not require it ; but the 
 ministry were obliged to accept it to save the bill. We should not for- 
 get that the acts of our executive had caused its insertion. There was 
 some hope that the last annual message would be favorably received in 
 France. Why then this message recommending preparations and non- 
 intercourse before we had heard how the message had been received ? 
 In a war, France could injure us more than we could her. If war came, 
 we must declare it. This was a reason why France should prepare for 
 the worst. Such preparation ought fairly to be considered, not as a 
 menace, but as a precautionary measure induced by our acts. 
 
 Mr. Cuthbert, in reply, alluding to the patriotic course of Mr. Cal- 
 houn in congress in relation to the war of 1812, said: "The senator 
 from South Carolina says, if we arm, war must follow. Wc are told we 
 dare not do so. That voice which twenty-four years ago lighted tho 
 
DEBATE ON THE LOST FORTIFICATION BILL. 635 
 
 fires of confidence and patriotism in the hearts of all who heard him, now 
 humbles itself, and would humble this senate, before a foreign govern- 
 ment. Dare not arm ! Shame ! Shame ! that such a sentiment should 
 have been uttered here." 
 
 Mr. Buchanan repeated the belief that the message tended to peace 
 and not war. He regretted to hear it said that, if war should come, we 
 would be the authors of it. He deprecated the effect which so potent a 
 voice would produce on 'the other side of the Atlantic. He was glad 
 that this was not the sentiment of either house, both houses hr.viug de- 
 clared that the treaty must be maintained. It was also at war with the 
 feelings and opinions of the American people. Whilst he believed the 
 message would prove to be the olive branch of peace, it was our duty 
 to prepare for the worst. Whilst a powerful fleet was riding along our 
 Bouthern coast in a menacing attitude, we should not sit here and with- 
 hold from the president the means of placing our country in a state of 
 defense. 
 
 On the 12th of January, 1836, in the senate, a resolution, offered the 
 day before by Mr. Benton, was taken up. It proposed to apply the 
 surplus revenue and the dividends of stock receivable fi-om the bank of 
 the United States, to the general defense and permanent securitj^ of the 
 country ; and called on the president for information of the probable 
 amount required for sundry specific objects. Although these objects 
 were of a general and permanent nature, Mr. Benton considered the 
 large French fleet near our coast as furnishing an additional reason for 
 adopting his proposition. The present defenseless condition he charged 
 to the loss of the fortification bill at the last session, for which, he said, 
 the senate was responsible. The three million appropriation had been 
 lost by the opposition of the senate, which had carried with it the whole 
 bill, containing thirteen specific appropriations for works of defense. The 
 senate had also opposed a motion made in pursuance of a report of the 
 military committee to insert $500,000 for the construction and arming 
 of fortifications. In view of this want of preparation it was, that a 
 French paper had assigned as a reason for the advance of the squadron 
 upon us, that " America would have no force capable of being opposed 
 to it." He did not believe there would be war, but he went for national 
 defense, because that policy was right in itself. We were in a humiliat- 
 ing and defenseless state, and our honor required of us the work of 
 national defense. Above all, it was the only manly way of letting 
 France know that she had committed a mistake in sending this fleet 
 upon us. 
 
 Messrs. Leigh, Groldsborough, and Webster, replied to Mr. Benton, 
 each of whom gave a history of the " lost fortification bill." and all con- 
 
636 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 curred in the following facts : The bill came to the senate froai the 
 house, v/hore such bills originate. It contained no special appropriation 
 indicating an apprehension of a collision with France. It was referred 
 to the committee on finance, and reported with amendments proposing 
 an increase of appropriations. It passed the senate the 24th of Feb- 
 ruary, one wliole week before the close of the session, and went to the 
 house, wbert it remained until the last night of the session without 
 action upon it, and without any notice having •been given to the senate 
 that any thing new or important was to be proposed. The senate com- 
 menced it." evening session at 5 o'clock ; and not until after that hour 
 was it returned to the senate, when it came with the three million appro- 
 priation, as a contingent fund, without any specification, which the presi- 
 dent might expend for defense just when and whei:e he pleased ; thas 
 virtually investing him with the power to determine the question of war 
 or peace. The senate disagreed to the amendment, and returned the 
 bill to the other house, which insisted on the amendment, and quickly 
 sent it back. The senate adhered to its disagreement. A committee 
 of conference was agreed to. The senate's members of this committee 
 left the chamber fifteen minutes before eleven, and returned fifteen or 
 twenty minutes after eleven, allowing ample time to act upon the report 
 of the committee of conference, even though the session had terminated 
 ai midnight. It was agreed in conference to add, in specific terms, 
 $500,000 for the naval service, and $300,000 for fortifications. The 
 senate waited some hours for the bill, and then sent a message remind- 
 ing the house of the conference : but no answer came. The committee 
 of the house who had the bill in possession, did not report the result of 
 the conference, and there the bill died. 
 
 But what was preeminently " the great debate " on the question as to 
 the house in which the fortification bill was lost, occurred in the house 
 on the 22d of January, and on subsequent days. The speakers were 
 Messrs. John Q. Adams and Cambreleng in defense of the house, and 
 Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in opposition. The whole subject was embraced 
 iu the discussion. 
 
 Mr. Adams maintained that the objects of the three million appro- 
 priation were sufficiently specific. It was to be expended for the " mili- 
 tary and naval service, including fortifications, and ordinance, and 
 increase of the navy ;'''' and only in the event of its becoming necessary 
 for the defense of the country, prior to the next session of congress, an 
 interval of nine months, during which no other provision could have been 
 made against a sudden invasion. The appropriation, he said, had been 
 objected to because it had not been called for by the executive; and 
 when the executive had told them it was in accordance with his wishes, ' 
 
DEBATE ON THE LOST FORTIFICATION BILL, 637 
 
 ihe objection was, that it was approved by him ; and the supporters of 
 the appropriation were charged with man-worship. He had not approved 
 the measures recommended by the president, of issuing letters of marque 
 and reprisal, nor of commercial restriction ; neither had the house ap- 
 proved them; but the house and the people had doiie homage to the spirit 
 which had urged the recommendation even of measures which they did 
 not approve. 
 
 There were at the last session, said Mr. A., three systems of policy 
 to be pursued with regard to the controversy with France : first, the 
 system of the president ; second, that of the senate, to do nothing ; and 
 third, that of the house, which was different from both the preceding. 
 It had been a subject of ardent deliberation and debate during the last 
 week of the session ; and their resolutions were adopted only the day 
 before the last of the session. He gave a history of the action of the 
 house upon the fortification bill, and charged its death to the senatorial 
 vote to adhere. He also charged the senate with having manifested bad 
 temper both to the president and to the house of representatives. 
 
 Mr. Wise acquitted both houses of the responsibility of defeating the 
 fortification bill of the last session : both were innocent, as he could 
 show by the journal and other testimony ; both had desired the passage 
 of the bill. And he then proceeded to show that Mr. Cambreleng was 
 either wholly, or with others of his party, chargeable with the loss of 
 that bill. Mr. C. had after the close of the preceding session, given as 
 a reason for his not reporting to the house the result of the conference 
 between the two houses, that, before the committee were able to report, 
 the hour of twelve had arrived, when, in the opinion of many members, 
 the constitutional term of the house ceased, and they had no right to 
 vote; and also that there had been no quorum present, as appeared from 
 the votes of the house, from the time of the return of the committee till 
 the adjournment, after three o'clock. 
 
 Mr. W. referred to the journal of the last session, showing that seve- 
 ral votes had been taken after the return of the committee, and after 
 twelve o'clock, when a quorum was present. Among those who voted 
 knowing that hour to have passed, were some who afterwards excused 
 themselves from voting, for the alleged reason that the constitutional 
 t«rm of the house had expired. Various subjects had been acted on by 
 a quorum after twelve o'clock ; Mr. Cambreleng participating therein. 
 The want of a quorum, therefore, he said, could not have prevented 
 action on the fortification bill. After it was notorious that the hour 
 was passed, a vote to adjourn was negatived, 103 to 15, Mr. C. voting in 
 the negative, showing that he had no conscientious scruples against 
 deliberating after midnight. Only three less than a quorum voted on 
 
638 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the adjournment ; and to his certain knowledge thero were mo; c than 
 three present who did not vote; so that Mr. C. could easily have com- 
 manded a quorum if he had desired to make his report of the committee 
 of conferees. A report in relation to a national foundry was after this 
 received and acted on ; and nine communications from executive depart- 
 ments were laid before the house. 
 
 While thus acting, said Mr. W., the message of the senate came, 
 respectfully reminding the house of the report of the committee of con- 
 ference. Whereupon Mr. Cambrcleng, chairman of that committee^ 
 stated that he declined to report, on the ground that, from the vote on 
 granting compensation to Robert P. Letcher, which vote was decided at 
 the time the committee returned, it was ascertained that a quorum was 
 not present ; and farther, that the constitutional term of the house had 
 expired. The house had been waiting for the report ; and this was the 
 first intimation that none was to be made. On the Cumberland road 
 bill, there were 174 votes — 53 more than a quorum. Of the members 
 voting, 87 were Van Buren men, and 87 opposition and for White. 
 Soon after, on tht Letcher resolution, only 113 voted ; 33 Van Buren; 
 opposition and for White, 80. What became of these 54 missing votes ? 
 There were more than twenty present who voted, or refused, according 
 to circumstances, or the wishes of party leaders. On one motion to 
 adjourn, of the 87 Van Buren men, only 41 voted; not voting and 
 absent, 54; while of the opposition and the friends of White, 77 voted. 
 On another motion to adjourn, 39 Van Buren men voted, and 72 oppo- 
 sition and for White. This desertion Mr. W. believed to be designed ; 
 and he mentioned several facts which strengthened this belief 
 
 Mr. W. also said there was design in withholding a knowledge of the 
 president's wishes in relation to the three million appropriation. A few 
 knew it, and though chairman of the principal committees, they did not 
 make it known even to their committees, much less to the house. It was 
 whispered to a few others, who were told " not to say any thing about 
 it." And said Mr. Wise : " You, Mr. Speaker, you I charge with the 
 guilt of that fact ! " He here read a written statement to this effect from 
 Luke Lea, a member from Tennessee, corroborated by Mr. Bunch, of the 
 same state. Mr. Polk, the speaker, was at that time chairman of the 
 committee of ways and means. Two members had hesitated to vote for 
 the three million appropriation unasked for by the president. Mr. P. 
 having been asked by one of them, said the president desired it, " but 
 you need not say any thing about it." The speaker, on being directly 
 interrogated by Mr. Wise, confessed that Mr. Lea's statement was sub- 
 etantially true, but he did not recollect having enjoined secrecy. 
 
 The speech of Mr. Wise was very vehement, and of great length, em- 
 bracing many topics not included in the foregoing sketch 
 
DEBATE ON THE LOST FORTIFICATION BILL 639 
 
 Mr Cambreleng replied, contending that there had been no quorum 
 after the return of the committee ; and, in confirmation of his statement^ 
 he read from the journal. He had voted several times against adjourn- 
 ment, anxious to get a quorum, but no quorum voted. The business 
 preparatory to adjournment was all that was done after the passage of 
 the Cumberland road bill, for which he had voted before he left the 
 house as a member of the conference committee. Nothing was there- 
 after done but to hear certain reports, and to send and receive messages to 
 and from the senate and the president. He denied that the refusal to 
 vote was a party measure, or that the want of a quorum had reference 
 to the fortification bill, or the three million appropriation. Mr. C. 
 defended the proposition to place this sum at the disposal of the presi- 
 dent, and cited, as precedents, a large number of similar instances under 
 the administrations of Washington, John Adams, Jefi"erson, and Madison 
 It appears from the journals of 1835, that Mr. Lewis, one of the com^ 
 mittee, took from Mr. Cambreleng the report with the intention of offer 
 ing it; but on counting the members, the tellers reported only 113 
 Several successive votes for adjournment showed the want of a quorum, 
 On a motion to amend a motion to inform the senate that the house 
 was ready to adjourn, so as to make it read, " that the house having no 
 quorum, was ready to adjourn," Mr. Cambreleng said there had not been a 
 :juorum for an hour or two. Mr. Reed said the committee of conference 
 had agreed to a report, and as a quorum was undoubtedly present, it ought 
 to be acted upon. The amendment declared what was not the fact : 
 there was a quorum present. Mr. Lewis moved a call of the house. Mr. 
 Cambreleng said : I protest against the right to call the house. What 
 member will answer to his name ? [" I will, I will," exclaimed many 
 members.] I am as much in favor (said Mr. C) of the fortification bill 
 as is the gentleman from New Jersey ; but I say the responsibility of its 
 failure rests upon the senate, and not upon us. The bill was defeated 
 by the senate, ["No!" "No!" "not so!" was exclaimed by many 
 voices.] Mr. Barringer said the bill was defeated by an intrigue here in 
 this house. If gentlemen desired names, he would give them. But if 
 this was declined, he would say that there were members who now sat in 
 their seats and would not answer to their names, who did so in consum 
 mation of the intrigue. Mr. B. called for tellers on the motion. Ayes, 
 56; noes 26 — no quorum. The house then adjourned. 
 
 On the 8th of February, 1836, the president informed congress that 
 the government of Great Britain had offered its mediation for the adjust 
 ment of the dispute between the United States and France ; and that he 
 had accepted it ; carefully guarding, however, that point in the contro 
 versy which, as it involved our honor and independence, did not admil 
 
640 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of compromise. He therefore recommended a suspension of all retalia- 
 tory proceedings against France ; but again urged preparations for the 
 defense of the seaboard and the protection of our commerce. On the 
 22d, followed another message, communicating the correspondence 
 between the secretary of state, (Mr. Forsyth,) and the British charg^ 
 d' affaires, relative to the mediation, and repeating his recommendation 
 to provide for defense, in case of the commencement of hostilities during 
 the recess of congress. 
 
 On the 10th of May, the president announced to congress the pay- 
 ment, by France, of the instalments due under the treaty of indemnity. 
 
 CHAPTER LII. 
 
 THE ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS. INCENDIART 
 
 PUBLICATIONS. ATHERTON's RESOLUTIONS, 
 
 Among the various excitements that have at different times prevailed 
 in the United States, few have been more pervading and intense than 
 that which was consequent upon the early anti-slavery organizations 
 subsequent to the year 1833, in which the national anti-slavery society 
 was formed. At no time did this excitement reach a higher tempera- 
 ture than in the years 1835 and 1836. Societies were formed in all 
 the northern states ; in some of them in almost every county ; and in 
 some portions of these states, in nearly every town. Alarm at this 
 movement was soon taken at the south ; meetings were held, at which 
 the most denunciatory resolutions against the abolitionists were adopted, 
 and fears were expressed of a speedy dissolution of the union. 
 
 This expression of southern sentiment was responded to in the north. 
 Opposition meetings were held in nearly all the large cities and towns, 
 attended by citizens of high standing, for the purpose of counteracting 
 the efforts of the abolitionists. In numerous instances this opposition 
 was carried so far as to break up anti-slavery meetings by violence. 
 Indeed, mobs were common occurrences, and were not unfreqnently 
 encouraged or participated in by eminent and respectable citizens. 
 
 The great agency employed by the abolitionists which excited general 
 alarm at the south, was that of the press. An immense quantity of 
 anti-slavery publications was scattered over the northern states; and 
 the abolitionists were charo-ed with sendina; them to the south to insti- 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. 641 
 
 gate the slaves to violence and bloodshed. Hence attempts were made 
 to suppress anti-slavery societies and their publications. The " Eman- 
 cipator," published in the city of New York, was indicted by a grand 
 jury in Alabama, and a requisition by Governor Gayle was made upon 
 Governor Marcy, of the state of New York, for the surrender of the 
 publisher, R. J. Williams, to be tried as an offender against the laws 
 of Alabama concerning slavery. Governor Marcy, however, not being 
 able so easily as Governor Gayle, to construe Mr. Williams into a 
 " fugitive from justice," the demand was not complied with. 
 
 Another expedient resorted to was the offering of rewards for offenders. 
 A New Orleans paper contained an advertisement from a committee of 
 vigilance of a parish in Louisiana, offering a reward of $50,000 for the 
 delivery of Arthur Tappan, a conspicuous abolitionist in the city of 
 New York. Rewards also for Lewis Tappan, and other persons, were 
 offered. Nor were offers confined to individuals and voluntary associa- 
 tions. By an enactment of the legislature of the state of Mississippi, 
 a reward of $5,000 was offered for the aiTest and prosecution of any 
 person who should be convicted of having circulated the " Liberator," 
 or any other seditious paper, pamphlet, or letter, within that state. In 
 the legislatures of one or two other states, it is believed, similar propo- 
 sitions were made, and carried through one or both branches. 
 
 In the proceedings of the meetings held in Boston, Lowell, New York, 
 Albany, Philadelphia, and other places, are found expressions of sym- 
 pathy for the south, and censures of abolitionists, which would receive 
 few votes in any public meeting at the present day. These anti-aboli- 
 tion meetings were gratifying to the people of the south. The proceed- 
 ings of the Albany meeting were thus noticed by the Richmond 
 Enquirer : " Amid these proceedings, we hail with delight the meeting 
 and resolutions of Albany. They are up to the hub. They are in 
 pei*fect unison with the rights and sentiments of the south. They are 
 divested of all the metaphysics and abstractions of the resolutions of 
 New York. They are free from all qualifications and equivocation — no 
 idle denunciations of the evils of slavery — no pompous assertions of the 
 right of discussion. But they announce in the most unqualified terms^ 
 that it is a southern question, which belongs, under the federal compact,, 
 exclusively to the south. They detiounce all discussions upon it in the 
 other states, which, from their very nature, are calculated to ' inflame 
 the public mind,' and put in jeopardy the lives and property of their 
 fellow-citizens, as at war with every rule of moral duty, and every sug- 
 gestion of humanity; and they reprobate the incendiaries who will 
 persist in carrying them on, ' as disloyal to the union.' * * * * 
 They pronounce these vile incendiaries to be ' disturbers of the public 
 41 
 
64S THE AMERICAN STATESMAIT. 
 
 peace." They assure tlie south, * * * 'that the great body of 
 the northern people entertain opinions similar to those expressed in 
 these resolutions ; ' finally, ' that we plight to them our faith to maintain, 
 in practice, so far as lies in our power, what we have thus solemnly 
 declared." 
 
 " We hail this plighted faith to arrest, by * all constitutional and 
 legal means,' the movements of these incendiaries. We hail these 
 pledges with pleasure ; and should it become necessary, we shall call 
 upon them to redeem them in good faith, and to act, and to put down 
 these disturbers of the peace." The manner in which it was hoped these 
 pledges would be redeemed, and these disturbers of the peace would 
 be "put down" was by legislative enactments. This is expressly 
 declared in the Whiff, of the same city : 
 
 " The Albany resolutions are far more acceptable than those of New 
 York. They are unexceptionable in their general expressions towards 
 the south, and in their views of the spirit and consequences of abolition ; 
 * * * and they omit any specific recognition of the right of agita- 
 tion. Nothing is wanting, indeed, but that which, beincf wanting, all 
 the rest, we fear, is little more than ' a sounding brass and a tinkling 
 ejmbal.' We mean the recognition of the power of the legislature to 
 suppress the fanatics, and the recommendation to do so. This js the 
 isubstance asked of the north by their brethren of the south ; and the 
 recent manifesto of Tappan & Co. makes it plain, that without it, 
 nothing effective can be done ; that without it, urgent remonstrances to 
 these madmen to desist, and warm professions towards the south, avail 
 not a whit. Up to the mark the north must come, if it would restore 
 tranquillity and preserve the union." 
 
 In the proceedings of the Albany meeting, the Whig could see an object 
 which its neighbor, of opposite politics, appears not to have discovered. 
 It says : " The failure of the Albany meeting to enforce the expediency 
 of legislative enactments, is ominous. There is reason to believe that 
 strong appeals were made to the leaders from various points, perhaps 
 from Richmond itself, to go as far as possible, and to adopt a resolution, 
 according to the south its demand for legislative enactment. Political 
 importance was attached to it from the circumstance that the immediate 
 friends of Mr. Van Buren and his party leaders, were to preside at the 
 meeting, and thus that an intelligent sign might be given the south, that 
 he sustained her claim. We infer nothing against Mr. Van Buren him- 
 self from the failure ; but we do infer this, either that his Albany par- 
 tisans reject the claim, or fear to encounter public opinion by adopting 
 it. Either way it may be regarded as decisive of the fate of the demand 
 itself and as conclusive that nothing will be done by the state of New 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. 643 
 
 York to suppress the fanatics hy law. New York is the hotbed of the 
 sect ; and nothing being done there, what may be done elsewhere will 
 avail nothing." 
 
 The Philadelphia Inquirer said : " The south has called upon the 
 north for action in relation to Garrison and his co-workers : Philadel- 
 phia, at least, has responded to this call in a spirit of the utmost liberal- 
 ity. The resolutions adopted at the town meeting of Monday last, not 
 only denounce the recent movements of the abolitionists, . . . but they 
 expressly disclaim any * right to interfere, directly or indirectly, with 
 the subject of slavery in the southern states,' and aver that any action 
 upon it by the people of the north, would be not only a violation of the 
 constitution, but a presumptuous infraction of the rights of the south ; 
 and further, one of them recommends to the legislature of the common- 
 wealth, to enact, at the next session, certain provisions to protect our fellow- 
 citizens of the south from any incendiary movements, within our borders, 
 should any such hereafter be made. Are not these declarations to the 
 point ? Do they not cover the whole ground ? Do they not go even farther 
 than many of the resolutions passed at public meetings in the south ? " 
 
 The northern anti-abolitionists received some pretty severe lectures 
 for not putting their professions into practice. Said the Southern 
 Patriot : " Why did not the Albany meeting recommend putting down, 
 by the strong arm of the law, discussions which (it declared,) ' are at 
 war with every moral duty, and every suggestion of humanity ? ' Surely, 
 that which is declared to be so pernicious as to be at war with every 
 moral duty, and every humane suggestion, can and ought to be made 
 legally punishable. It is luorks and not words we want." 
 
 Despairing of seeing the progress of anti-slavery sentiment arrested 
 by legislation, the south suggested the remedy of non-intercourse and 
 disunion. In the resolutions of a public meeting in South Carolina, it 
 was declared, " that when the southern states are reduced to the alterna- 
 tive of choosing either union without liberty, or disunion with liberty and 
 property, be assured they will not hesitate which to take, and will make 
 the choice promptly, unitedly, and fearlessly." And it was unanimously 
 resolved, " That should the non-slaveholding states omit or refuse, at 
 the ensuing meeting of their respective legislatures, to put a final stop t > 
 the proceedings of their abolition societies, against the domestic peace of 
 the south, and effectually prevent any farther interference by them with 
 our slave population, by efficient penal laws, it will then become the 
 solemn duty of the whole south, in order to protect themselves and secure 
 their rights and property, against the unconstitutional combination of the 
 non-slaveholding states, and the murderous designs of their abolitionists, 
 to withdraw from the union." 
 
644 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 In relation to the suspension of commercial intercourse, the Richmond 
 "Whig said : " The suggestion of acting upon fanaticism by withholding 
 the profits of southern commerce, from those engaged either actively, or 
 Ity countenance, in propagating its designs, is obtaining extensive popu- 
 larity. A general persuasion prevails of its efficacy. It is an argument 
 which will carry more weight than appeals to justice, humanity, and fra- 
 ternal aflEection. It is never lost to mankind. Through the purse is the 
 surest road to the understandings of men ; especially, so we have been 
 taught to believe, to the understandings of those with whom the south 
 is now contending. Southern commerce is essential to the north. * * * 
 Can the south be blamed for cutting ofE the resources employed to dis- 
 turb its tranquillity, and overthrow its institutions ? Where is the 
 illiberality ? Where is the injustice ? That all should suffer where a 
 party only are guilty, is to be deplored but not avoided. When the inno- 
 cent feel the consequences, they will be stimulated to more active steps 
 for the suppression of the wretches who have wrought so much mischief 
 and engendered so much bad feeling. 
 
 " The merchants are well disposed to the experiment ; but they say its 
 success depends upon the country, not the cities. Without the coopera- 
 tion of the country citizens — without they put their shoulders to the 
 wheel, and discourage the custom of buying goods in the north, they can 
 do nothing. They are ready to promise, and to fulfill the promise, that, 
 if the country will buy their goods, they shall have them as cheap and 
 as good as the northern markets now supply. Let none be alai-med by 
 the silly and traitorous clamor put up about the union. The articles of 
 union, we presume, do not inhibit the south from caring for its own 
 safety, or promoting its own prosperity." 
 
 Application was made to the postmaster-general to interpose his 
 authority to prevent the transmission, by mail, of anti-slavery papers and 
 documents. In answer to a request of a meeting in Petersburg, Vir- 
 ginia, to adopt in his department some regulation to this effect, Mr. 
 Kendall, under date of August 20, 1835, said, it was not in his power, 
 by any lawful regulation, to obviate the evil. Such a power, if any 
 necessity for it existed, ought not to be vested in the head of the execu- 
 tive department. He, however, regarded the transmission, through the 
 mail, of papers " tending to promote discontent, sedition, and servile war, 
 from one state to another, as a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of 
 the federal compact, which would justify, on the part of the injured 
 states, any measure necessary to effect their exclusion." For the pre- 
 sent, the only means of relief was " in responsibilities voluntarily 
 assumed by the postmasters." He hoped congress would, at the next 
 session, put a stop to the evil, and pledged his exertions to promote the 
 adoption of a measure for that purpose. 
 
, THK ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. 645 
 
 The postmaster of New York had requested the anti-slavery society 
 to desist from attetnpting to send their publications into the southern 
 states. They refusing to comply with the request, the postmaster, 
 Samuel L. Gouverneur, detained their papers destined for those states, 
 and addressed Mr, Kendall on the subject, who again disclaims the right 
 to exclude matter from the mails ; but he adds : " If I were situated as 
 you are, I would do as you have done. Postmasters may lawfully know 
 in all cases the contents of newspapers, because the law expressly pro- 
 vides that they shall be so put up that they may be readily examined ; 
 and if they know those contents to be calculated and designed to produce, 
 and, if delivered, will certainly produce the commission of the most 
 aggravated crimes upon the property and persons of their fellow-citizens, 
 it cannot be doubted that it is their duty to detain them, if not even to 
 hand them over to the civil authorities. * * * If it be justifiable 
 to detain papers passing through the mail, for the purpose of preventing 
 or punishing isolated crimes against individuals, how much more impor- 
 tant is it that this responsibility should be assumed to prevent insurrec- 
 tions and save communities ! If, in time of war, a postmaster should 
 detect the letter of an enemy or spy passing through the mail, which, if 
 it reached its destination, would expose his country to invasion and her 
 armies to destruction, ought he not to arrest it ? Yet where is his legal 
 power to do so ? " 
 
 The doctrines of the postmaster-general, advanced in these letters, 
 countenancing the violation of the mails by the deputies, were the sub- 
 ject of much comment. They were regarded in the r^rthern states, by a 
 large portion of the citizens — even such as were opposed to the measures 
 of the abolitionists — as subversive of the liberty of the press. 
 
 Conceiving the principles and objects of anti-slavery associations to 
 be misunderstood, the oflBcers of the American anti-slavery society pub- 
 lished in its defense the following address " to the public : " 
 
 " In behalf of the American anti-slavery society, we solicit the candid 
 attention of the public to the following declaration of our principles and 
 objects. Were the charges which are brought against us, made only by 
 individuals who are interested in the continuance of slavery, and by such 
 as are influenced solely by unworthy motives, this address would be un- 
 necessary ; but there are those who merit and possess our esteem, who 
 would not voluntarily do us injustice, and who have been led by gross 
 misrepresentations to believe that we are pursuing measures at variance, 
 not only with the constitutional rights of the south, but with the pre- 
 cepts of humanity and religion. To such we offer the following explana- 
 tions and assurances. 
 
 " 1st. We hold that congress has no more right to abolish slavery in 
 
646 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the southern states, than in the French West India islands. Of course 
 we desire no national legislation on the subject. 
 
 " 2d. We hold that slavery can only be lawfully abolished by the 
 legislatures of the several states in which it prevails, and that the exer- 
 cise of any other than moral influence to induce such abolition, is un- 
 constitutional. 
 
 " 3d. We believe that congress has the same right to abolish slavery 
 in the District of Columbia, that the state governments have within 
 their respective jurisdictions, and that it is their duty to efface so foul a 
 blot from the national escutcheon. 
 
 " 4th. We believe that American citizens have the right to express 
 and publish their opinions of the constitution, laws, and institutions of 
 any and every state and nation under heaven ; and we mean never to 
 surrender the liberty of speech, of the press, or of conscience — blessings 
 we have inherited from our fathers, and which we intend, as far as we 
 are able, to transmit unimpaired to our children. 
 
 " 6th. We have uniformly deprecated all forcible attempts on the part 
 of the slaves to recover their liberty. And were it in our power to ad- 
 dress them, we would exhort them to observe a quiet and peaceful 
 demeanor, and would assure them that no insurrectionary movements 
 on their part would receive from us the slightest aid or countenance. 
 
 " 6th. We would deplore any servile insurrection, both on account of 
 the calamities which would attend it, and on account of the occasion which 
 it might furnish of increased severity and oppression. 
 
 " Vth. We are charged with sending incendiary publications to the 
 south. If by tne term incendiary is meant publications containing 
 arguments and facts to prove slavery to be a moral and political evil, 
 and that duty and policy require its immediate abolition, the charge is 
 true. But if this charge is used to imply publications encouraging in- 
 surrection, and designed to excite the slaves to break their fetters, the 
 charge is utterly and unequivocally false. We beg our fellow citizens to 
 notice, that this charge is made without proof, and by many who confess 
 that they have never read our publications, and that those who make it, 
 offer to the public no evidence from our writings in support of it. 
 
 " 8th. We are accused of sending our publications to the slaves, and 
 it is asserted that their tendency is to excite insurrections. Both the 
 charges are false. These publications are not intended for the slaves, 
 and were they able to read them, they would find in them no encourage- 
 ment to insurrection. 
 
 " 9th. We are accused of employing agents in the slave states to dis- 
 tribute our publications. We have never had one such agent. We 
 have sent no packages of our papers to any person in those states for 
 
THE ANTI-SLAVERY QUESTION. . 647 
 
 distribution, except to five respectable resident citizens, at their own 
 request. But we liave sent, by mail, single papers addressed to public 
 ofiicers, editors of newspapers, clergymen, and others. If, therefore, 
 our object is to excite the slaves to insurrection, the masters are our 
 agents. 
 
 " We believe slavery to be sinful, injurious to this and to every other 
 country in which it prevails; we believe immediate emancipation to be 
 the duty of every slaveholder, and that the immediate abolition of slav- 
 ery, by those who have the right to abolish it, would be safe and wise. 
 These opinions we have freely expressed, and we certainly have no inten- 
 tion to refrain from expressing them in future, and urging them upon 
 the consciences and hearts of our fellow citizens who hold slaves, or 
 apologize for slavery. 
 
 " We believe the education of the poor is required by duty, and by a 
 regard for the permanency of our republican institutions. There are 
 thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow citizens, even in the free 
 states, sunk in abject poverty, and who, on account of their complexion, 
 are virtually kept in ignorance, and whose instruction in certain cases is 
 actually prohibited by law ! We are anxious to protect the rights, 
 and to promote the virtue and happiness of the colored portion of our 
 population, and on this account we have been charged with a* design to 
 encourage intermarriages between the whites and blacks. This charge 
 has been repeatedly, and is now again denied, while we repeat that the 
 tendency of our sentiments is to put an end to the criminal amalgama- 
 tion that prevails wherever slavery exists. 
 
 " We are accused of acts that tend to a dissolution of the union, and 
 even of wishing to dissolve it. We have never ' calculated the value of 
 the union,' because we believe it to be inestimable ; and that the aboli- 
 tion of slavery will remove the chief danger of its dissolution ; and one 
 of the many reasons why we cherish and will endeavor to preserve the 
 constitution is, that it restrains congress from making any law abridg- 
 ing the freedom of speech or of the press. 
 
 " Such, fellow citizens, are our principles — x\re they unworthy of re- 
 publicans and Christians? Or are they in truth so atrocious, that in 
 order to prevent their diffusion you are yourselves willing to surrender, 
 at the dictation of others, the invaluable privilege of free discussion ; 
 the very birthright of Americans ? Will you, in order that the abomi- 
 nations of slavery may be concealed from public view, and that the 
 capital of your republic may continue to be, as it now is, under the 
 sanction of congress, the great slave mart of the American continent, 
 consent that the general government, in acknowledged defiance of the 
 constitution and laws, shall appoint throughout the length and breadth 
 
648 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of your land, ten thousand censors of the press, each of whom shall 
 have the right to inspect every document you may commit to the post- 
 oflBce, and to suppress every pamphlet and newspaper, whether religious 
 or political, which in his sovereign pleasure he may adjudge to contain 
 an incendiary article? Surely we need not remind you, that if you 
 submit to such an encroachment on your liberties, the days of our 
 republic are numbered, and that, although abolitionists may be the first, 
 they will not be the last victims offered at the shrine of arbitrary 
 power." 
 
 The anti-slavery agitation which was spreading through the union, 
 soon affected the deliberations of congress. Petitions from the free 
 states, praying for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the 
 District of Columbia, were daily presented. This movement was depre- 
 cated by a large majority of congress. Southern representatives, espe- 
 cially, were highly inflamed. Although the petitioners, asked for no legis- 
 lative interference with slavery in the states, to which it was universally 
 admitted the power of congress did not extend ; the exercise of the 
 power within the district and the territories, would, it was feared, give 
 the petitioners a great advantage in the prosecution of their ultimate 
 object, the overthrow of the institution. 
 
 The general excitement was much increased by the contrariety of 
 opinion as to the manner of disposing of the petitions. Southern mem- 
 bers were opposed to their reception altogether, as praying for an act 
 that was unconstitutional. It was contended that congress had no right 
 thus to interfere with the right of property, without the consent of the 
 owners ; and also that such interference would be a violation of good 
 faith with the states of Maryland and Virginia, which, it was to be pre- 
 sumed, would never have ceded the territory to the general government, 
 had such action on the part of congress been anticipated. The agitation 
 of this question in congress, it was farther contended, would disturb the 
 compromises of the constitution, endanger the union, and, if persisted 
 in, destroy, by a servile war, the peace and prosperity of the country. 
 Hence it was urged, that the petitions ought not to be entertained ; and 
 that, without giving them a formal reception, they should be laid upon 
 the table, without being referred or printed. 
 
 The discussion of the several propositions for the disposal of the 
 abolition petitions in the house, resulted in the adoption, February 8, 
 1836, of the following resolution of Mr, Pinckney, of South Carolina, 
 which, on motion of Mr, Vinton, of Ohio, had been divided into three 
 ' parts: " Resolved, (1.) That all the memorials which have been offered, 
 or may hereafter be presented to this house, praying for the abolition of 
 slavery in the District of Columbia, and also the resolutions offered by 
 
DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS. 649 
 
 an honorable member from Maine, (Mv. Jarvis,) with the amendment 
 thereto proposed by an honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. Wise,) 
 and every other paper or proposition that may be submitted in relation 
 to that subject, be referred to a select committee ; (2.) With instructions 
 to report, that congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere 
 in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the states of this 
 confederacy ; (3.) And that, in the opinion of this house, congress ought 
 not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia, be- 
 cause it would be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and 
 dangerous to the Union." 
 
 The first clause of the resolution was adopted by a vote of 174 to 48 ; 
 the second, 201 to 7. The third was divided ; and the first member of 
 the same, which declared that congress ought not to interfere with 
 slavery in the district, was carried 163 to 47 ; the remaining part, 129 
 to 74. Of those who voted in the negative on the last question, all, 
 with a few exceptions, were whigs from the northern states ; the adminis- 
 tration members generally from these states, in both houses, having 
 joined the south on this question, Mr. Pinckney was severely censured 
 by several southern members for having moved the resolution ; because 
 the power of congress over slavery in the states had not been brought in 
 question ; and the affirmation of the proposition that congress had no 
 such power, was to admit that it needed aflSrmation ; and also because 
 they were opposed to the discussion of the question, Mr, Wise, on a 
 subsequent occasion, alluding to the mover of the resolution, said : " I 
 hiss him as a deserter from the principles of the south on the slavery 
 question," 
 
 On the 18th of May, Mr. Pinckney, from the select committee ap- 
 pointed on his motion, reported three resolutions ; the first denying the 
 power of congress over slavery in the states ; the second, declaring that 
 conarress ou2rht not to interfere with it in the District of Columbia. The 
 third, which was not contemplated by the instructions to the committee, 
 required all petitions and papers relating to the subject, to be at once 
 laid upon the table, without being printed or referred, and without any 
 other action on them. On the 25th of May, the vote was taken on the 
 first resolution, under the pressure of the previous question. Mr. 
 Adams said, if the house would allow him five minutes, he would prove 
 the resolution to be false. Eight members were understood to have 
 voted in the negative : Messrs. Adams, Jackson, and Philips, of Mass., 
 Everett and Slade, of Vt,, Clark, Denny, and Potts, of Penn, The 
 second resolution was adopted the next day, 132 to 45 ; the third, 117 
 to 68, 
 
 In the senate, the principal discussion on the disposal of abolition 
 
,650 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 petitions was upon one from the society of " Friends " in the state of 
 .Pennsylvania, adopted at the Cain quarterly meeting. It was presented 
 I the 11th of January, by Mr. Buchanan, who said he was in favor of 
 giving the memorial a respectful reception ; but he wished to put the 
 question a,t rest. He should therefore move that the memorial be read, 
 and that the prayer of the memorialists be rejected. The question on 
 receiving the petition was, on the 9th of March, decided in the affirma- 
 tive ; ayes, 36; noes, 10; the latter all from southern senators. On 
 the 11th, the whole subject, including the rejection of the petition, was 
 agreed to, 34 to 6. Those who voted in the negative, were, Messrs. 
 Davis and Webster, from Mass., Prentiss, of Vt, Knight, of R. I., and 
 Southard, of N. J. 
 
 But the most important action of the senate was upon a bill to pro- 
 liibit the circulation of abolition publications by mail. The president 
 had in his annual message called the attention of congress to the sub- 
 ject. He said : " I must also invite your attention to the painful 
 excitement produced in the south, by attempts to circulate through the 
 mails, inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of the slaves, in 
 prints, and in various sorts of publications, calculated to stimulate them 
 to insurrection, and to produce all the horrors of a servile war." He 
 said it was " fortunate for the country, that the good sense and gene- 
 rous feeling of the people of the non-slaveholding states" were so strong 
 " against the proceedings of the misguided persons who had engaged in 
 these unconstitutional and wicked attempts, as to authorize the hope 
 that these attempts will no longer be persisted in." But if these 
 expressions of the public will should not effect the desirable result, he 
 did " not doubt that the non-slaveholding states would exercise their 
 authority in suppressing this interference with the constitutional rights 
 of the south." And he would respectfully suggest the passing of a 
 ,law that would "prohibit undjsr severe penalties, the circulation in the 
 southern states, through the mail, of incendiary publications, intended 
 to instigate the slaves to insurrection." 
 
 This part of the message was, on motion of, Mr. Calhoun, referred to 
 a select committee, which, in accordance with his wishes, was composed 
 mainly of senators . from the slave-holding states. They were, Messrs. 
 Calhoun, King, of Georgia, Mangum, Linn, and Davis ; the last alone 
 being from the free states. The report of the committee was made the 
 4th of February. Notwithstanding four-fifths of its members were 
 southern, only Messrs. Calhoun and Mangum were in favor of the entire 
 report. The accompanying bill prohibited postmasters from knowingly 
 putting into the mail any printed or written paper or pictorial represen- 
 tation relating to. slavery addressed to any person iu a state in which 
 
INCENDIARY PUBLICATIONS. 651 
 
 their circulation was forbidden ; and it prohibited postmasters in such 
 state from delivering such papers to any person not authorized by the 
 laws of the state to receive them. And the postmasters of the offices 
 where such papers were deposited, were required to give notice of the 
 same from time to time ; and if the papers were not, within one month, 
 withdrawn by the person depositing them, they were to be burnt or other- 
 wise destroyed. Mr. Linn, though dissenting from parts of the report, 
 approved the bill. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, in his report, reiterated his favorite doctrine of state 
 sovereignty ; from which he deduced the inherent right of a state to 
 defend itself against internal dangers ; and he denied the right of the 
 general government to assist a state, even in case of domestic violence, 
 except on application of the authorities of the state itself. He said it 
 belonged to the slaveholding states, whose institutions were in danger, 
 .and not to congress, as the message supposed, to determine what papers 
 were incendiary ; and he asserted the proposition, that each state was 
 under obligation to prevent its citizens from disturbing the peace or 
 endangering the security of other states ; and that, in case of being 
 disturbed or endangered, the latter had a right to demand of the former 
 the adoption of measures for their protection. And if it should neglect 
 its duty, the states whose peace was assailed might resort to means to 
 protect themselves, as if they were separate and independent commu- 
 nities. 
 
 As motives to suppress by law the effort of the abolitionists, the 
 report mentioned the danger of their accomplishing their object, the 
 abolition of slavery in the southern states, and the consequent evils 
 which would attend it. It would destroy property to the amount of 
 $950,000,000, and impoverish an entire section of the Union. By 
 destroying the relation between the two races, the improvement of the 
 condition of the colored people, now so rapidly going on, and by which 
 they had been, both physically and intellectually, and in respect to the 
 comforts of life, elevated to a condition enjoyed by the laboring class in 
 few countries, and greatly superior to that of the free people of the same 
 race in the non-slaveholding states, would be arrested; and the two races 
 would be placed in a state of conflict which must end in the expulsion 
 or extirpation of one or the other. 
 
 But for the fact that the president's message expressed similar appre- 
 hensions of " the horrors of a ser\Tle war," and contained a similar sug- 
 gestion of the interposition of the state governments to suppress the 
 " wicked attempts " of the anti-slavery societies to interfere with south- 
 ern rights, it would be almost incredible that Mr. Calhoun could have 
 seriously entertained such fears, or claimed for the states such powers. 
 
652 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 There was, however, between the message and the report this difference, 
 that the former was silent as to the right of the slave states " to resort 
 to means to protect themselves " against the incendiary associations. 
 
 The bill, reported by Mr. Calhoun, sustained by the combined influence 
 of his own report and the executive recommendation, made its way nearly 
 through the senate. Mr. Webster opposed the bill because it was vague 
 and obscure, in not sufficiently defining the publications to be prohibited. 
 Whether for or against slavery, if they "touched the subject," they 
 would come under the prohibition. Even the constitution might be pro- 
 hibited. And the deputy-postmaster must decide, and decide correctly, 
 under pain of being removed from office ! He must make himself 
 acquainted with the laws of all the states on the subject, and decide on 
 them, however variant they might be with each other. The bill also 
 conflicted with that provision of the constitution which guaranteed the 
 freedom of speech and of the press. If a newspaper came to him, he 
 had a property in it ; and how could any man take that property and 
 burn it without due form of law ? And how could that newspaper be 
 pronounced an unlawful publication, and having no property in it, with- 
 out a les^fal trial ? He aro-ued ao-ainst the rio;ht to examine into the 
 nature of publications sent to the post-office, and said that the right of 
 an individual in his papers was secured to him in every free country in 
 the world. 
 
 Mr. Clay said the papers, while in the post-office or in the mail, did no 
 harm : it was their circulation — their being taken out of the mail, and 
 the use made of them — that constituted the mischief ; and the state au- 
 thorities could apply the remedy. The instant a prohibited paper was 
 handed out, whether to a citizen or a sojourner, he was subject to the 
 law which might compel him to surrender or to burn it. The bill was 
 vague and indefinite, unnecessary and dangerous. It applied to non- 
 slaveholding as well as to slaveholding states — to papers touching slavery, 
 as well for as against it : and a non-slaveholding state might, under this 
 bill, prohibit publications in defense of slavery. But the law would be 
 inoperative : the postmaster was not amenalile, unless he delivered the pa- 
 pers knowing them to be incendiary ; and he had only to plead igno- 
 rance to avoid the penalty of the law. Mr. C. wished to know whence 
 congress derived the power to pass this law. The senator from Penn- 
 sylvania had asked if the post-office power did not give the right to say 
 what should be carried in the mails. There was no such power as that 
 claimed in the bill. If such doctrine prevailed, the government might 
 designate the persons, or parties, or classes, who should have the exclu- 
 sive benefit of the mails. 
 
 Before the question was taken on the engrossment of the bill, a mo- 
 
atherton's resolutions. QS3 
 
 tion by Mr. Calhoun to amend it so as to prevent the withdrawal of the 
 prohibited papers, was negatived, 15 to 1 5. An amendment offered by Mr. 
 Grundy, restricting the punishment of deputy-postmasters to removal 
 from office, was agreed to ; and the bill was reported to the senate. Mr. 
 Calhoun renewed his motion in senate, and it was again lost, 15 to 15. 
 Mr. Benton, in his late work, says, that, in committee of the whole the 
 vice-president did not vote in the case of a tie. The question being then 
 taken on the engrossment, there was again a tie : 18 to 18. The vice- 
 president having temporarily left the chair, returned, and gave the casting 
 vote in the affirmative. Of the senators from the free states voting in 
 the affirmative, were Messrs, Buchanan, Tallmadge and AVright. Those 
 who voted in the negative from the slave states, were Messrs. Benton, 
 Clay, and Kent, of Maryland. 
 
 This casting vote of Mr. Van Buren, and the several votes of Mr. 
 Wright, who voted with Mr. Calhoun on this subject, have been justified 
 by their friends on the ground that Mr. Calhoun, (to use the language 
 of Mr. Benton,) " had made the rejection of the bill a test of alliance 
 with northern abolitionists, and a cause for the secession of the southern 
 states ; and if this bill had been rejected by Mr. Van Buren's vote, the 
 whole responsibility of its loss would have been thrown upon him and 
 the north, and the south inflamed against those states and himself — the 
 more so, as Mr, White, of Tennessee, the opposing democratic candidate 
 for the presidency, gave his votes for the bill." The several successive 
 tie votes have been ascribed to design — that of placing Mr, Van -Buren 
 in this position. With this intent, other senators voted for the bill, and 
 still others absented themselves, knowing it would not finally pass. This 
 supposition was strengthened by the full vote given on the question of 
 its final passage: ayes, 19; noes, 25; only 4 absent: the three senators 
 from the free states, Buchanan, Tallmadge and Wright, again voting 
 in the affirmative; and Benton, Clay, Crittenden, Goldsborough and 
 Kent, of Maryland, Leigh, Naudain, of Delaware, in all seven, from 
 slave states, in the negative. Here ended another attempt of the south 
 at practical nullification. 
 
 On the 11th of December, 1838, Mr. Atherton, of New Hampshire, 
 offered a series of resolutions, denouncing petitions for the abolition of 
 slavery in the District of Columbia, and against the slave trade between 
 the states, as a plan indirectly to destroy that institution within the 
 several states ; declaring that congress has no right to do that indirectly 
 which it can not do directly ; that the agitation of this question for the 
 above purpose, is against the true spirit and meaning of the constitution, 
 and an infringement of the rights of the states affected, and a breach of 
 the public faith on which they entered into the confederacy ; and that 
 
654 THE AMBRICAIT STATESMAN. 
 
 every petition, memorial, or paper relating in any way to slavery as 
 aforesaid, should, on presentation, without fuither action thereon, be laid 
 on the table without being debated, printed, or referred. ' b'lii J 
 
 After the close of a speech in support of these resolutions, Mr. A. • 
 moved the previous question, which was seconded, 103 to 102. A motion 
 to adjourn that the resolutions might be printed, so that the house might 
 vote understandingly, was objected to by Mr. Cushman, of New ITamp- 
 shire; and the main question was ordered, 114 to 107. The resolutions 
 were subsequently all adopted by diflEerent votes. That which related to 
 the reception of petitions was adopted by a vote of 127 to 78. These 
 resolutions, as well as their author, obtained considerable notoriety, being 
 generally referred to by the friends of the right of petition, as " Ather- 
 ton's gag resolutions." Although the fifth resolution, like one adopted 
 at a former session, prevented a formal reception of petitions, it did not 
 apparently affect their presentation. They were daily offered as usual : 
 indeed an additional object of petition was furnished; numerous peti- 
 tions being presented for the abolition of the gag resolutions. 
 
 CHAPTER LIII. 
 
 DISTRIBUTION 0¥ THE SURPLUS REVENUE. DEATH OF MR. MADISON. 
 
 ADMISSION Ot ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION. RECOGNI- 
 TION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS. CLAIMS AGAINST MEXICO. 
 
 ANOTiiETt unsuccessful attempt was made to procure the passage of 
 Mr. Clay's bill to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands. 
 The sum to be distributed was about $21,000,000. It included the 
 receipts for the last three years, which were in 1838, $3,967,682; in 
 1834, $4,857,600; in 1835, $12,222,121. The proceeds for these years 
 were large beyond all precedent. The bill passed the senate, 25 to 20; 
 but in the house it was laid on the table, by a vote of 114 to 85. 
 
 There being no longer uny hope of effecting a distribution of the pro- 
 ceeds of land sales, a new plan of distribution was devised. Although 
 an act had been passed at the last session, (1834-35,) to regulate the 
 public deposits in the state banks, a new bill, designed to afford addi- 
 tional security to these moneys, was reported in the hons<5 by Mr. Cam- 
 breleng, chairman of the committee of ways and means. Also a bill to 
 regulate the deposits of the public money was introduced into the senate. 
 This bill was so amended as to provide for the distribution of the sur- 
 
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 655 
 
 plus revenue among the states. To avoid the constitutional objections ' 
 to distribution which some were known to entertain, among whom was 
 Mr. Calhoun, who had at a foi-mer session proposed to amend the con- 
 stitution for this purpose, the bill was made to provide, that the money 
 should be " deposited with," instead of distributed among, the 'several 
 states ; and that, if the money should at any time be wanted by the 
 general government, it was to be returned at the call of congress. 
 
 The act was passed in June, 1836, and provided that the money in 
 the treasury on the 1st of January, 1837, reserving five millions of 
 dollars, should be deposited as above stated, in proportion to their 
 respective representation in the senate and house of repi'escntatives of 
 congress, in four quarterly installments, commencing in January. The ' 
 secretary of the treasury was to receive for the money certificates of 
 deposits, which, in case the wants of the treasury should require it, 
 might, in whole or in part, be sold by the secretary ; the sales to be 
 rateable in just proportions among all the states ; and the certificates, 
 when sold, to bear an interest of five per cent., payable half-yearly, and 
 redeemable at the pleasure of the states. Although the money was thus 
 returnable when wanted, it was presumed that it would never be called 
 for. The surplus which had accumulated in 1836 from customs and land 
 sales, exceeded forty millions ; of which only about twenty-eight millions 
 were actually divided ; congress having found it necessary,- in consequence 
 of unexpected wants of the government, to suspend the fourth install- 
 ment. No part of the money has yet been called for. 
 
 The bill passed both houses by very large majorities. The vote in the 
 senate, on its engrossment, was 40 to 6 ; on its passage, 38 to 6. Those 
 who voted in the negative were, Messrs. Benton, Black, Cuthbert, Grundy, 
 Walker, and Wright. In the house, the vote on its passege was 155 to 38.' 
 It received a strong opposition in the senate from Messrs. Benton and 
 Wright. The speech of the former, after the bill had been ordered to a third 
 reading, was both vehement and caustic. He denounced it as " distribution 
 in disguise — as a deposit never to be reclaimed ; as a miserable evasion 
 of the constitution ; as an attempt to debauch the people with their own 
 money ; as plundering instead of defending the country ; as a cheat 
 that would only last till the presidential election was over ; for there 
 would be no money to deposit after the first or second quarter; as 
 having the effect, if not the intention, of breaking the deposit banks ; 
 and finally, as disappointing its authors in their schemes of popularity." 
 [Benton's View, vol. I, p. 652.] 
 
 The bill was signed by the president " with a repugnance of feeling," 
 as that author sayS) "and a recoil of judgment, which it required great 
 efforts of friends to overcome ; and with a regret for it afterwards which 
 
656 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 he often and publicly expressed." His approval of the bill, it was un- 
 derstood, had been urged by the friends of Mr. Van Buren, who appre- 
 hended from its rejection an adverse effect upon the democratic party 
 in the election. His refusal to sign it, however, would not, it is pre- 
 sumed, have prevented its becoming a law. Having repeatedly recom- 
 mended " the apportionment of the surplus revenue among the several 
 states according to their ratio of representation, as the most safe, just, 
 and federal disposition which could be made of it," the ground of his 
 subsequent opposition to the measure was a subject of much conjecture. 
 
 On the 30th of June, 1836, president Jackson announced, by message, 
 to both houses of congress, the death of James Madison, which occurred 
 on the 28th. The president suggested the adoption of proper measures 
 to testify their sense of respect to his memory. Mr. Rives, a senator 
 from Virginia, and a neighbor of Mr. Madison, passed a brief but beau- 
 tiful eulogy upon this distinguished patriot and statesman. He had 
 but six days before his death written a letter to Mr. R., in which he 
 spoke of his enfeebled health and trembling signature, and which Mr. 
 R. thought, was the last he had ever written. Said Mr. Rives : 
 
 " Still 1 trusted that his light might hold out to the 4th of July, 
 that he might be restored, on that glorious anniversary, to an immortal 
 companionship with those great men and patriots with whom he had 
 been intimately connected in life, and whose coincident deaths, on the 
 birth-day of the nation's freedom, had imparted to that day, if possible, 
 an additional and mysterious illustration. But it has been ordered 
 otherwise. His career has been closed at an epoch, which, forty-nine 
 years ago, witnessed his most efficient labors in the illustrious assembly 
 which laid the foundations of our present system of government, and 
 will thus, by the remembrance of his death, as well as by the services of 
 his life, more closely associate him with that great work, which is at 
 once the source and the guaranty of his country's happiness and glory." 
 
 In the house, his death was appropriately noticed by Mr. Patton, his 
 immediate representative ; who was followed by Mr. Adams. 
 
 In June, 1836, acts were passed for the admission of Arkansas and 
 Michigan into the Union. An act had been passed by the territorial 
 legislature of Arkansas without the approbation of the governor, calling 
 a convention to assemble the 1st of January, 1836, to form a ^tate con- 
 stitution preparatory to admission. This measure was taken without 
 previous action by congress. The question was submitted to attorney- 
 general Butler, who gave it as his opinion, that all measures to subvert 
 the territorial government, and to establish in its place a new govern- 
 ment, without the consent of congi'ess, would be unlawful. The conven- 
 tion was held, and a constitution adopted by the convention ; also a 
 
ADMISSION OF ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION. 657 
 
 memorial to congress asking for admission. In Michigan, tlie legislative 
 council was convened by tlie acting governor, Stevens T. Mason, in Sep- 
 tember, 1834, without any previous action of congress. The governor 
 recommended that provision should be made to ascertain the population ; 
 and in the event of its being 60,000, that a convention should be called 
 to institute a state government, and provision made for the election of 
 a representative and senator to congress. He said : " The state of 
 Michigan will then have a right to demand admission into the Union ; 
 and it is not to be anticipated that the congress of the United States 
 will hesitate to yield, as a matter of right, what they have heretofore 
 refused to grant as a favor." Conventions were held in both territories, 
 and in 1836 copies of their constitutions were sent to congress with 
 petitions for admission. 
 
 Notwithstanding the attorney-general had decided in the case of 
 Arkansas, that her action without the authority of congress was unlaw- 
 ful, bills were reported in the senate in favor of the admission of both 
 territories as states. They were opposed on the ground that the pro- 
 ceedings of the territories in forming their constitutions were unlawful 
 and revolutionary. In the case of Michigan, it was also objected, that 
 the boundary dispute with Ohio was still unsettled ; and also that the 
 constitution gave the right of suffrage to unnaturalized aliens. To the 
 first objection it was replied, that, as congress had refused to pass "the 
 act asked for, the state authorities were justified in the course they 
 had taken. The memorial of the legislature praying for admission 
 might be considered as coming from the people, and the previous action 
 of congress, being a matter of form, might be dispensed with. Against 
 the objection of alien suffrage, it was urged, that Ohio and Illinois had 
 been admitted with constitutions containing similar provisions ; that of 
 Ohio extending the right to all white male inhabitants twenty-one years 
 of age and having had a year's residence in the state ; and that of Illi- 
 nois to the same class of persons, after a residence of six months. In 
 these states, the right still existed ; whereas the constitution of Michigan 
 confined it to those who resided in the territory at the tim^e of signing 
 the constitution. 
 
 It was deemed proper, however, in the bill to admit Michigan, to 
 settle the boundary question. Accordingly, it established, as the north- 
 em boundary of the state of Ohio, a direct line from the southern ex- 
 tremity of lake Michigan to the -most northerly cape of Maumee (Miami) 
 bay, after the line so drawn should intersect the eastern boundary line of 
 Indiana, and from said cape, north-east to the boundary line between 
 the United States and Upper Canada in Lake Erie ; and thence along 
 the Canada line to the west line of Pennsylvania. The admission of 
 42 
 
658 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Michigan was placed upon tlie condition, that the boundaries prescribed 
 by congress should be assented to by a state convention of delegates 
 elected by the people. This bill and that for admitting Arkansas, were 
 both passed June 15, 1836. The admission of Michigan, however, was 
 not consummated until the 26th of January, 1837, when, the assent to 
 the boundary line having been duly given, an act of congress declared 
 the admission complete. 
 
 On the 23d of June, 1836, a supplement to the act of June 15, was 
 passed, granting to the state section number sixteen of every township, 
 and where such section had been disposed of, other lands equivalent 
 thereto, for the use of schools ; and granting to the state the seventy-two 
 sections set apart and reserved by congress for the use and support of a 
 university, to be appropriated solely to that object ; also granting all 
 salt springs, not exceeding twelve, with six sections of land adjoining, 
 and appropriating five per cent, of the proceeds of the sale of t]ie pub- 
 lic lands for making public roads and canals. A similar act was passed 
 supplementary to that admitting Arkansas. 
 
 In the senate, the vote on the conditional admission of ^Michigan, 
 stood 23 to 8. The friends of the bill being resolved to press the bill 
 to a passage, many of the opposing senators had left their seats. A 
 preceding vote on a _motion to recommit the bill, may be considered as 
 very nearly the test vote on the admission; which was, 28 to 19, being, 
 as is believed, a strict party vote. The Arkansas bill passed the senate 
 two days after, (April 4,) 31 to 6. Those who voted in the negative 
 were Messrs. Clay, Porter, of Louisiana, Knight, and Bobbins, the 
 senators from Rhode Island, and Swift and Prentiss, the senators from 
 Vermont. The two last objected to the p^o^dsions of the constitution 
 which permitted slavery, and prohibited its abolition. The other four 
 senators objected — all of them, it is believed — on account of the unau- 
 thorized proceedings of the people in forming their constitutions. Mr. 
 Prentiss gave tliis as an additional reason for voting against the ad- 
 mission. 
 
 In the house, apprehending opposition from northern members to the 
 Arkansas bill, a motion was made by Mr. Wise to change the order of 
 the two bills, giving to this the precedence. This motion was opposed 
 by several southern members, as implying a distrust of their northern 
 friends. It was also considered unnecessary. Said Mr, Thomas, of 
 Maryland : " Let us proceed haraioniously, until we find that our harmony 
 must be interrupted. We shall lose nothing by so doing. If a major- 
 ity of the house be in favor of reading a third time the Michigan bill, 
 they will order it to be done. After that vote has been taken, we can 
 refuse to read the bill a third time, go into committee of the whole on 
 
ADMISSION OF ARKANSAS AND MICHIGAN INTO THE UNION. 659 
 
 the state of the union, then consider the Arkansas bill, report it to the 
 house, order it to be read a third time, and in this order proceed to read 
 them each a third time, if a majority of the house be in favor of that 
 proceeding. Let it not be said that southern men may be taken by 
 surprise, if the proceeding here respectfully recommended be adopted. 
 If the friends of Arkansas are sufficiently numerous to carry now the 
 motion to postpone, they can aiTest at any time the action of the house 
 on the Michigan bill, until clear, indubitable indications have been given 
 that the Missouri compromise is not to be disregarded." 
 
 Mr. Wise having modified his motion by moving to refer both bills 
 with instructions to incorporate them into one bill, Mr. Patton and Mr. 
 Bouldin, both of Virginia, opposed that part of this motion which 
 instructed the committee to unite the bills. Mr. B. said he had implicit 
 confidence in the members from the non-slaveholding states, " that no 
 serious difficulty would be made as to the admission of Arkansas in 
 regard to negro slavery." Mr. Lewis, of North Carolina, was in favor 
 of giving precedence to the Arkansas bill, considering it the weaker of 
 the two. The people of the south, he said, wanted a hostage to protect 
 them on this delicate question ; and the effect of giving precedence to 
 the Michigan bill would deprive them of that hostage. 
 
 , Mr. Gushing, of Massachusetts, protested against the admission of 
 Arkansas with the clause in her constitution prohibiting the legislature 
 from passing laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of 
 the owners. He concurred with his constituents in condemning the 
 clause "as anti-republican, as wrong on general principles of civil 
 polity, and as unjust to the inhabitants of the non-slaveholding states." 
 The legislature could not emancipate, even if it should be ready to 
 indemnify fully their owners. It was " to foreclose, in advance, the 
 progress of civilization and of liberty forever." He had been asked if 
 he would violate the compromise under which Missouri had entered the 
 Union. He said Massachusetts had never assented to that compromise. 
 Most of her representatives had voted against it ; and those who had 
 voted for it had been disavowed and denounced at home, and stigma- 
 tized even here, by a southern member, as over-compliant toward the 
 exactingness of the south. He concluded a long speech with a severe 
 and eloquent reply to a threat of Mr. Wise, that, if, contrary to the 
 tenns of the Missouri compromise, the north should impose restrictions 
 affecting slave property at the south, the latter would be impelled " to 
 introduce slavery into the heart of the norths 
 
 The questions raised in the senate as to the right of admission with- 
 out a previous assent of congress to the formation of a constitution, and 
 to the right of unnaturalized aliens to vote ; as also the right of Ark- 
 
660 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ansas to be admitted by virtue of the provisions of the treaty ceding 
 Louisiana, were severally discussed in committee of the whole. Mr. 
 Hamer, of Ohio, contended that congress could, by one act, allow the 
 prayer of the petitioners to become a state, and approve their constitu- 
 tion. He advocated the right of aliens to vote. The right of suffrage 
 was not inseparably connected with that of citizenship. Congress alone 
 could make an American citizen who should be entitled to the rights 
 of citizenship throughout the Union ; but control over the right of suf- 
 frage belonged to the state. 
 
 In relation to the right of Arkansas to admission pursuant to the 
 treaty of cession, Mr. Adams said she had a right to come into the 
 union, with her slaves and her slave laws. It was written in the bond, 
 and however he might lament that it ever had been so written, he must 
 faithfully perform its obligations. He was content to receive her as 
 one of the slaveholding states ; but he was unwilling that congress, in 
 accepting her constitution, should even lie under the imputation of 
 assenting to an article in the constitution of a state which withheld 
 from its legislature the power of giving freedom to the slave. The 
 house having been twenty hours in continuous session, Mr. Adams said 
 his physical strength was too much exhausted to enlarge on that topic. 
 When the bill should be reported to the house, he might again ask to 
 be heard, upon renewing there, as he intended, the motion for that 
 amendment. 
 
 After a farther continuation of the debate, amidst considerable con- 
 fusion and disorder, Mr. Adams again addressed the committee in favor 
 of his amendment, which was, " that nothing in this act should be con- 
 strued as an assent by congress to the article in the constitution of the 
 said state in relation to slavery and the emancipation of slaves." 
 
 Mr. Slade moved an amendment requiring the people of Arkansas, by 
 a convention, to expunge from the constitution the clause prohibiting 
 emancipation, which also was rejected. 
 
 Mr. Wise was opposed to the course of the majority " in pressing the 
 question upon a house, sleepy, tired, and drunk." Being opposed to 
 the motion that the committee report the bills to the house, he said he 
 would speak till 10 o'clock, when the house would be compelled to drop 
 the subject, as it was not the special order for that day. He accord- 
 ingly continued his speech until that hour, having several times given 
 way to motions that the committee rise, which were lost. The question 
 now arose, whether the committee were obliged to rise in order to take 
 up the special order. After some discussion, and the reading of the 
 rules, the motion to rise was negatived. Mr. Wise then resumed his 
 remarks, and concluded , at a little after 11 o'clock. 
 
 II 
 
KECOGNITIOK OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS. 661 
 
 Mr. M'Kennan, of Pennsylvania, having obtained the floor, said, the 
 members were evidently worn out by this protracted sitting, (twenty 
 five hours ;) many had not slept, and others had not broken their fast. 
 We have, said he, fought the bill manfully, and done our best to stave 
 oflf the decision upon it. My friend from Virginia, especially, has 
 fought it hard and long, and has, in fact, verified the old adage, a lean 
 dog for a long chase. I hope, sir, the committee will rise and report 
 the bills and that we shall adjourn over until to-morrow. His motion 
 to that effect was carried. 
 
 Subsequently, (June 13,) in the house, Mr. Adams offered an amend- 
 ment to the Michigan bill, reserving to that state the rights and limits 
 secured to the territory by the ordinance of 1787, which, he contended, 
 settled the boundaries of the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, with 
 that of the territories north of those states, definitively and foi-ever: 
 and the boundaries could not be altered without the consent of congress, 
 the states and territories interested, and Virginia (the state which ceded 
 that portion of territory). The bill before the house altered the boun- 
 daries between Ohio and Michigan, to the injury of the latter, and in 
 violation of the original compact. The amendment was lost. 
 
 The Michigan bill was ordered to a third reading by 153 yeas, to 45 
 nays. Of the minority, fifteen were from slave states, chiefly Maryland, 
 Virginia, and Kentucky. On ordering the Arkansas bill to a third 
 reading, the vote was, 143 to 50. Of the negatives, two only were from 
 slave states; Underwood, of Kentucky, and Lewis Williams, of North 
 Carolina ; both of whom voted also against the Michigan bill. Mr. 
 Adams, also, voted against both. Much of the opposition to these bills 
 was designed to postpone the admission of the new states, rather than to 
 reject them. After the presidential election of that year, a still smaller 
 negative vote would have been given. 
 
 In the spring of 1836, the question of the independence of Texas was 
 agitated in congress. Emigration from the United States to that country 
 had been going on for several years, until the population amounted to 
 upwards of 50,000, a majority of which was from the United States. 
 Most or all of the states had contributed to this population, but much 
 the larger portion was from the south-western states, A revolution had 
 been for some time in progress ; and independence had been declared in 
 March, 1836, about the time of the horrid massacres at Alamo and 
 Goliad, when the entire opposing forces of the Texans had been slaugh- 
 tered in cold blood. 
 
 In May, intelligence reached Washington of the victory at San 
 Jacinto of the Texans under Gen. Houston over the Mexicans. A strong 
 sympathy in behalf of the Texans, which had for some time been spread- 
 
662 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ing through the Union, was now extensively expressed in petitions to con- 
 gress for a recognition of the independence of Texas ; an act to which 
 congress was already strongly predisposed. 
 
 Mr. Walker, of Mississippi, moved the reference of the memorials and 
 petitions on the subject to the committee on foreign relations, saying that 
 if the accounts from Texas were official, he would have moved for the 
 immediate recognition of her independence. 
 
 Mr. Webster thought it the duty of our government to acknowledge 
 the independence of Texas, if it had a government de facto. But the 
 time and manner of doing so were matters proper for grave and mature 
 consideration ; and it would not be best to act , with precipitation. If 
 the information received was true, they would hear from Texas herself ; 
 for as soon as she felt that she was a country, and had a government, she 
 would naturally present her claims for recognition. It might not be 
 necessary to wait for that event ; but he thought it discreet to do so. 
 He would be one of the first to acknowledge the independence of Texas 
 on reasonable proof that she had established a government. Attempts 
 might be made by some European government to obtain a cession of Texas 
 from Mexico. 
 
 Mr. King, of Alabama, thought it did not become wise and prudent 
 men, bound to preserve the honor and faith of the country, to be hurried 
 along by the effervescence of feeling, and to abandon our established 
 course toward foreign powers. We had uniformly recognized the exist- 
 ing government, without stopping to inquire whether they were despotic 
 or constitutional. Having satisfied ourselves that a government exists, 
 we look no further, but recognize it as it is. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun took ultra ground, advocating both immediate recogni- 
 tion, and immediate admission into the Union, and hoping it would be 
 done at the present session. He mentioned as " powerful reasons " for 
 admission, that " the southern states, owning a slave population, were 
 deeply interested in preventing that country from having the power to 
 annoy them ; and the navigating and manufacturing interests of the north 
 and east were equally interested in making it a part of the Union." 
 
 Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, thought our national character worth 
 more than all Mexican territory or wealth ; and it behooved us to act 
 with wisdom and circumspection. The sacred obligations of justice and 
 good faith, formed the indispensable basis of a nation's character, great- 
 ness, and freedom, and without which, no people could long preserve the 
 blessings of self-government. 
 
 Mr. Rives counseled " moderation, calmness and dignity," and recom- 
 mended a reference of the subject to the committee on foreign relations. 
 
 Mr. Niles also recommended caution. We should resfard our national 
 
RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS. 663 
 
 faitL A precipitate acknowledgment of the independence of Texas 
 might expose our government to a suspicion of ha\dng encouraged the 
 enterprises of our citizens who had volunteered in aiding the Texans. 
 And this suspicion would be greatly strengthened by our following the 
 recognition by annexation. 
 
 The memorials were referred. The committee consisted of Messrs. 
 Clay, King, of Georgia, Tallmadge, Mangum and Porter. On the 18th 
 of June, the committee reported a resolution in favor of acknowledging 
 the independence of Texas, " whenever satisfactory information should 
 be received that it had in successful operation a civil government, capa- 
 ble of performing the duties and fulfilling the obligations of an inde- 
 pendent power." 
 
 Mr. Southard, who seemed indisposed to encourage Mr. Calhoun's 
 idea of annexation vdth the view of maintaining " the balance of power, 
 and the perpetuation of our institutions," having reference, doubtless, to 
 the increase of the political power of slavery, wished it understood, that 
 his vote would relate to the independence of Texas, not to its admission. 
 The contemplated recognition might at the proper time be justified ; the 
 lattesr might be found to be opposed by the highest and strongest con- 
 siderations of interest and duty. He would then discuss neither ; nor 
 was he willing that the remarks of the senator should lead, in or out of 
 that chamber, to the inference that all who voted for the resolution con- 
 curred with him in opinion. 
 
 Mr. Benton advocated a continuance of our established policy of strict 
 neutrality. Mexico was our nearest neighbor, dividing with us the con- 
 tinent of North America, and possessing the elements of a great power. 
 Our boundaries were co-terminous for two thousand miles. We had 
 inland and maritime commerce. She had mines ; we had ships. Upon 
 each were imposed the duties of reciprocal friendship. Merchandise was 
 carried from New Orleans to Mexican ports, from which the return was 
 in the precious metals. Of the ten millions and three-quarters of silver 
 coin and bullion received from abroad the last year, eight millions and 
 one-quarter came from Mexico alone. She had thus far no cause of 
 complaint ; nor did the present motion depart from our neutral course, 
 as a recognition was made contingent upon the de facto independence of 
 Texas. A separation between Texas and Mexico was certain to take 
 place. They had no affinities. The rich and deep cotton and sugar 
 lands of Texas presented no attractions to the mining and pastoral popu- 
 lation of Mexico. Within a few years the settlement of this planting 
 region had been begun by another race. Sooner or later a separation 
 would be inevitable. Mr. B. denied the assertion elsewhere made, that 
 this was a war for the extension of slavery. The settlers in Texas had 
 
664 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 gone to live under a government similar to that whicli they had left 
 behind. The government had been changed, and attempts had been 
 made to reduce the people to unconditional submission. The revolt 
 was just in its origin ; it had illustrated the Anglo-Saxon character, and 
 given it new titles to the respect and admiration of the world. 
 
 The resolution reported by the committee was adopted unanimously ; 
 yeas, 39. A similar resolution was reported in the house by the com- 
 mittee on foreign relations and adopted: yeas, 113; nays, 22. The 
 nays were all or nearly all given by the opponents of the administration. 
 All but one — Mr. Milligan, of Delaware — were from free states. It has 
 been stated as remarkable, that Mr. Adams, who, when a member of Mr. 
 Monroe's cabinet, was against the relinquishment of Texas to Spain in 
 the treaty of 1819, by which Florida was acquired, was, in 1836 and 1844, 
 against its recovery ; and that Mr. Calhoun, a member of the same cabinet, 
 was in favor of its alienation, and subsequently in favor of its recovery. 
 Their opposite positions in relation to its acquisition, were attributable to 
 their different opinions as to the policy of annexing slave territory to the 
 Union. 
 
 At the next session of congress, (December 21, 1836,) president Jack- 
 son, in a special message, advised congress not to recognize the inde- 
 pendence of Texas, until her ability to protect herself should be 
 established, and there should be no longer any danger of her being again 
 subjected, as had been our policy in the cases of Mexico and the South 
 American states. Since the capture of Santa Anna, the Mexican re- 
 public, under another executive, was rallying its forces under a new 
 leader, and menacing a fresh invasion to recover its lost dominion. 
 Several circumstances, he said, required us to act with unwonted caution. 
 Many of our citizens would be anxious for a reunion of that territory to 
 this country. Most of its inhabitants were bound to our citizens by the 
 ties of friendship and kindred blood. They had instituted a govern- 
 ment similar to our own. They had, moreover, resolved, on the recog- 
 nition by us of their independence, to seek for admission into the Union. 
 They would also ask us to acknowledge their title to the territory, with 
 the avowed design to treat of its transfer to the United States. A too 
 early movement might subject us to the imputation of seeking to estab- 
 lish the claims of our neighbors to a territory with a view to its subse- 
 quent acquisition by ourselves. 
 
 Notwithstanding this caution of the president against a premature 
 acknowledgment of the independence of Texas, the senate, on the 1st 
 of March, adopted a resolution declaring the acknowledgment expedient 
 and proper, 23 to 19. In the house a similar resolution was laid on the 
 table, 98 to 86. Subsequently, however, the bill making appropriations 
 
CLAIMS AGAINST MEXICO. 665 
 
 for civil and diplomatic expenses, was so amended as to provide a " salary 
 and outfit of a diplomatic agent to be sent to the government of Texas, 
 whenever the president should receive satisfactory evidence that Texas 
 was an independent power, and that it was expedient to appoint such a 
 minister." Yeas, 171 ; nays, 76. 
 
 Apprehensions were about this time entertained of an interruption of 
 the amicable relations between the United States and Mexico. A treaty 
 of amity, commerce and navigation had been concluded between the two 
 republics, the 5th of April, 1831. Since that time numerous injuries 
 had been committed upon the persons and property of our citizens, and 
 insults had been offered to our flag ; and our demands for satisfaction 
 and redress had proved unavailing. One of the causes of the delay, it 
 was presumed, Avas the distracted condition of the internal affairs of that 
 country. To this cause had recently been added the aid afforded by 
 citizens of the United States to the revolution in Texas, with the sup- 
 posed connivance or encouragement of the government. 
 
 On the 7th of February, 1837, the president called the attention of 
 congress to the subject, by a special message, in which he stated, that the 
 numerous injuries above mentioned, " independent of recent insults to 
 this government and people by the late extraordinary Mexican minister," 
 (who had suddenly taken his departure,) " would justify, in the eyes of 
 all nations, immediate war." He said, however, " considering the pre- 
 sent embarrassed condition of that country, we should act with both 
 wisdom and moderation, by giving to Mexico one more opportunity to 
 atone for the past, before we take redress into our own hands." And he 
 recommended an act authorizing reprisals and the use of the naval force 
 by the executive against Mexico, if she should refuse to come to an 
 amicable adjustment of the matters in controversy upon another demand 
 made from on board one of our vessels of war on the coast of Mexico. 
 
 The message was referred in both houses to the committee on foreign 
 re^tions. Neither committee reported in favor of the act asked for by 
 the president, but both reported resolutions in favor of another demand 
 for a redress of grievances before coercive measures were adopted. The 
 senate committee considered it contrary to a provision of the treaty with 
 Mexico, that " neither of the contracting parties will order or authorize 
 any acts of reprisal, nor declare war against the other, on complaint of 
 injuries or damages, until the party considering itself offended shall 
 first have presented to the other a statement of such injuries or damages, 
 verified by competent proofs, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and 
 the same shall have been either refused or unreasonably delayed." The 
 presidential term of Gen. Jackson closing with the expiration of this 
 session, the prosecution of our claims against Mexico devolved upon 
 Mr. Van Buren. 
 
666 THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER LIY. 
 
 SPECIE CIRCULAR. MEETING OF CONGRESS. RESOLUTION TO RESCIND 
 
 THE CIRCULAR. VETO. BENTOn's EXPUNGING RESOLUTION. PRESI- 
 DENTIAL ELECTION. 
 
 Several orders were this year (1836) issued from the treasury 
 department to the receivers and disbursers of the public moneys and 
 to the deposit banks, in relation to the receipt and payment of specie. 
 The first of these orders, dated 22d Februaiy, 1836, was intended to 
 diminish the circulation of small bank notes, and to substitute specie, 
 especially gold, for such notes. The receipt of bank notes of a denomi- 
 nation less than five dollars had been prohibited after the 30th of Sep- 
 tember, 1835; and the present order prohibited their payment to any 
 public oflScer or creditor. And unless otherwise prescribed by law, no 
 such notes of a less denomination than ten dollars were to be received 
 or paid after the 4th of July next. And the deposit banks were required, 
 in the payment of all demands not exceeding five hundred doUars, to 
 pay one-fifth in gold coin, if it should be preferred by the creditor. And 
 they were requested not to issue, after the 4th of July, notes less than 
 five dollars, nor after the 3rd of March, 1837, any less than ten dollars. 
 The alleged object of this regulation was, " to render the currency of 
 the country more safe, sound and uniform." 
 
 This order was followed, on the 11th of July, 1836, by another, the 
 famed " specie circular," which produced a more intense sensation, 
 probably, than any other political event since the removal of the deposits. 
 In anticipation of the winding up of the business of the bank of the 
 United States, and notwithstanding the efforts of the administration to 
 discourage the issue and circulation of paper money, an unprecedented 
 increase of the number of state banks took place. For the 35 millions 
 of bank capital withdrawn from use by the expii-ation of the national 
 bank, state bank capital was created to several times that amount. The 
 facility of obtaining bank accommodations encouraged speculation of all 
 kinds to an extent never before known, especially in landed property. 
 The annual receipts from sales of the public lands, had risen within a 
 few years from less than four millions to three and four times that 
 amount ! These lands were paid for with this paper money, issued 
 mostly by banks in distant states, and therefore not likely soon to return 
 for redemption. 
 
 To prevent the monopoly of the pubhc lands by speculators, and to 
 
SPECIE CIRCULAR MEETING OF CONGRESS. 667 
 
 check this rapid accumulation in the treasury of paper money, much of 
 which, it was apprehended, would prove inconvertible, this order was 
 issued. In cases of sales, except to actual settlers, or residents of the 
 state, and in quantities not exceeding three hundred and twenty acres, 
 payment for lands sold after the 15th of August, was to be made in 
 specie; and after the 15th of December, in gold and silver, without 
 exception. This order was issued under an existing law, by which the 
 secretary of the treasury was authorized to receive or to reject bank 
 paper at his discretion. "Whether ultimately detrimental to the pros- 
 perity of the country or not, its immediate effect was a serious revulsion. 
 
 At the preceding session of congress, Mr. Benton had submitted a 
 resolution proposing the exclusion of all paper money in payment for 
 public lands ; but his proposition met with little favor. His opinion 
 of the effects of the measure was thus expressed : " Upon the federal 
 government, its effect would be to check the unnatural sale of the 
 public lands to speculators for paper ; it would limit the sales to set- 
 tlers and cultivators ; stop the swelUng increases of paper surpluses 
 in the treasury ; put an end to all projects for disposing of surpluses ; 
 and relieve all anxiety for the fate of the public moneys in the deposit 
 banks. Upon the new states, where the public lands are situated, its 
 effects would be most auspicious. It would stop the flood of paper \\dth 
 which they are inundated, and bring in a steady stream of gold and sil- 
 ver in its place." The settlers, too, he said, would be relieved from the 
 competition of speculators who came " with bales of bank notes bor- 
 rowed upon condition of carrying them far away, and turning them loose 
 where many would be lost, and never g^t back to the bank that issued 
 them." 
 
 The circular was issued only one week after the adjournment of con- 
 gress ; having been purposely withheld, as Mr. Benton says, to avoid 
 any interference of congress, a majority of both houses being known to be 
 opposed to the measure. A majority of the cabinet also were opposed to it. 
 
 The 2d session of the 24th congress commenced on the 5th day of 
 December, 1836. Being a short session, and the last under the admin- 
 istration of Gen, Jackson, few acts of importance were passed. 
 
 The president, in his message, expressed his disapprobation of the 
 deposit act of the last session, which had " received a reluctant approval." 
 He spoke at length against the distribution prinqiple, and the act in par- 
 ticular. A prominent objection to it was the rule of apportionment 
 which it had adopted, which was unequal and unjust. Instead of a dis- 
 tribution in proportion to the population of each state, the rule pre- 
 scribed by the constitution for the apportionment of representatives 
 and direct taxes, the money was to be divided among the states accord- 
 
668 THE AMERICAN 8TATESMAK. 
 
 ing to their federal representation, both senators and representatives. 
 Delaware, for example, was entitled to but one representative for her 
 population ; but her two senators being included in the basis for distri- 
 bution, gave her more than double the amount she would receive had 
 the apportionment been made according to population. He recom- 
 mended the adoption of some measure to prevent the accumulation of 
 a surplus making a division necessary. He acknowledged a partial 
 change in his Adews, and gave reasons for his having recommended dis- 
 tribution in 1829 and 1830. He discussed the cun-ency question — 
 favored a specie circulation, and discouraged the use of bank paper. He 
 defended the " specie circular " and the destruction of the bank, as salu- 
 tary measures, and pronounced the state banks fully equal to the former 
 in transferring the public moneys. 
 
 He also called attention to the bank of the United States, which had, 
 before the expiration of the charter, obtained an act of incorporation 
 from the legislature, and was now a state bank. Instead of proceeding 
 to wind up its affairs, and paying over to the government the amount of 
 the stock held by it, the president and directors of the old bank had 
 transferred the books, papers and effects to the new corporation, which 
 had entered upon business as a continuation of the old concern. 
 
 A few days after the commencement of the session, Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, 
 introduced into the senate a joint resolution " to rescind the treasury 
 order of July 11, 1836, and -to prohibit the secretary of the treasury 
 from directing what funds should be receivable in payment for public 
 lands, and from making any discrimination in the funds so receivable, 
 between different individuals, or' between different branches of the pub- 
 lic service ; " thus requiring the same kind of money in payment for 
 customs as for lands. 
 
 Mr. Ewing, in explaining his reasons for offering the resolution, said 
 he thought other objects than those which had been avowed, were con- 
 templated by the issuing of the circular. It had been foreseen before 
 congress met, that some measure would be attempted to check the ac- 
 cumulation of the public money in the hands of the executive. When the 
 distribution was brought forward, it was positively asserted, that there 
 would be no surplus revenue ; but when these statements were contra- 
 dicted by the rapid influx of public money, it was declared that the 
 whole surplus would be required for the necessities of the country. 
 And the secretary of the treasury had, in his report of December, 
 under-estimated the probable amount in the treasury the 1st of January 
 thereafter, by many millions — an error so gross as scarcely to be attrib- 
 utable to inadvertence. When other expedients had failed, only seven 
 days after the adjournment of congress, the order was issued, thus chang- 
 
RESOLUTION TO RESCIND THE CIRCULAR. 6o9 
 
 ing, without tlie ad\dce of congress, the character of the funds to be 
 derived from one of the greatest sources of revenue. 
 
 The people had been told that the evils they suffered were attribut- 
 able to the distribution bill. But they well understood the true source 
 of the evil to be the treasury circular. One object of those who advised 
 the act, was to limit the sales of the public lands and raise their prices ; 
 and the order had eflEected the object, and benefited the speculators, and 
 the deposit banks from which they had borrowed the money. Another 
 object of the order was to save the deposit banks from failure. It had 
 been said by senators that the distribution bill would break many of 
 these banks. This order was therefore intended to collect specie in the 
 land-oflBces, to be distributed among these banks to enable them to pay 
 over the money to the states. It had been said the order would pre- 
 vent the over issues of banks. To this he replied, that there had been 
 no ov^ issues except by the deposit banks ; and these would not 
 be affected by the order, but would be relieved by the aid of this specie 
 from the effect of their improvident loans. The increase of the issues 
 of the western banks which had taken place within the last few years, 
 was no greater than the increasing commerce of the country had de- 
 manded. When the order was issued, the banks were compelled to stop 
 their loans, and push their creditors, and thus the whole commerce of 
 the west had been crippled. 
 
 Mr. Benton, in reply, said in reference to the surplus remaining in 
 the treasury, that fifteen or sixteen millions of it were already appropri- 
 ated, but had been kept there because the appropriations at the last 
 session had been so long delayed as not to leave time for the money to 
 be expended. If the appropriations had been made in time, there would 
 have been no gi'eater surplus than often before. The existing surplus 
 had been created by congress itself. He regarded the present movement 
 against the circular as being dictated by the same motives as that of 
 1833 against the removal of the deposits. This, however, was but an 
 impotent affair compared to that. " Then," said Mr. B., " we had a 
 magnificent panic ; now, nothing but a miserable starveling ! .... a 
 mere church-mouse concern — a sort of dwarfish, impish imitation of the 
 gigantic spectre which stalked through the land in 1833." 
 
 Mr, B. referred to a letter from Mr. Biddle, and a late speech of Mr. 
 Clay in Lexington, in relation to the treasury order, in which they had 
 " given out the programme for the institution of the little panic ; and 
 the proceeding against the president for violating the laws ; and against 
 the treasury order itself as the cause of the new distress." Such was 
 the construction which he gave to the letter and the speech of these 
 gentlemen. Considering the existing state of things as chargeable to 
 
670 THE AMteRICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the bank and its friends, and designed to aid them in getting a renewal 
 of its charter as a remedy for the evils which they had themselves 
 created, he said : " There is no safety for the federal revenues but in 
 the total exclusion of local paper, and that from every branch of the 
 revenue — customs, lands, and post-oflBce. There is no safety for the 
 national finances but in the constitutional medium of gold and silver. 
 After forty years of wandering in the wilderness of paper money, we 
 have approached the confines of the constitutional medium. Seventy-five 
 millions of specie in the country, with the prospect of an annual increase 
 of ten or twelve millions for the next four years ; three branch mints to 
 commence next spring, and the complete restoration of the gold cuiTency, 
 announce the success of president Jackson's great measures for the reform 
 of the currency, and vindicate the constitution from the libel of having pre- 
 scribed an impracticable currency. The success is complete ; and there 
 is no way to thwart it, but to pull down the treasury order, and to iipopen 
 the public lands to the inundation of paper money. Of this, it is not to 
 be dissembled, there is great danger. Four deeply interested classes are 
 at work to do it — speculators, local banks. United States bank, and poli- 
 ticians out of power. They may succeed: but I will not despair. The 
 darkest hour of night is just before the break of day ; and through the 
 gloom ahead, I see the bright vision of the constitutional currency erect, 
 radiant and victorious. If reform measures go on, gold and silver will 
 be gradually and temperately restored ; if reforms are stopped, then the 
 paper runs riot, and explodes from its own expansion." 
 
 Mr. Crittenden admitted that the deposit banks had been strengthened 
 by the order, as had been asserted by Mr. Benton, but it was at the ex- 
 pense of all the other banks in the country. The specie was collected 
 and carried into the vaults of the former, and went to disturb and em- 
 barrass the general circulation of the country, and to produce the pecu- 
 niary difficulty felt in all quarters of the union. The distress was at 
 least, through the west, attributed to that cause. The senator from 
 Missouri supposed the order had produced no part of the pressure. If 
 not, what had it produced ? Had it increased the specie in actual and 
 general circulation ? If it had done no evil, what good had it done ? 
 So far as it had operated at all, it had been to derange the state of the 
 currency, and to give it a direction inverse to the course of business. 
 Our great commercial cities were the natural repositories where money 
 centered and settled. There it was wanted, and was more valuable, than 
 in the interior. Any intelligent business man in the west would rather 
 have money paid him for a debt in New York, than at his own door. 
 Hence, forcing the specie against the natural course of business from 
 east to west was beneficial to none, injurious to all. This course, he 
 
t 
 
 RESOLUTION TO RESCIND THE CIRCULAR. 671 
 
 said, tnight be disturbed for a time, but it was like forcing the needle 
 from the pole : turn it round and round as often as you pleased, if left 
 to itself, it would still settle at the north. Men might as well escape 
 from the physical necessities of their nature as from the laws which gov- 
 erned the movements of finance ; and the man who professed to reverse 
 or dispense with the one was no greater quack than he who made the 
 same professions with regard to the other. The distribution bill had 
 been charged with the mischief ; and he admitted that the manner in 
 which the government was attempting to carry that law into effect, might 
 in part have furnished grounds for such a supposition ; and he had no 
 doubt that it had aggravated the pecuniary distress of the country, 
 
 Mr. Webster regarded the principles of Mr. Benton respecting cur- 
 rency as ultra and impracticable ; looking to a state of things not desira- 
 ble in itself, even if it were practicable ; and if it were desirable, as 
 being beyond the power of the government to bring about. The ques- 
 tion was now raised, whether these principles were to prevail against 
 those which had long been established in this country ; and it would 
 soon be decided, so far as the senate was concerned. A new adminis- 
 tration was about to come in. While it receives the power and patron- 
 age of the past, would it inherit also its topics and projects ? Would 
 it keep up the avowal of the same objects and schemes, especially in 
 regard to the currency ? The order was prospective, and, on the face of 
 it, perpetual. Was it to be the rule under the ensuing administration? 
 The country was interested in these questions. 
 
 It was remarkable, said Mr. W., that frauds, speculation and monopoly 
 should have become so enormous and notorious on the 11th of July, as 
 to demand executive interference, and yet not have reached such a height 
 as to make it proper to lay the subject before congress, which had ad- 
 journed only seven days before. And what made it more remarkable 
 was, that the president had, 'in his annual message, spoken of the rapid 
 sales of the public lands as one of the most gratifying proofs of general 
 prosperity, ha\'ing reached " the unexpected sum of eleven millions." 
 How so different a view of things happened to be taken at the two 
 periods, might perhaps be leai'ned in the farther progress of this debate. 
 
 The order, he said, spoke of the " evil influence " likely to result from 
 the further exchange of the public lands, for " paper money." This was 
 the language of the gentleman from Missouri, who habitually spoke of 
 the notes of all banks, however solvent, and however promptly they re- 
 deemed their notes in gold and silver, as " paper money." The secre- 
 tary had adopted the gentleman's phrases, which, as financial language, 
 were quite new. By paper money in its obnoxious sense, he (Mr. W.) 
 understood paper issues on credit alone, without capital, resting only on 
 
672 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the good faith and ability of those who issue it, as was the paper monej 
 of revolutionary times, and as may have been the character of the paper 
 of particular institutions since. But the notes of banks of competent 
 capitals and duly restricted, made payable on demand in gold and silver, 
 and so paid, were paper money only in this sense, that they were made 
 of paper, and circulated as money. If this language of the order was 
 authentic, and all notes were to be hereafter regarded and stigmatized as 
 mere " paper money," the sooner the countiy knew it, the better. 
 
 After a further discussion of the subject, it was referred to the com- 
 mittee on public lands; and on the 18th of January, 1837, Mr. Walker, 
 from that committee, made a report accompanied by a bill, providing 
 that the government should receive the paper of such banks only as 
 should thereafter issue no notes less than five dollars, and after the 30th 
 of December, 1839, none less than ten dollars, and as should pay their 
 notes on demand in gold and silver. They were also required, under 
 the control of the secretary, to pass the paper thus received to the credit 
 of the United States as cash. The provisions of the bill extended to the 
 receipt of money for duties, taxes, and debts. It was subsequently 
 amended, on motion of Mr. Rives, so as to restrict these banks to the 
 issue, after 1841, of notes not less than twenty dollars; and on motion of 
 Mr. Clay so as to rescind the treasury order. In this shape it passed the sen- 
 ate ; ayes, 41 ; noes, 5 — Messrs. Benton, Linn, Morris, Ruggles, Wright. 
 Mr. Calhoun declined voting, assigning as a reason, that this measure 
 could not arrest the downward course of the country. It was doubtful 
 whether any skill and wisdom could restore the currency to soundness. 
 An explosion he considered inevitable, and so much greater, the longer 
 it should be delayed. Being unprepared to assign his reasons for the 
 vote he might give, he was unwilling to vote at all. 
 
 The bill passed the house also by a large majority : the . vote on its 
 engrossment for a third reading, was, ayes, 143 ; noes, 59. Its passage 
 was on the 2d of March, the day before that which terminated the con- 
 stitutional term of congress and of the administration. It was sent to 
 the president, who returned to the senate, with the objection, that its 
 provisions were " so complex and uncertain, that he deemed it necessary 
 to obtain the opinion of the attorney-general on several important ques- 
 tions touching its construction and effect." That officer concurring with 
 him that its construction would be " a subject of much perplexity and 
 doubt, he did " not think it proper to approve a bill so liable to a 
 diversity of interpretations." 
 
 A bill was also passed by the senate, " to prohibit the sales of public 
 lands, except to actual settlers, and in limited quantities," 27 to 23 ; but 
 in the house, it was, on the 2d of March laid on the table, 107 to 91. 
 
Benton's expunging resoltttion. 673 
 
 The purpose of Mr. Benton, announced on the passage of the resolu- 
 tion of the 28th of March, 1834, condemning the exercise of power by 
 the president in relation to the removal of the deposits, had been faith- 
 fully carried out, by his moving, at each succeeding session, to expunge 
 that resolution from the journal of the senate. That motion was made 
 at this session for the last time. The changes which had taken 
 place in that body in consequence of resignations and of the expira- 
 tion of terms of senators since 1834, had given to the administra- 
 tion party the predominance ; and notliing but unanimity was neces- 
 sary to eflFect the long meditated object of the mover. 
 
 The resolution was debated on Friday and Saturday, the 1 3th and 
 1 4th of January, 1837. Contemplating final action on the subject an 
 Monday, a meeting of the democratic senators was held on Saturday, to 
 consult on the manner in which the act should be performed. In order 
 to secure the necessary unanimity, tlie obliteration of the resolution, Mi'. 
 Benton's favorite mode, was given up ; and that proposed by the legisla- 
 ture of Virginia adopted ; which was, to draw black lines around the 
 obnoxious resolution. To this Mr. B. assented, as he tells us, " on con- 
 dition of being allowed to compose the epitaph," to be written across the 
 enclosed lines : " Expunged by the order of the senate." 
 
 Mr. Benton thus continues his account of the proceedings of the meet- 
 ing, which, he says, was held in the night at a famous restaurant, giving to 
 the assemblage the air of a convivial entertainment : " The agreement 
 which led to victory was then adopted, each one severally pledging him- 
 self to it, that there should be no adjournment of the senate, after the 
 resolution was called, until it was passed; and that it should be called 
 immediately after the morning business of the Monday ensuing. Ex- 
 pecting a protracted session, extending through the day and night, and 
 knowing the diflSculty of keeping men steady to their work and in good 
 humor, when tired and hungry, the mover of the proceeding took care to 
 provide, as far as possible, against such a state of things ; and gave 
 orders that night to have an ample supply of cold hams, turkeys, rounds 
 of beef, pickles, wines, and cups of hot coiFee, ready in a certain commit- 
 tee room near the senate chamber by four o'clock, on tlie afternoon of 
 Monday." 
 
 The subject was called up pursuant to arrangement ; and the debate 
 was ren'^wed : a debate less distinguished, perhaps, as a discussion of con- 
 stitutional and political principles, than for the indications which it gave 
 of a reverse of feeling of parties in that body. The author and supporters 
 of the condemnatory resolution of 1834, were about to witness a morti- 
 fying exhibition — to receive in turn an infliction similar to that which 
 they had dealt out to their opponents a few short years before. The 
 
 43 
 
CT-l THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 speeches of the subdued senators furnish a pretty cleai index to theii 
 feelings on that occasion. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun said : " No one, not blinded by party zeal, can possibly 
 be insensible that the measure proposed is a violation of the constitution. 
 The constitution requires the senate to keep a journal; this resolution goe? 
 to expunge the journal. If you may expunge a part, you may expunge 
 the whole ; and if it is expunged, how is it kept ? * * * This is to 
 be done, not in consequence of argument, but in spite of argument. 1 
 know perfectly well the gentlemen have no liberty to vote otherwise." 
 [Mr. Calhoun here alluded to the instructions which some senators had 
 received from their state legislatures.] " They try, indeed, to comfort 
 their conscience by saying that it is the will of the people. It is no 
 such thing. We all know how these legislative returns have been ob- 
 tained. It is by dictation from the White House. The president himself, 
 with that vast mass of patronage which he wields, and the thousand ex- 
 pectations he is able to hold up, has obtained the votes of the state 
 legislatures ; and this, forsooth, is said to be the voice of the people. 
 The voice of the people ! Sir, can we forget the scene which was 
 exhibited in this chamber when that expunging resolution w*as first 
 introduced here ? Have we forgotten the universal giving way of con- 
 science, so that the senator from Missouri was left alone ? I see before 
 me senators who could not swallow that resolution; and has its nature 
 changed since then ? Is it any more constitutional now than it was 
 then ? Not at all. But executive power has interposed. Talk to me 
 of the voice of the people ! No, sir ; it is the combination of patron- 
 age and power to coerce this body into a gross and palpable violation of 
 the constitution. • • • 
 
 " But why do I waste my breath ? I know it is all atterly vain. 
 The day is gone ; night approaches, and night is suitable to the dark 
 deed we meditate." Mr. C. said other violations had been committed; 
 but they had been done in the heat of party. In these, power had been 
 " compelled to support itself by seizing upon new instruments of influ- 
 ence and patronage;" among these was the removal of the deposits, 
 which gave to the president ample means of " rewarding his friends and 
 punishing his enemies." Said Mr. C, " Something may, perhaps, be 
 pardoned to him in this matter, on the old apology of tyrants — the plea 
 of necessity. Here no necessity can so much as be pretended. This 
 act originates in pure, personal idolatry. It is the melancholy evidence 
 of a broken spirit, ready to bow at the feet of power. The former act • 
 was such a one as might have been perpetrated in the days of Pompey 
 or Caesar ; but an act like this could never have been consummated hj 
 a Roman senate until the times of Caligula and Nero." 
 
Benton's expunging resolution. 675 
 
 Mr. Clay expressed his disappointment at the intention of again put- 
 ting this resolution to a vote. He said : " It is, however, now revived ; 
 and sundry changes having taken place in the members of this body, it 
 would seem that the present design is to bring the resolution to an abso- 
 lute conclusion." He concluded his speech with a violent denunciation 
 of the president and his friends, thus : " The decree has gone forth. 
 The deed is to be done — that foul deed which, like the blood-stained 
 hands of the guilty Macbeth, all ocean's waters will never wash out. 
 Proceed, then, with the noble work which lies before you, and, like other 
 skillful executioners, do it quickly. And when you have perpetrated it, 
 go home to the people, and tell them what glorious honors you have 
 achieved for them and the country. Tell them that you have extin- 
 guished one of the brightest and purest lights that ever burnt at the 
 altar of civil liberty. Tell them that you have silenced one of the 
 noblest batteries that ever thundered in defense of the constitution, and 
 bravely spiked the cannon. Tell them that, henceforward, no matter 
 what daring or outrageous act any president may perform, you have 
 forever hermetically sealed the mouth of the senate. Tell them that be 
 may fearlessly assume what powers he pleases, snatch from its lawful 
 custody the public purse, command a military detachment to enter the 
 halls of the capitol, overawe congress, trample down the constitution, 
 and raze every bulwark of freedom ; but that the senate must stand 
 mute, in silent submission, and not dare to raise its opposing voice ; 
 that it must wait until a house of representatives, humbled and subdued 
 like itself, and a majority of it, composed of the partisans of the presi- 
 dent, shall prefer articles of impeachment. Tell them, finally, that you 
 have restored the glorious doctrines of passive obedience and non-resist- 
 ance. And, if the people do not pour out their indignation and impreca- 
 tions, I have yet to learn the character of American freemen." 
 
 Mr. Webster, who made the concluding speech, protested against the 
 intended act, as unconstitutional. " A record expunged^'' he said, " is 
 not a record which is kept^ any more than a record which is destroyed 
 can be a record which is preserved. The part expunged is no longer 
 part of the record ; it has no longer a legal existence. It can not be 
 certified as a part of the proceeding of the senate for any proof or evi- 
 dence." He protested also that they had no right to deprive him of the 
 personal constitutional right of having his yea and nay recorded and 
 preserved on the journal. They might as well erase the yeas and nays 
 on any other, or on all other questions as on this. He expressed his 
 deep regret to see the legislatures of respectable states instructing their 
 senators to vote for violating the journal of the senate. He believed 
 these proceedings of states had their origin in promptings from Wash 
 
676 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ington ; and had been brought about by the influence and power of the 
 executive branch of this government. 
 
 " But this resolution is to pass. We expect it. That cause which 
 has been powerful enough to influence so many state legislatures, will 
 show itself powerful enough, especially with such aids, to secure the 
 
 passage of the resolution here We collect ourselves to look on, 
 
 in .silence, while a scene is exhibited which, if we did not regard it as a 
 ruthless violation of a sacred instrument, would appear to us to belittle 
 elevated above the character of a contemptible farce." The following is 
 his concluding paragraph: 
 
 " Having made this protest, our duty is performed. We rescue our 
 own names, character, and honor, from all participation in this matter ; 
 and whatever the wayward 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 elsewhere, we desire to thank God that 
 they have not, as yet, overcome the love of liberty, fidelity to true re- 
 publican 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. Massachusetts, as yet, has not been conquered ; and while 
 we have the honor to hold seats here as her senators, we shall never con- 
 sent to a sacrifice either of her rights or our own. We shall never fail 
 to oppose what we regard a plain and open violation of the constitution 
 of the country ; and we should have thought ourselves wholly unworthy 
 of her if we had not, with all the solemnity and earnestness in our 
 power, protested against the adoption of the resolution now before the 
 senate." 
 
 It was now near midnight ; and the vote was taken in the presence of 
 a crowd of spectators. There were yeas, 24; nays, 19; absent, 5. 
 After the resolution had passed, the secretary of the senate, according 
 to order, took the manuscript journal of the senate, and drew a square 
 of broad black lines around the resolution of the 28th of March, 1 834, 
 and wrote across it, " Expunged by order of the senate, this 16th day 
 of January, 1837." 
 
 Mr. Benton, in closing his account of the transaction, says: "The 
 gratification of General Jackson was extreme. He gave a grand dinner 
 to the expungers (as they were called) and their wives ; and being too 
 weak to sit at the table, he only met the company, placed the ' head- 
 expunger' in his chair, and withdrew to his sick chamber. That ex- 
 purgation ! it was the ' crowning mercy ' of his civil, as New Orleans 
 had been of his military life !" 
 
 At the presidential election in 1836, the electoral vote was divided 
 upon five individuals. Mr. Van Buren had been nominated by a na- 
 
MR. VAN BUREN's INAUGURATION. 677 
 
 tioual democratic convention held in Baltimore, in Februarj, 1835, with 
 Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, for vice-president. This convention 
 was held, if not at the instance, yet in accordance with the previously 
 expressed wishes ot Gen. Jackson, who, as was well known, was desirous 
 that Mr. Van Buren- should be his successor. Mr. Van Buren also was 
 known to be in favor of the project. No other national convention to 
 nominate a candidate for president, was held. Gen. William II. Harri- 
 son was nominated by whig conventions in many of the states, and by 
 the anti-masonic state convention, at Harrisburg, Pa. Francis Granger 
 was nominated at most or all of these conventions for vice-president. 
 Hugh L. White, senator in congress from Tennessee, and a friend of 
 Gen. Jackson, was nominated in January, 1835, by the legislature of 
 Alabama. He was also nominated by the people of Tennessee, in which 
 nomination the delegation from that state in the house of representa- 
 tives in congress concurred, with the exception of James K. Polk and 
 Cave Johnson. John M'Lean, of Ohio, and Daniel Webster, of Massa- 
 chusetts, had been nominated, by the whig members of the legislatures 
 of these states. 
 
 Mr. Van Buren received of the electoral votes, 170; Gen. Harrison 
 73 ; Judge White, 26 ; Mr. Webster, 14 ; and Willie P. Maugum, of 
 North Carolina, 1 1. Total, 294. For vice-president, R. M. Johnson, 144; 
 Francis Granger, 77; John Tyler, 47 ; Wm. Smith, 23. Total, 294. 
 There would probably have been a less scattering vote, but for the hope 
 of diminishing the chances of Mr. Van Buren's success by bringing the 
 election into the house of representatives. 
 
 CHAPTER LV. 
 
 MR. VAN buren's INAUGURATION. SPECIAL. SESSION OP CONGRESS. 
 
 SUB-TREASURY. OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES. 
 
 On the 4th of March, 1837, Martin Van Buren was inaugurated as 
 president of the United States. The inauguration was attended with 
 the display usual on such occasions. He was accompanied to the capi- 
 tol by his predecessor, General Jackson, where he delivered his inaugural 
 address, and took the oath of office, administered by chief justice Taney. 
 
 The inaugural address gave no indications of a change in the general 
 policy of the government. A prominent topic of the address was the 
 then agitating question of the abolition of slavery in the District of 
 
678 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Columbia. He had been interrogated on this agitating subject before 
 the election ; and he then declared that, if elected, he " must go into the 
 presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of every 
 attempt, on the part of congress, to abolish slavery in the District of 
 Columbia, against the vrishes of the slaveholding stffetes ; and also with 
 a determination equally decided to resist the slightest interference with 
 it in the states where it exists ;" and said: "It now only remains to 
 add, that no bill conflicting with these views can ever receive my consti- 
 tutional sanction." His reserve and caution in committing himself on 
 public measures, was proverbial — a trait of character familiarly denomi- 
 nated by his opponents, " non-committalism." This announcement, iu 
 advance, therefore, of his views and intentions iu relation to this sub- 
 ject, was the more noticed, and was attributed by his opponents to the 
 design of strengthening his popularity at the south. Such announce- 
 ment was deemed the more uncalled for, as there was not the slightest 
 probability of the passage of a bill like that which he had thus fore- 
 doomed. It was regarded by many also as objectionable in jyrijicijjle — 
 as an improper interference, on the part of the executive, with the free- 
 dom of legislation. 
 
 Mr. Van Buren's accession to the presidency occurred at an unpropi- 
 tious period. The pecuniary pressure which followed the issuing of the 
 specie circular, and which was already general and severe, was rapidly 
 approaching its crisis. Tliis pressure was extensively regarded as the 
 natural result of a policy which he was pledged to continue. In May, 
 the event for some time anticipated by many — a general bank explosion 
 — took place. The banks in the city of New York, by common consent, 
 suspended specie payments. The banks in other cities were compelled 
 to adopt the same course. In the state of New York, the legislature 
 legalized the suspension for one year. 
 
 Among the causes to which the suspension of specie payments was 
 ascribed, were the diversion of specie to the west, and the drain upon 
 the banks in the Atlantic cities for exportation to Europe, to pay for 
 the excessive importations of goods. Another cause of the derangement 
 of the currency was supposed to be the large loans made by the banks 
 having on deposit the surplus revenue, with the expectation that it would 
 remain with them until called for by the general government. Instead, 
 however, of being permitted to retain these funds as a basis for the ex- 
 tension of their loans, they were unexpectedly demanded for the purpose 
 of distribution among the states. 
 
 The speculation and enormous appreciation of property during the 
 last two or three years, was followed by a revulsion, and a corresponding 
 depreciation. Mercantile failures in the commercial cities, as Boston, 
 
SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS. 679 
 
 New York, and New Orleans, exceeding in number and amount, pro- 
 bably, any that ever occurred within an equal period of time, took 
 place in a few months before and after the suspension. Representations 
 of the vast depreciation of property, of the general prostration of busi- 
 ness, were made to the president, with requests to rescind the specie 
 circular, and to call an extra meeting of congress. On the 15th of 
 May, a few days after the suspension in the city of New York, a pro- 
 clamation was issued for convening congress on the 1st Monday in 
 September. , 
 
 But for the general suspension, it is doubtful whether the president 
 would have convened congress. Under the provisions of the resolutions 
 of 1816, and by the act of 1836, regulating the deposits, the federal 
 officers were prohibited from receiving or paying out the notes of any 
 but specie-paying banks. And the deposit banks, as well as others, 
 had now suspended. Under existing laws, therefore, no collections or 
 disbursements of public moneys could be made. If done at all, it must 
 be done in violation of law. 
 
 Pursuant to the proclamation, congress assembled on the 4th of Sep- 
 tember, 1837. The president's message was almost exclusively devoted 
 to the banks and currency, the causes of the existing difficulties, and 
 their remedy. He suggested the entire disuse of banks as fiscal agenti 
 of the government, the collection, safekeeping, transfer, and disburse- 
 ments of the public money by officers of the government, and of th» 
 employment of specie alone in its fiscal operations. It was the recom- 
 mendation of the sub-treasury scheme. He believed the exclusive us« 
 of specie a practicable operation. Of the seventy or eighty millions in 
 the country, ten millions would be sufficient for the purpose, if the 
 accumulation of a large surplus revenue were prevented. The large 
 increase of specie since the act of 1834, had contributed largely to the 
 feasibility of the measure. The gold coinage alone had been since 
 August, 1834, ten millions, which exceeded the whole coinage at the 
 mint during the thirty-one previous years. By using specie only in 
 government operations, a demand for it would be created, and its expor- 
 tation prevented. 
 
 In consequence of the great pecuniary embarrassments, there had 
 been a diminished revenue from importations and the sale of public 
 lands, while the appropriations had been many millions, more than had 
 been asked for in former estirfiates. To supply the deficiency in the 
 treasury thus produced, the president recommended the withholding of 
 the fourth and last instalment, then in the treasury, of $9,367,200, 
 directed by the act of June, 1836, to be deposited with the states iu 
 October next. 
 
680 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 No measure having direct reference to the relief of the people, was 
 reconiineuded. The president hoped, however, that the adoption of the 
 proposed fiscal measures would, " by their necessary operation, afford 
 essential aid in the transaction of individual coucenih, uud thus yield 
 relief to the people at large, in a form adapted to the nature of our 
 government." He said : " Those who look to the action of this govern 
 ment for specific aid to the citizen to relieve embarrassments arising 
 from losses by revulsions in commerce and credit, lose sight of the ends 
 for which it was created." " All communities are apt to look to gov- 
 ernment for too much. * * * To avoid every unnecessary inter- 
 ference with the pursuits of the citizen, will result in more benefit than 
 to adopt measures which could only assist limited interests, and are 
 eagerly, but perhaps naturally sought for, under the pressure of tempo- 
 rary circumstances." , 
 
 In conformity to the suggestions of the president, a bill was reported 
 in the senate by Mr. Wright, chairman of the committee on finance. It 
 was entitled, " A bill imposing additional duties as depositaries, in cer- 
 tain cases, on public officers." It required all officers of the general 
 government receiving public moneys, safely to keep, without loaning or 
 using them, until duly ordered to transfer them or pay them out. Bonds 
 for their safe-keeping were to be given ; and their accounts were to be 
 submitted for examination once a year or oftener, at the discretion of 
 the secretary of the treasury. The accounts of collectors of customs, 
 receivers of laud-offices, and treasurers of the mints, were to be returned 
 to the treasury department, quarterly or oftener, at the discretion of the 
 secretary. The same bill was reported to the house of representatives, 
 by Mr. Cambroleng, chairman of the committee of ways and means. 
 This was the bill for the establishment of the independent treasury, 
 commonly called the sub-treasury. 
 
 Several other bills for the temporary relief of the government, were 
 reported, and promptly acted on by the senate : (I.) A bill to postpone 
 the payment of the fourth instalment of the deposits with the states ; 
 (2.) A bill to authorize the issue of treasury notes; (3.) A bill extend- 
 ing the time for the payment of merchants' bonds ; (4.) A bill for 
 adjusting the remaining claims on the deposit banks; and (5.) A bill to 
 authorize merchandise to be deposited in public stores. 
 
 The bill to 'postpone payment of th^ deposits, after a brief debate, 
 and the adoption of an amendment ofiered by Mr. Buchanan, providing 
 that " the three instalments already paid do remain on deposit until 
 directed by congress," instead of being subject to be called for by the 
 eecretary of the treasury, was passed, 28 to 17, and sent to the house 
 for concurrence. The chief participators in the debate were Messrs. 
 Wright, Rives, Webster, Buchanan, and Calhoun. 
 
SUB-TREASURY. 681 
 
 Mr. "Webster made the principal speech against the bill. He regretted 
 that the measures of the president and his secretary regarded only one 
 object, the relief of the government. The community also needed 
 relief from the evils which it suflfered : these, however, were capable of 
 a distinct consideration. He mentioned, first, the wants of the treasury, 
 arising from the stoppage of payments, and the falling off of the revenue. 
 A second and greater evil was the prostration of credit, the derangement 
 of business, arising from the suspension of the local banks. A third 
 evil was the want of an accredited paper medium equal to specie, having 
 equal credit over all parts of the country. The secretary's report, as 
 well as the message, regarded exclusively the interest of the government, 
 forgetting, or passing by the people. He (Mr. W.) rejoiced at the clear 
 shape which the question had at last assumed. Was there any duty 
 incumbent on the government, to superintend the actual currency of the 
 country ? to do anything but to regulate the gold and silver coin ? 
 Might it abandon to the states and to the local banks the unrestrained 
 issue of paper for circulation, without any attempt on its part to estab- 
 lish a paper medium equivalent to specie, and universally accredited all 
 over the country ? 
 
 Mr. W. contended that the power to regulate commerce between the 
 states carried with it, necessarily and directly, the essential element of 
 commerce — the currency, the money, which constituted the life and soul 
 of commerce. Paper money, in this age, was an essential element in all 
 trade between the states; it was connected with all commercial transac- 
 tions : and it belonged to the general government, and not to the state 
 governments, to provide for or regulate the currency between the states. 
 A paper medium equivalent to coin, and of equal credit in all parts of 
 the country, was an important instrument of exchange. Currency and 
 exchange were united : and if the government would do its duty on the 
 great subject of the currency, the mercantile and industrious classes would 
 feel the benefit through all the operations of exchange. 
 
 In remarking on the bill, he said that its object was a necessary one ; 
 but he did not think it provided the best mode of relief. The money 
 was expected by the states ; some of them had already disposed of it in 
 advance. And was it wise to add another to the causes in operation, 
 disturbing the business transactions of society ? But the bill, if passed, 
 would not essentially aid the treasury. The secretary himself virtually 
 acknowledged it, for he says he wants other aid, and asks for an issue 
 of some millions of treasury notes. He would therefore get the money 
 without the bill. But what sort of notes did the secretary propose to 
 issue ? Notes of small denominations, down even to twenty dollars, 
 bearing no interest, redeemable at no fixed period ; receivable for debts 
 
682 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 due the government, but not otherwise to be paid, until, at some inde- 
 finite time, there should be in the treasury a surplus beyond what the 
 secretary might think its wants required. It was plain, authentic, sta- 
 tutable paper money : a new emission of old continental. If this was not 
 paper money, what was it ? And who expected this ? Who expected 
 that, in the fifth year of the experiment for reforming the currency, 
 and bringing it to an absolute gold and silver circulation, the treasury 
 department would be found recommending to us a regular emission of 
 
 PAPER MONEY ? 
 
 Mr. Wright defended the bill as a proper measure for providing for 
 the payment of the public creditors. The law requiring the transfer of 
 the surplus moneys from the treasury to the states, provided for its safe- 
 keeping, and that only. The time had arrived when the United States 
 had no money to keep, and not enough for the necessary public expendi- 
 tures. The amount in the treasury was only about $8,000,000, subject 
 to draft, and that would be so reduced by payments in September, that 
 not more than two-thirds of the fourth instalment could be paid. The 
 question therefore was, whether the government should borrow money to 
 be transferred to the states for safe-keeping. He was sensible that incon- 
 venience would result from withliolding the instalment. In his own 
 state the matter had been so arranged, that if it was not received, it 
 must be paid out of the treasury of the state. This made his situation 
 delicate ; but he regarded his duty as paramount. 
 
 The senator from Massachusetts, Mr. W. said, had remarked with 
 some asperity and surprise on the recommendation of the secretary few 
 issuing notes not bearing interest. The committee, differing from the 
 secretary, had provided for allowing interest till there should be means 
 to redeem the notes. The senator erred, however, in regarding this as a 
 new currency under the constitution. Congress, in 1815, had author- 
 ized the issuing of treasury notes : those for less than $ 1 00 payable to 
 bearer, without interest; but for $100 or more, payable to order, 
 bearing interest at the rate of 5 2-3 per cent., or otherwise to the 
 bearer without interest. The senator considered the president inconsis- 
 tent in saying that he refrained from suggesting any specific plan for 
 regulating the currency and exchanges, because he thought congress had 
 no power to act for such a purpose ; and yet he had recommended a 
 bankrupt law against corporations and other bankers. But the consti- 
 tution did expressly authorize the passage of a general bankrupt law. 
 He was therefore guilty of no inconsistency. 
 
 Mr. Webster said, if the act of 1815 authorized the issuing of treasury 
 notes, no circulation was ever made of them as the secretary now recom- 
 mended. All treasury notes went on the ground of a temporary loan to 
 
SUB-TREASURY. 683 
 
 tlie government, to be paid or funded as soon as the treasury would 
 allow. During the late war, there was a great want of money, and a 
 great disposition to use treasury notes in the payment of public creditors. 
 But at such times things were done which we should be slow to do in a 
 day of peace. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan contended that congress had, in the act of 1815, done 
 the very thing which Webster had said had not been done since the days 
 of the confederation. He rejoiced, however, that the committee of 
 fiuance had proposed the issue of no notes not bearing interest. He was 
 in favor of this bill. He had voted for the deposit act of June, 1836, 
 only as a choice of evils. On the one side, nearly forty millions, 
 (besides the five millions to be reserved,) had accumulated in the deposit 
 banks. By the use of this money, they were increasing the dividends of 
 their stockholders, expanding extravagantly the paper circulation, and 
 exciting speculation to the greatest excess. On the other hand, he had 
 strong objections to making the federal government an instrument for 
 collecting money that it might be deposited with the states. But the 
 money being on hand, and having been collected under existing laws, he 
 theught it more just, more politic, more safe, to place it in deposit with 
 the states to be used for the benefit of the people, than to suffer it to 
 remain in the banks for the benefit of their stockholders, and to the 
 injury of the country. 
 
 But the deposit law made no gift or loan to the states. It merely 
 transferred the deposits from the banks to the states. The faith of the 
 states was pledged for the safe-keeping of the money, and for its repay- 
 ment whenever required by the secretary for defraying the expenses of 
 the government. Such want has now occurred ; and it would be in the 
 line of his duty to call on the states for a portion of the instalments 
 already paid. But he had acted wisely in not making the demand until 
 the pleasure of congress could be known. The states were not now in a 
 condition to return immediately any portion of what they had already 
 received. On the face of the act nothing but deposit was written ; and 
 if the states expected it as a loan or gift, it was not from their solemn 
 contract with the United States under this law. 
 
 But for the unfortunate amendment made to the deposit bill by the 
 liouse of representatives, and acquiesced in by the senate, congress, Mr. 
 B. said, would not have been involved in its present difficulties ; and the 
 fourth instalment might be deposited with the states. The secretary 
 W'ould have received from them transferable certificates of deposit, iu 
 convenient sums, bearing no interest until it became necessary for him 
 to use them, but afterwards bearing an interest of five per cent., and 
 redeemable at the pleasure of the states. Such certificates would now 
 
684 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 command a premium in the market, and be equal to gold and silver ; and 
 the treasury might have been replenished by their sale. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun said he was in favor of the postponement. The object 
 of the deposit law was to draw the revenue out of the grasp of the gov- 
 ernment, and to restore it to those to whom it ought to be restored. 
 And now when there was no surplus, it was not contrary to the purpose 
 of that law to withhold it. But the responsibility would rest on gentle- 
 men of the administration and those of the opposition who made last 
 year the extravagant appropriations of $32,000,000, exceeding the esti- 
 mate of the secretary of the treasury. The government was now bank- 
 rupt. Another era had arisen. They had got through with the surplus, 
 and, he trusted, they were through with extravagant appropriations. If 
 they did not economize and retrench, he saw a new age commencing, 
 perhaps that of treasury notes, when the compromise act would be 
 annulled, the high td,riff revived. But he would agree that the fourth 
 deposit should be withheld, since the law had fulfilled its main purpose, 
 and since a new series of extravagances was now to arise, unless they 
 kept a good lookout. 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Buchanan was then adopted, and the bill 
 passed as before stated. 
 
 The bill authorizing the issue of treasury notes was next taken up. 
 
 Mr. Wright moved to fill up the first blank in the bill with the word 
 " ten," making the amount to be issued ten millions ; which, he said, 
 would, as he had learned from the secretary of the treasury, be about 
 the amount required. 
 
 Mr. Clay inquired if the money in the banks was to be used as bank 
 notes ; or if the banks were to be compelled to pay them in specie, and 
 then if these funds were to be left idle. 
 
 Mr. Wright said they would not be used as bank notes, unless the law 
 should authorize them to be so used. 
 
 Mr. Clay said : *' Then it comes to this : we have passed a bill to 
 take funds out of the hands of those who would have been glad to use 
 them, to put them into the hands of those who refuse to acknowledge 
 and make use of them. The states would have been glad to receive 
 this money in the shape of bank notes, and we have taken it from them. 
 Again : government refuses to call them funds in that shape, and to 
 government we have now made them over by the bill just passed ! 
 And as government, though it receives those funds, and prevents their 
 being paid to the states, will not acknowledge them as funds, there is 
 a deficiency existing; and this deficiency is to be supplied by issuiug 
 treasury notes, in order that government may be able to get along. That 
 is to say, government will not receive the paper of the country, and it 
 
OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES, 685 
 
 about to create a paper of its own, which the country is expected to 
 receive ! And thus, all the promises which have been made to us of the 
 flowing of gold and silver all over the country, these promises of a bet- 
 ter currency result in the issue of ten millions of paper money !" 
 
 Mr. Calhoun addressed the senate at length. Though he was in favor 
 of the bill, he made little or no direct reference to it. His speech was 
 mainly directed against the connection between the government and 
 banks. Having supported the bank of 18 16, and proposed its recharter 
 for a short period in 1834, he gave his reasons for his course on those 
 occasions, and for his present opposition to a reiinion with the banks. 
 He declared in 1816, that, as a new question, he would oppose the bank; 
 and that he yielded to the necessity of the case, growing out of the long 
 established connection between the government and the banking system. 
 So long as the government received and paid away bank notes as money, 
 it was bound to regulate their value, and had no alternative but the 
 establishment of a national bank. In 1834, his object, as expressly 
 avowed, in renewing it for a short period, was to use the bank to break 
 the connection gradually, in order to avert the catastrophe which had 
 now happened, an,d which he then clearly perceived. But the connec- 
 tion had been broken by operation of law; the question now was an open 
 one; and he was for the first time free to choose his course. 
 
 Mr. C. gave several reasons for a separation between the government 
 and all banks ; in the course of which he mentioned the tariflfs of 1824 
 and 1828, as among the causes which had led to the existing state of 
 things. The high duties had filled the treasury with surpluses which 
 became the source of extravagant expenditures. The banks had to dis- 
 count and issue freely to enable the merchants to pay their duty bonds, 
 as well as to meet the vastly increased expenditures of the government. 
 The act of 1828 contributed still farther to the expansion, by turning 
 the exchange with England in favor of this country. In consequence 
 of the high duties, many articles formerly received in exchange for our 
 exports, were excluded, and their value came back to us in gold and 
 silver, to purchase similar articles at the north. This first gave that 
 western direction to the precious metals, the revulsive return of which 
 had been followed by so many disasters. 
 
 His reasons against a reiinion with banks were these: (1.) The con- 
 nection had a pernicious influence over the bank currency. It led to the 
 expansion and contraction which experience had shown to be incident to 
 bank notes as a currency ; and it tended to disturb the stability and uni- 
 formity of value which were essential to a sound currency. (2.) This 
 connection gave a preference of one portion of citizens over another, 
 which was neither fair, equal, or consistent with the spirit of our insti- 
 
686 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tutions. The receiving and paying away their notes as cash, and the 
 use of the public money, was a source of immense profit to the banks, 
 (3.) We had reached a new era with regard to these institutions. The 
 year 1833 marked the commencement of this era. That extraordinary 
 man who had the power of imprinting his own feelings on the commu- 
 nity, then commenced his hostile attacks, the effects of which would noh 
 terminate until there should be a separation between the government and 
 the banks. 
 
 But more must be done, said Mr. C, than reorganizing the treasury. 
 Under the resolution of 1816, bank notes would again be received if the 
 banks should resume specie payments. The legal, as well as the actual 
 connection, must be severed. To effect this without a shock, he pro- 
 posed to do it gradually. lie would, therefore, at the proper time, offer 
 an amendment to the bill, to modify the resolution of 1816, providing 
 that, after the 1st of January, 1838, three-fourths of all government 
 dues might be received in the notes of specie-paying banks ; after the 
 1st of January, 1839, one-half; after the 1st of January, 1840, one- 
 fourth ; and after the 1st of January, 1841, nothing but specie, and such 
 bills, notes, or other paper issued by authority of the government. 
 
 He was also for adopting some remedial measure to ease off the pres- 
 sure while the process was going through. The government should make 
 as little demand as possible on the specie market, so as to throw no 
 impediment in the way of the resumption of specie payments. In order 
 to thiS; the treasury needed a paper to perform the functions of a paper 
 circulation. This want would be supplied by the treasury notes, which 
 ought therefore to bear no interest. 
 
 Mr. C. said we had arrived at a remarkable era in our political history. 
 The days of legislative and executive encroachments, of tariffs and sur- 
 pluses, of bank and public debt, and extravagant expenditure, were past 
 for the present ; and he would seize the opportunity thoroughly to re^ 
 form the government, moving off under thd state rights banner in the 
 direction in which he had so long moved. He passed an eloquent eulo- 
 gium upon his favorite theory of state sovereignty, concluding thus : 
 
 "I look, sir, with pride to the wise and noble bearing of .the little 
 state rights party, of which it is my pride to be a member, throughout 
 the eventful period through which the country has passed since 1824. 
 Experience already bears testimony to their patriotism, firmness, and 
 sagacity, and history will do it justice. In that year, as I have stated, 
 the tariff system triumphed in the councils of the nation. We saw its 
 disastrous political bearings — foresaw its surpluses and the extravagances 
 to which it would lead — we rallied on the election of the late president 
 to arrest it through the influence of the executive department of the 
 
OTHER FINANCIAL MEASURES. 687 
 
 gOTernment. In this we failed. "We then fell back upon the rights and 
 sovereignty of the states, and by the action of a small but gallant state, 
 and through the potency of its interposition, we brought the system to 
 the gro.und, sustained as it was by the opposition and the administration, 
 and by the whole power and patronage of the government. The per- 
 nicious overflow of the treasury, of which it was the parent, could not 
 be arrested at once. The surplus was seized on by the executive, and by 
 its control over the banks, became the fruitful source of executive in- 
 fluence and encroachment. Without hesitation, we joined our old oppo- 
 nents on the tariff question, but under our own flag, and without merging 
 in their ranks, and made a gallant and successful war against the en- 
 croachments of the executive. That terminated, we part with our allies 
 in peace, and move forward, lag or onward who may, to secure the fruits 
 of our long but successful struggle, under the old republican flag of '98 
 which, though tattered and torn, has never yet been lowered, and, with 
 the blessing of God, never shall be with my consent." 
 
 The bill authorizing the issue of treasury notes ; the bill for adjusting 
 the remaining claims on the late deposit banks ; and the bill to extend 
 the time of payment on merchants' revenue bonds, all passed the senate, 
 on the 19th of September. By the last of these bills, the time of pay- 
 ment of the obligations given by merchants for the payment of duties on 
 goods imported, was extended nine months. 
 
 The bill known as the sub-treasury bill, reported by Mr. Wright on 
 the 14"th, was taken up in the senate on the 19th, when Mr. Calhoun 
 offered the amendment of which he gave notice at the time of his speech 
 on the bill to authorize the issue of treasury notes; viz., requiring the 
 eventual payment in specie of all moneys due to the goverqment, 
 familiarly called, " the specie clause." This amendment was debated by 
 Messrs. Niles, Benton, Walker, Calhoun, and Buchanan, in support of 
 it ; and Messrs. Tallmadge, Clay, Webster, King, of Georgia, and Pres 
 ton, in opposition. The amendment was adopted, ou 'he 2d of October : 
 yeas, 24 ; nays, 23. 
 
 Mr. Tallmadge, hitherto a firm supporter of the administration, sepa- 
 rated from his friends on this question. lie deprecated this warfare 
 against the whole credit system of the country. The whole body of the 
 state banks did not merit the war now declared against them : the state 
 bank deposit system had not failed ; and in proof of the f»ct, he referred 
 to the assurances of the late president and the present incumbent, and 
 to the reiterated declarations of the secretary of the treasury. He main- 
 tained that the present crisis was only an exception to a general rule ; 
 and that, if the government itself had not entered into measures des- 
 tructive of public confidence, this crisis would not have occurred. It 
 
688 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 was aided also by the manner in wliich the secretary of the treasury had 
 carried the deposit law into execution — making transfers of specie be- 
 tween distant plaees so as to create a disturbance in business affairs, and 
 to lead to a crippling of the banks. The sub-treasury system, if adopt- 
 ed, would ruin the country. He mentioned a long list of evils which it 
 would produce, and said it could not be carried in:o effect in New York. 
 
 Mr. King, of Georgia, also formerly a supporter of Gen. Jackson, 
 spoke at great length against the measure. As he did not like either the 
 sub-treasury or the state bank system, but wished time to digest a better, 
 he moved the postponement of the whole subject to the first Monday in 
 December next. 
 
 There were other members of both houses who, like Messrs. Tallmadge 
 and King, had separated from their friends of the administration party 
 on financial questions, and united with the whigs, and who were called 
 " conservatives." In the house, the number who dissented from the 
 views of the majority on these questions, especially the sub-treasury 
 scheme, was sufficient to defeat it. It was laid on the table, on the 14th 
 of October, 120 to 107. Thus we see the whigs, who zealously opposed 
 the removal of the deposits to the state banks, now unitedly opposing 
 their removal from these same banks ; as between them and the gov- 
 ernment officers, they preferred the former as depositories for the public 
 moneys. And we see the administration members, with a few exceptions, 
 adopting, as their favorite financial panacea, a measure which they had 
 but recently regarded with the greatest disfavor. 
 
 The several bills just mentioned as having passed the senate, together 
 with that for postponing until January 1, 1839, the deposit of the fourth 
 instalment of the surplus revenue, and a few other acts having been 
 passed, congress adjourned, (October 16,) to the 1st Monday of Decem- 
 ber ; leaving the project of the independent treasury to be reiittempted 
 at a more auspicious season. 
 
 A large number of petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District 
 of Columbia, and remonstrances against the annexation of Texas, were 
 received at the extra session. A resolution was proposed to be offered 
 by Mr. Adams, " That the power of annexing the people of any inde- 
 pendent foreign state to this union, is a power not delegated by the con- 
 stitution of the United States to their congress, or to any department of 
 their governm«nt, but reserved to the people." But the motion being 
 decided out of order, the resolution was not received or read. 
 
 A resolution was also offered by Mr. Wise, proposing an inquiry into 
 the extraordinary delays and failures, and enormous expenditures which 
 had attended the prosecution of the Seminole war in Florida. The 
 question was not brought to a decision before the close of the session. 
 
INDEPENDENT TREASURY AGAIN DEFEATED. 689 
 
 CHAPTER LYI. 
 
 INDEPENDENT TREASURY AGAIN DEFEATED. TALLMADGE's SPEECH. IN- 
 CIDENTAL DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY, CALHOUN AND WEBSTER. SPEC[E 
 
 CIRCULAR REPEALED. 
 
 The 2d session, being the first regular session of the 25th congress, 
 began the 4th of December, 1837. The establishment of the indepen- 
 dent treasury was again recommended by the president ; and on the 16th 
 of January, a bill for that purpose was reported to the senate by Mr. 
 Wright. This bill proposed the gradual collection of all revenues in 
 specie, requiring on and after the 1st of January, 1839, the payment of 
 one-sixth part in coin, and an additional one-sixth annually thereafter, 
 until the 1st of January, 1844, when the whole would become thus pay- 
 able. The bill was discussed with great ability at this session ; being 
 supported mainly by Messrs. Wright, Benton, and others, and opposed by 
 Messrs. Clay, Webster, Rives and White. On the 2d of February, Mi\ 
 Rives offered a substitute, containing a provision similar to the one pro- 
 posed at the preceding annual session, requiring the payment of the 
 revenues in coin and the notes of specie paying banks issuing bills of the 
 larger denominations only. 
 
 This scheme of finance did not appear to have increased in the public 
 favor since the extra session. On the 6th of February, Mr. Grundy 
 presented resolutions of the legislature of Tennessee, by one of which 
 the senators of that state were instructed to vote against the measure pro 
 posed by the president ; and believing in the right of instruction by the 
 legislature, he should comply. Mr. Buchanan also presented resolutions of 
 the legislature of Pennsylvania, instructing the senators and requesting the 
 representatives from that state, to vote for the postponement of the bill 
 to the next session. Accompanying the resolution of instructions, were 
 numerous reasons of til senate for concurring in the same. Mr. B. also 
 declared his intention to comply with the instructions. Mr. Wall, of 
 New Jersey, having been instructed to vote against the bill, declared hia 
 disregard of the instructions of thd» legislature of his state. 
 
 The bill, before it was ordered to be engrossed, was amended by 
 striking out what was deemed its most obnoxious section — " the specie 
 clause," which required all revenues to be ultimately paid ia gold and 
 silver. An amendment moved by Mr. Webster, was adopted, prohibit- 
 ing the secretary of the treasury from issuing any general Oi-der (as the 
 specie circular) making any discrimination as to the funds or medium 
 in which debts to the United States should be paid : aye*, 37 ; noes, 14 
 44 
 
g9Q THE AMEFaCAN STATESMAN. ^ 
 
 The vote on the final passage of the bill in the senate, was taken the 
 26th of March : ayes, 27 ; noes, 25. Mr. Grnndy and Mr. Buchanan, 
 friends of the bill, voted in the negative, in obedience to instructions. 
 The vote on its passage in the same body at the extra session, was 26 to 
 20. In the house, the bill of the senate was reported the 27th, and laid 
 
 on the table, 106 to 98. 
 
 The speeches in the senate on, and incidental to the sub-treasury bill, 
 were among the ablest efforts of these distinguished gentlemen ; and not 
 a little interest was given to the debate by charges of political mconsis- 
 tency and efi"orts at self-vindication. 
 
 Mr Hubbard, of New Hampshire, had, in his speech, read approv- . 
 inoly from that part of the president's message which ascribed the unex- 
 pected results of the late elections to bank influence ; and had undertaken 
 to explain the result in New York. Mr. Tallmadge, who had separated 
 from his democratic friends, and was now one of those called " conserva- 
 tives " in his reply to Mr. Hubbard, vindicated the people agamst the 
 charge of the president, and ascribed the result to the principles adopted 
 by the president and his party, from the creed of a faction (called " loco- 
 foco") which had its origin in the city of New York, in 1829 This 
 faction, he said, was turned out of Tammany Hall in the pure days of 
 the democratic republican party, and held meetings in the open air 
 whenever it was necessary to take measures to reduce thejmce of flow; 
 or to carry out any other great principle in political economy ! After 
 their principles had received the countenance of the administration, they 
 returned to the wigwam, displaced the ancient sachems, and there they 
 now illustrate their ideas of freedom of speech and free discussion, 
 bv forcible interruption of the assemblages of orderly citizens, who hap- 
 pen to entertain opinions on matters of public policy contrary to their 
 own. They are now the leaders of the party, and the promment candi- 
 dates for executive favor. [Appendix, Note J.] 
 
 The leading feature of their creed, Mr. T. said, was the pestruction 
 
 or THE WHO.E BANKING SYSTEM OE THE Cot^TKY-THE KEPEA. OF 
 CHAPTERS AN. THE ABKOOATION OE VESTEO KIOHTS.^ And thlS WaS 
 
 understood by the people to be the policy of the admmistration. Ln- 
 courafed by tbeir successful war oiWthe bank of the United States they 
 had oLenced a ruthless warfare against the state banks ; not t^imking 
 that they might not be able to bring the same force into the field m the 
 ne clse'as if the other. They seemed to have forgotten that they ha 
 during the first war, persuaded the people that there were monstrous 
 cvTls Connected with the one bank, and equal benefits to be derived fro. ^ 
 th otLs- that they had assured the people, that the .tate institution , 
 louldTrfo- for the government all that had been done by the nationaJ . 
 bank, and could give even a - better currency." 
 
tallmadge's speech. 691 
 
 One evideuce ol the meditated destruction of the state banks by the 
 administration, was^ that the proceedings of the meetings of the loco- 
 focos in the great cities, where resolutions were adopted against the 
 whole banking system, and in favor of an exclusive metallic currency, 
 had been responded to by men in high official stations, and their res- 
 ponses were perfectly satisfactory. With this high sanction, these wild 
 doctrines began to spread. Many changed their opinions ; others adopted 
 this radical creed, because it was approved by those who held the reins 
 of party, and had the power of party dispensation. Another evidence 
 of the prevalence of this radical spirit was seen in the treatment of the 
 subject of suspension of specie payments. By the law of New York, 
 (the old safety-fund law,) when a bank did not for ten days redeem its 
 notes in specie, the chancellor was directed to issue his injunction, close 
 its doors, appoint a receiver to collect its dues and pay its debts. There 
 was then due the banks from the people about $70,000,000. The col- 
 lection of this amount would have produced general distress and ruin. 
 The legislature being in session, a law was forthwith passed, almost 
 unanimously, to suspend for a year the forfeiture of the charters which 
 had been incurred by their failing to redeem. This act had been openly 
 denounced by public meetings in the city of New York, composed of 
 persons claiming to be the exclusive friends of the administration. And 
 this denunciation had been reiterated by the official organ of the govern- 
 ment here. 
 
 And why was the act denounced ? Because, without it, the banks 
 would have all been prostrated, and we should have been at once brought 
 to the " golden age" which had been so long desired. The great inter- 
 ests of the country would have been sacrificed j but what of that ? We 
 should have had the " constitutional currency " — "a hard money gov- 
 ernment " — " a successful experiment !" The suspension act was not a 
 boon to the banks ; it was a favor to the people, while it saved the bank 
 charters from forfeiture. Other states passed similar laws; and thus 
 were frustrated the designs of those who deemed the suspension of 
 specie payments the proper occasion to carry out their favorite plan of 
 breaking down the whole banking system of the states. He did not say 
 that the president entertained this design. But the people judged him 
 by his measures. He convened congress for an extra session. The 
 message was delivered; and the people believed that the administration 
 intended to destroy the banks. This belief had been confirmed by the 
 result. 
 
 Farther : The banks having been saved by legislative enactments, the 
 president recommended " a uniform law concerning bankruptcies of cor- 
 porations, and other bankers," as a measure " fully authorized by the 
 
592 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 constitution." What would have been the effect of such a law ? Ererj 
 bank in the union would have been handed over to commissioners, and 
 its concerns closed up ; for all had suspended, and would of course have 
 come within its provisions : and the effect would have been ruin from 
 one extremity of the union to the other. Fortunately, congress did not 
 adopt the recommendation, although it was urged with great power by 
 one of the most prominent friends of the administration, (Mr. Benton. j 
 This subject was not new to the president. In 1826, standing on that 
 floor, he maintained on this subject the same principles which he (Mr. 
 T.) was now endeavoring to maintain. On the di-scussion of the bank- 
 rupt bill, then before the senate, Mr. Van Buren, as senator, opposed 
 its application to banking incorporations, " as an odious exercise of 
 power not granted by the constitution." But in 1837, as president, he 
 proposes " a uniform law concerning bankruptcies of corporations and 
 other bankers," as a measure " fully authorized by the constitution." 
 
 The people foresaw what would have been the effect of the proposed 
 bankrupt law; and they saw the effect of the sub-treasury scheme. 
 They knew both to be equally fatal. They saw, by the official organ, 
 after it was defeated in the house, at the extra session, that it was to be 
 again forced upon congress. Its adoption would have prevented the 
 resumption of specie payments; or, if the banks should resume, it 
 would compel them to stop again. 
 
 But there was another cause of the results of the late election. The 
 people saw the treatment received by those who opposed these measures. 
 They saw some of their representatives here, pursuing the straight- 
 forward track of principle, refusing to turn about at the word of com- 
 mand, and opposing the measure which the whole party, with Gen. Jack- 
 son at their head, opposed in 1834, and which the official organ then 
 pronounced "disorganizing and revolutionary." They saw all this; 
 and they saw also that for this adherence to principle, their represent- 
 atives were denounced and proscribed by this same official organ of the 
 administration 1 They saw established at the seat of government, by 
 the discipline of party, a despotism, the most perfect on earth— the 
 
 DESPOTISM OF OPINION ! 
 
 This system of dictation and proscription, Mr. T. said, commenced 
 during Gen. Jackson's second term. He would not tolerate a difference 
 of opinion on any subject in which his feelings were enlisted. It might 
 have been owing to the infirmity of age. Witness the distribution bill, 
 the specie circular, and the currency bill. In these measures, the great 
 body of his friends in both houses were opposed to him, still, the official 
 organ maintained the executive will, and denounced the action and opin- 
 ions of those who constituted the legislative branch of the government 
 
tallmadge's speech. 693 
 
 The present executive had promised to "follow in the footsteps of his 
 illustrious predecessor." This sub-treasury scheme was the darling 
 project of the late president; and it was presumed that it was now 
 brought forward in pursuance of this pledge. 
 
 Mr. T. said his colleague, (Mr. Wright,) had spoken of that portion 
 of the friends of the administration who opposed this scheme, as a small 
 party, and intimated that they ought to give up their opinions to the 
 majority. That small party were maintaining the principles which the 
 whole party recently maintained ; and the difference between them being 
 a matter of principle, it could not be compromised. The opinions of 
 his colleague had, in all matters indifference, always coincided with those 
 of the executive. And, had the executive recommended the state bank 
 deposit system, they would have seen his colleague, with himself, (Mr 
 T.,) and his friend from Virginia (Mr. Rives) by his side, leading ou 
 his faithful troops ; and instead of the golden banner under which he 
 was now fighting against the institutions of the states, and the rights of 
 the states, he would raise aloft the stars and stripes of his country, the 
 emblem of those rights ; and under that sign he would have conquered. 
 
 Under the present system of party discipline and executive intimida- 
 tion, Mr. T. said, the liberty of speech and of the press had been vir- 
 tually abrogated. The executive department had become too powerful 
 for the legislative branch. The great apprehension of the framers of 
 the constitution was from the legislative power. But the theory of the 
 constitution had, in the short space of half a century, been reversed. 
 The executive department had become so formidable as to overawe the 
 legislature, and dictate to it the measures which the president himself 
 was to execute. Add to that strength the powers of a treasury bank, 
 which were contained in the bill, and there would have been given all 
 that could define a despot. 
 
 From this sketch of the speech of Mr. Tallmadge are seen, both the 
 principles of the " conservatives," and the feelings which they entertained 
 towards the party they had abandoned. Though comparatively small 
 in numbers, they contributed much to the overthrow of that party at 
 the succeeding presidential election. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, who had, since the removal of the deposits, or during 
 most of the period of the " war upon the currency," as it was called, 
 cooperated with the opposition, again united with the administration, 
 aud advocated the sub-treasury project, as a plan for separating the gov- 
 ernment from all banks. In the course of his speech, he mentioned the 
 fact that the opponents of this scheme, now supported the state bank 
 system which a few years before they opposed. He said, however, that 
 he made no charge of inconsistency, being aware that, as a national back 
 
694 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 was out of the question, they were compelled to choose between the 
 state bank plan and that of the independent treasury. 
 
 Mr. Clay, in his speech a few days afterwards, alluded to a late letter 
 of Mr. Calhoun to a dinner committee in his own state, in which he had 
 given his reasons for having joined the opposition, and reunited with the 
 administration party. State interposition (meaning threatened nullifi- 
 cation) had, the letter said, overthrown the protective tariff and the 
 American system, and put a stop to congressional usurpation ; and, by 
 a union with their old opponents, the national republicans, (or whigs,) 
 they had effectually brought down the power of the executive. These 
 objects effected, he had found it necessary to abandon his late allies, 
 whose financial as well as general policy, was hostile to the interests of 
 the south ; and " the southern division of the administration party must 
 reoccupy the old state rights ground." Mr. Clay admitted that they 
 had denounced the pet bank system ; the}^ did so still ; but it did not 
 follow that they must accept a worse one. The senator had said that 
 the present bill would take the public moneys out of the hands of the 
 executive, and place them in the hands of the law. It did no such thing. 
 It proposed by law to confirm them in the custody of the executive, and 
 to convey to him new and enormous powers of control over them. Every 
 eustodary of the publi" funds would be a creature of the executive, de- 
 pendent upon his breath, and subject to removal by the same breath, 
 whenever the executive, from caprice, from tyranny, or from party 
 motives, should choose to order it. What safety was there for the 
 public money in the hands of a hundred such dependent subordinates ? 
 
 Mr. Clay remarked pretty severely upon the recent secession of Mr. 
 Calhoun from the whig ranks. He said : " The arduous contest in 
 which we were so long engaged, was about to terminate in a glorious 
 victory. The very object for which the alliance was formed, was about 
 to be accomplished. At this critical moment the senator left us; ho 
 left us for the very purpose of preventing the success of the commou 
 cause. * * * He left us, as he tells us in the Edgefield letter, be- 
 cause the victory which our common arms were about to achieve, was 
 not to enure to him and his party, but exclusively to the benefit of his 
 allies and their cause. I thought that, actuated by patriotism, (that 
 noblest of human virtues,) we had been contending together for our 
 common country, for her violated rights, her threatened liberties, her 
 prostrate constitution. Never did I suppose that personal or party 
 considerations entered into our views. Whether, if victory shall ever 
 again be about to perch upon the standard of the spoils party, (the de- 
 noraination which the senator has so often given to his present allies,) 
 he will not feel himself constrained, by the principles upon which he has 
 
DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY CALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. 695 
 
 acted, to leave them because it may not enure to the benefit of himself 
 and his party, I leave to be adjusted between themselves." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, in reply, said, the leading charge of the senator was, 
 that he had gone over to the other party. If, by this vague expression, 
 he meant to imply that he had either changed his opinion, abandoned 
 his principles, or deserted hia party, he repelled the charge. [The 
 secretary of the senate, at the request of Mr. C, read extracts from his 
 speech on the removal of the deposits in 1834, showing his position at 
 that time, as follows:] " If this was a question of bank or no bank; if 
 it involved the existence of the banking syscem, it would indeed be a 
 great question — one' of the first magnitude; and with my present im- 
 pression, long entertained, and daily increasing, I would hesitate, long 
 hesitate, before I would be found under the banner of the system. I 
 have great doubts, (if doubts they may be called,) as to the soundness 
 and tendency of the whole system, in all its modifications. * * * # 
 What, then, is the real question \7hich now agitates the country ? I 
 answer, it is a struggle between the executive and legislative depart- 
 ments of the government; a struggle, not in relation to the existence of 
 the bank, but which, congress or the president, should have power to 
 create a bank, and the consequent control over the currency of the 
 country. This is the real question." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun at that time considered this league, or association of 
 states banks, created by the executive, and bound together by its influ- 
 ence, as being, " to all intents and purposes, a bank of the United States 
 an executive bank of the United States, as distinguished from that of 
 congress ;" — and said : " However it might fail to perform satisfactorily 
 the functions of the bank of the United States as incorporated by law, 
 it would outstrip it, far outstrip it, in all its dangerous qualities, in ex- 
 tending the power, the influence, and the corruption of the government. 
 
 * * * * So long as the question is one between a bank of the United 
 States incorporated by congress, and the system of banks created by the 
 will of the executive, it is an insult to the understanding to discourse on 
 the pernicious tendency and unconstitutionality of the bank of the 
 United States. To bring up that question fairly, you must go one step 
 farther — you must divorce the government and the banking system- 
 You nmst neither receive nor pay away bank notes ; you must go back 
 to the old system of the strongbox, and of gold and silver. If you have 
 a right to treat bank notes as money, by receiving them in your dues 
 and paying them away to creditors, you have a right to create a bank. 
 
 * * * * I repeat, you must divorce the government entirely from 
 the banking system, or, if not, you are bound to incorporate a bank 
 as the only safe and eflBcient means of giving stability and uniformity to 
 
G96 THE AMEniCAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the currency." These, Mr. C. said, were his sentiments delivered four 
 years since, on the question of the removal of the deposits ; and*he asked 
 if there was any thing in them contradictory to his present opinions or 
 course. 
 
 Mr. C. also vindicated the consistency of his course in relation to the 
 incorporation of a national bank in 1S34. The currency was diseased ; 
 the circulation was great, and must still farther increase. He stood 
 almost alone. One party supported the league of state banks; the 
 other the United States bank, the charter of which Mr. Webster proposed 
 to renew for six years. From his speech on that question, the secretary 
 was requested to read some extracts, of which the 'following is a part : 
 " After a full survey of the whole subject, I see none, I can conjecture 
 no means of extricating the country from its present danger, and to 
 arrest its farther increase, but a bank ; the agency of which, in some 
 form, or under some authority is indispensable. The country has been 
 brought into the present diseased state of the currency by banks, and 
 must be extricated by their agency. We must, in a word, use a bank 
 to unhanlc the banks, to the extent that may be necessary to restore a 
 safe and stable currency — ^just as we apply snow to a frozen limb to 
 restore vitality and circulation, or hold up a burn to the flame to extract 
 the inflammation. All must see that it is impossible to suppress the 
 banking system at once. * * * A new and a safe system must 
 gradually grow up under, and replace the old." 
 
 Mr. C. then proceeded to show that Mr. Clay had put a forced and 
 wrong construction on his language in the Edgefield letter, in which he 
 gave as a reason for leaving the national republican party, " that the 
 victory would enure not to us, but exclusively to the benefit of our allies 
 and their cause." The motive was stated in the same paragraph : " The 
 first fruits of the victory would have been an overshadowing national bank, 
 with an immense capital, not less than from fifty to a hundred millions, 
 which would have centralized the currency and exchanges, and with them 
 the commerce and capital of the country, in whatever section the head 
 of the institution might be placed." It was manifest that the expres- 
 Bion upon which the senator fixed, alluded, not to power or place, but 
 to principle and policy. Mr. C. continued : " But we find the senator 
 very charitably leaving to time to disclose my motives for going over ! 
 I, who have changed no opinion, abandoned no principle, deserted no 
 party ; I, who have stood still and maintained my ground against every 
 difficulty, to be told that it is left to time to disclose my motive ! The 
 imputation sinks to the earth with the groundless charge on which it 
 rests. I stamp it with scorn in the dust. I pick up the dart which fell 
 harmless at my feet. I hurl it back. What the senator charges on me 
 
DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY, CALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. 697 
 
 unjustly, he has actually done. He went over on a memorable occasion, 
 and did not leave it to time to disclose his motive." 
 
 Mr. C. closed his speech with a declaration of his present political 
 position and a review of his long public career, which had then been 
 continuous for twenty-six years. 
 
 Mr. Clay immediately replied. Having answered several charges of 
 misrepresentation, he proceeds : " I atn also accused of misrepresenting 
 the senator in respect to the reception of redeemable bank notes for the 
 term of six years, as provided for in the bill. He thinks it entirely 
 constitutional to make such a limited arrangement, whilst it would be 
 wholly inadmissible to continue for any indefinite time to receive such 
 notes. The complaint is that I did not state the circumstances, condi- 
 tions, and qualifications under which he proposes this temporary recep- 
 tion of bank notes. I do not think that they can vary, in the smallest 
 degree, the question of power. If the constitution prohibits the recep- 
 tion of bank notes, the prohibition extends as well to a term of six years 
 as to any indefinite time. 
 
 " He argued that we are so connected with banks, that we must ease 
 tff gradually, and not suddenly discontinue the use of paper. The 
 senator commenced his speech at the extra session, by announcing that 
 there was a total rupture between the government and the banks by the 
 suspension of specie payments. The disconnection still exists in fact 
 and in law. The bill which the senator so warmly espouses makes a 
 contingent revival of the connection. In 18 16, also, the connection had 
 altogether ceased in point of law. Then the senator proposed a bank 
 of the United States. In both cases, if I understand him, he proceeds 
 on the ground of practical inconvenience. Now, sir, I cannot for my 
 life concur in making the constitution this nose of wax. * * * 'Y\xq 
 doctrine of the senator in 1816 was, as he now states it, that bank notes 
 being in fact received by the executive, although contrary to law, it was 
 constitutional to create a bank of the United States. And in 1834, 
 finding that bank which was constitutional in its inception, but had 
 become unconstitutional in its progress, yet in its existence, it was quite 
 coDStitutional to propose, as the senator did, to continue it twelve years 
 longer !" 
 
 In reply to Mr. Calhoun's remark that "state interposition" had 
 overthrown the protective tariff, Mr. Clay said : " State interposition ! 
 — that is, as I understand the senator, nulliRcation, he asserts, over- 
 threw the tariff and the American system. * » * Nullification, 
 Mr. President, overthrow the protective policy ! No, sir. The com- 
 promise was not extorted by the terror of nullification. Among other 
 more important motives that influenced its passage, jt was a compas- 
 
698 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 sionate coticession to the imprudence and impotency of nullification ! 
 • * * At the commencement of the session of 1832, the senator 
 from South Carolina was in any condition other than that of dictating 
 terms. Those of us who were then here must recollect well his haggard 
 looks and his anxious, depressed countenance. A highly estimable 
 friend of mine, Mr. J. M. Clayton, of Delaware, alluding to the possi- 
 bility of a rupture with South Carolina, and to the declarations of 
 president Jackson with respect to certain distinguished individuals 
 whom he had denounced and proscribed, said to me on more than one 
 occasion, referring to the senator from South Carolina and some ot his 
 colleagues : ' They are clever fellows, and it will never do to let old 
 Jackson hang them.' Sir, this disclosure is extorted from me by tho 
 senator." 
 
 Mr. Webster also came into collision with Mr. Calhoun. The lattet 
 had denied the power of congress to make general deposits of public 
 revenue in banks, or to authorize the reception of anything but gold and 
 silver in debts and dues to the government. Mr. W. referred to Mr. 
 Madison, who, in opposing the first bank charter in 1791, argued that 
 a bank of the United States was not necessary to government as a 
 depository of public moneys, because its use could be supplied by other 
 banks. And in 1800, congress made it the duty of collectors of customs 
 to deposit bonds for duties in the bank and its branches for collection. 
 In 1811, and 1816, the same power was recognized; as also in the depo- 
 sit bill of 1836; the main object of which was to regulate deposits in 
 the state banks. The same principle was incorporated in the bank 
 charter of 1816, which was reported by the gentleman himself; and it 
 passed without objection from any quarter. Several other cases were 
 referred to in which Mr. Calhoun had approved the deposit of money in 
 banks. These and other allusions to public acts of Mr. Calhoun, drew 
 from him a retort to the charge of inconsistency. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun adverted to the course of Mr. Webster on the tariff 
 question. Its history rose subsequent to the late war with Great Brit- 
 ain. The senator's associate in this attack (Mr. Clay) was its leading 
 supporter and author. The senator was at first opposed to the system. 
 In 1820, in a speech delivered in Faneuil Hall, he questioned its con- 
 stitutionality, and denounced its inequality and oppression. He then 
 held the very sentiments which he (Mr. C.) had so often expressed on 
 that floor. In 1824, he delivered a speech in the other house, in reply 
 to Mr. Clay, in which he again denounced the system, in which he com- 
 pletely demolished the arguments of his opponent. But a few months 
 after, the presidential election took place ; Mr. Adams was elected by 
 the cooperation of the author of the American system and the senator. 
 
DEBATE BETWEEN CLAy ^ CALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. 699 
 
 New political combinations were formed, and resulted in an alliance 
 between the east and the west, of which' that system formed the basis. 
 A new light burst in on the senator. A sudden thought struck him ; 
 hut not quite as disinterested as that of the German sentimentalist. He 
 made a complete summerset, heels over head ; went clear over ; deserted 
 the free-trade side in a twinkling, and joined the restrictive policy ; and 
 then cried out that he could no longer act with me, whom he left stand- 
 ing where he had just stood, because I was too sectional ! With a few 
 contortions and slight choking, he even gulped down, a few years after, 
 the bill of abomination — the tariff of 1828. 
 
 But he had done what was still more surprising. Oppression under 
 the tariff of 1828 had become intolerable to the south. Something must 
 be done promptly. But one hope was left short of revolution, and that 
 was in the states themselves, in their sovereign capacities as parties to 
 the constitutional compact. Fortunately one of the members of the 
 union was bold enough to interpose her sovereign authority, and to de- 
 clare the protective tariff unconstitutional, and therefore null and void 
 within her limits. We all remember what followed. The proclamation 
 was issued ; and the war mesiage and force bill succeeded : and the 
 state armed to maintain her constitutional rights. How did the senator 
 act in this fearful crisis ? A sudden thought again struck him. He 
 again, in a twinkling, forgot the past, rushed over into the arms of power, 
 and became the champion of the most violent measures to enforce laws 
 which he had pronounced unconstitutional and oppressive. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun then proceeded to defend his own course, and to show 
 that it had not been sectional. While the senator from Massachusetts 
 had not given a vote to promote the interests of the south, he (Mr. 
 Calhoun) had never withheld his support from measures calculated to 
 promote the interests of the north, except the tariff and certain appro- 
 priations, which he deemed unconstitutional ; and he mentioned his con- 
 stant support of the navy ; his resistance to the embargoes, non-importa- 
 tion and non-intercourse acts ; his generous course in support of manu- 
 factures that sprung up during the war, in which his friends thought he 
 had gone too far ; to the liberal terms on which the tariff controversy 
 had been settled, and the fidelity with which he had adhered to it ; and 
 the system of fortifications for the defense of our harbors which he had 
 projected and commenced, and which were so important to the two great 
 interests of commerce and navigation, in which Mr. Webster's section 
 had so deep a stake. He had also been quite as liberal to the west as 
 the senator ; and, passing over other instances, he mentioned his propo- 
 sition to cede public lands to the new states. He said he had intended 
 to compare their conduct in relation to the late war with Great Britain, 
 but he would not recur to these by-gone events, unless the senatop 
 should provoke him to it. 
 
700 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Webster, in reply, asked, wby the gentleman had alluded tc his 
 votes or opinions at all, respecting the war, unless he had something to 
 say. Did he wish to leave an impression that something had been done 
 or said that was incapable of defense or justification ? He would leave 
 an impression that he had opposed it. How ? He was not in congresf 
 •when the war was declared, nor in public life anywhere. He came intc 
 congress during the war. Did he oppose it ? Let the gentleman look 
 to the journals, or tax his memory. Let him bring up any thing show 
 ing want of loyalty or fidelity to the country. He did not agree to all 
 that was proposed, nor did the gentleman. As a private individual, ho 
 certainly did not think well of the embargo and the restrictive measures 
 which preceded the war; and the senator was of the same opinion. 
 
 When he came to congress, he found the gentleman a leading member 
 of the house. One of the first measures of magnitude was Mr. Dallas' 
 proposition for a bank. It was a war measure — urged as being abso- 
 lutely necessary to carry on the war. The member from South Carolina 
 opposed it. He (Mr. W.) agreed with him. It was a mere paper bank — 
 a mere machine for fabricating irredeemable paper. He made a speech 
 against it which had often been quoted. • If he had been seduced into 
 error, the gentlemaa himself, who took the lead against the measure, was 
 his seducer. The gentleman had also adverted to the navy. He had 
 said, and said truly, that, at the commencement of the war, the navy 
 was unpopular. It was so with the gentleman's friends who then con- 
 trolled the politics of the country. But he said he differed with his 
 friends, and advocated the navy. And, said Mr. W., "I commend him 
 for it. He showed his wisdom. That gallant little navy soon fought 
 itself into favor, and sliowed that no man who had placed reliance on it, 
 had been disappointed. In this, I was exactly of the same opinion with 
 the honorable gentleman." 
 
 In reply to the charge of Mr. Calhoun, that Mr. Webster had also 
 proved himself unfriendly to the south, by his not voting his resolutions 
 on slavery, Mr. W. said, if he was for that to be regarded as an enemy 
 to the south, be it so. He could not purchase favor .by the sacrifice of 
 conscientious convictions. The principal resolution declared, that con- 
 gress had plighted its faith not to interfere, either with slavery or the 
 slave trade, in the District of Columbia. This he did not believe ; 
 therefore he could not vote for the proposition. 
 
 In regard to the tariff, Mr. W. said : " He charges me with inconsis- 
 tency. I will state the facts. Let us begin at the beginning. In 1816, 
 I voted against the tariff law which then passed. In 1824, I again 
 voted against the tariff law which was then proposed, and which passed. 
 A majority of New England votes, in 1824, was against the tariff sys- 
 tem The bill received but one vote from. Massachusetts; but it passed. 
 
DEBATE BETWEEN CLAY, CALHOUN, AND WEBSTER. 701 
 
 The policy was established ; New England acquiesced in it ; coLformed 
 her business and pursuits 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 interests thus called into being and into 
 importance, by the settled policy of the government. I have stated 
 this often here, and often elsewhere. The ground is defensible, and I 
 maintain it. * * * What is there 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 sub- 
 mit to the will of majorities ? 
 
 " I remember to have said at the meeting in Faneuil hall, that pro- 
 tection appeared to be regarded as incidental to revenue, and the inci- 
 dents could not be carried fairly above the principal : in other words, 
 that duties ought not to be laid for the mere object of protection. I 
 believe that, if the power be inferred only from the revenue power, 
 the protection could only be incidental. But I have said in this place 
 before, and I repeat, that Mr. Madison's publication after that period, 
 and his declaration that the convention did intend to grant the power of 
 protection, under the commercial clause, placed the subject in a new and 
 clear light. I will add, sir, that a paper drawn up by Dr. Franklin, and 
 read by him to a circle of friends in Philadelphia, on the eve of the 
 assembling of the convention, respecting the powers which the proposed 
 new government ought to possess, shows, perfectly plain, that, in regu- 
 lating commerce, it was expected congress would adopt a course which 
 should, to some degree, protect the manufactures of the north. He cer- 
 tainly went into the convention himself under that conviction." 
 
 Mr. W. adverted to a declaration of Mr. C:, that they had always 
 differed on great constitutional questions. He said : " Sir, this is 
 astounding. * * * He means that he has always given to the con- 
 stitution a construction more limited, better guarded, less favorable to 
 the extension of the powers of this go'^ernment, than that which I have 
 given to it. He has always interpreted it according to the strict doc- 
 trine of state rights j * * • gir^ ig there a man in my hearing, 
 . . . who ever heard, supposed^ or dreamed, that the honorable member 
 belonged to the state rights party before the year 1 825 ? * * * 
 The truth is, sir, the honorable gentleman had acted a very important 
 and useful part during the war. In the fall of 1815, the 14th congress 
 assembled. It was full of ability ; and the gentleman stood high among 
 its di"*tinguished members. . , . Daring that congress he 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 
 improvements . . He was a full length ahead of all others in mea- 
 
702 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 8ures which were national, and which required a broad and liberal con- 
 struction of the constitution." 
 
 The tariff, Mr. W. said, was a South Carolina measure, as the votes would 
 show, and was intended for the benefit of South Carolina interests. Even 
 the mijiimum, that subject of so much wrathful rhetoric, was of southern 
 origin, and had a South Carolina parentage. And next, as to the doctrine 
 of internal improvements, that other usurpation, that other oppression, 
 which had come so near to justifying violent abruption of the governmeni, 
 and scattering the union to the four winds. Said Mr. "W. : " 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 government." The Oank was 
 chartered in 1816. For the privilege of the charter, the proprietors 
 paid one and a half million dollars ; and the government took seven mil- 
 lions of the stock of the bank. Early in the next session, December, 
 1816, the gentleman moved to set apart this bonus and the bank stock 
 as a permanent fund for internal improvements; and was chairmaw of 
 the committee, and reported a bill accordingly. This bill went the 
 whole doctrine, at a single jump, and announced internal improvement 
 as one of the objects of this government, on a grand and systematic 
 plan. He went even beyond Timothy Pickering, who, having offered an 
 amendment requiring the money " to be applied in constructing such 
 roads, canals, &c., in the several states, as congress might direct, with 
 the assent of the states," the geutleman immediately moved to strike 
 out the words, " with the assent of the states.'''' He advocated both the 
 policy of internal improvement, and the power of congress over the sub- 
 ject : and the bill passed the house with the amendment of Mr. Picker- 
 ing with these words retained. [Note K.] 
 
 The debate did not end here. We cannot, however, extend this sketch, 
 which has already exceeded the limits intended. But as few American 
 statesmen have ever attained a higher eminence, or borne a more impor- 
 tant part in the government, than Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, any 
 political history which did not properly present their principles and acts 
 during their long public career, wouldf it was thought, be materially 
 defective. 
 
 A joint resolution virtually repeahng the specie circular of July, 1836, 
 was passed. May 31, 1838, by large majorities in both houses, and 
 became a law by the approval of the president. The resolution declared, 
 " That it shall not be la^vful for the secretary of the treasury to make or 
 to continue in force, any general order which shall create any difference 
 between the different branches of revenue, as to the money or medium 
 of payment in which debts or dues, accruing to the United States, may 
 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 703 
 
 be paid." At the lime of issuing the circular, in 1836, no treasury notes 
 were in existence ; consequently, at the time of passing the above resolu- 
 tion, not even these notes, previously issued, were receivable for public 
 lands. By this act, all payments to the government might be made 
 either in specie, treasury notes, or the bills of specie paying banks. By 
 acts of April and June, 1836, however, no bank notes of any denomina- 
 tion less than twenty dollars, nor those of any bank issuing notes or bills 
 of a less denomination than five dollars, were to be received. A circular 
 to this effect was issued from the treasury department to all receivers 
 and collectors of public money, the day after the passage of the resolu- 
 tion above mentioned. 
 
 CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. — SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. PROPOSI- 
 TION WITHDRAVv^N BY TEXAS. 
 
 The recognition of the independence of Texas at the last session of 
 congress, (1836-37,) and the application of that republic for annexation 
 to the United States, furnished new aliment to the anti-slavery excite- 
 ment. To the petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of 
 Columbia, were now added remonstrances against the annexation of Texas. 
 Resolutions were passed by the legislatures of several states, to the same 
 effect. In some states, legislative resolutions were adopted in favor of 
 annexation. 
 
 Mr. Preston, senator from South Carolina, said these memorials were 
 known to come from a particular quarter, and from a particular class of 
 politico-philanthropists. He therefore gave notice, that he should feel 
 himself compelled to introduce a proposition, at an early day, for the 
 annexation of Texas to the union. Accordingly, on the 4th of January, 
 1838, he offered the following: 
 
 " Whereas, the just and true boundary of the United States under the 
 treaty of Louisiana, extended on the south-west to the Rio Grande del 
 Norte, which river continued to be the boundary line until the territory 
 west of the Sabine was surrendered to Spain by the treaty of 1819; 
 
 " And whereas such surrender of a portion of the territory of the 
 United States is of evil precedent and doubtful constitutionality ; 
 
 " And whereas many weighty considerations of policy make it expe- 
 dient to reestablish the said true boundary, and to reannex to the United 
 
704 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 States the territory occupied by the state of Texas, with the consent of 
 the said state : 
 
 " Be it therefore resolved, That, with the consent of the said state 
 previously had, and whenever it can be effected consistently with the 
 faith and treaty stipiilations of the United States, it is desirable and 
 expedient to reannex the said territory to the United States." 
 
 On the 24th of April, 1838, the resolution was taken up for consider- 
 ation, and supported by a speech, which, though not devoid of argument, 
 is most valuable for the historicijl information which it contains : 
 
 Mr. Preston said his prpposition was not indecorous or presumptuous, 
 since the lead had been given by Texas herself. The question of annex- 
 ation, on certain terms, had been submitted to the people of the republic, 
 and decided in the afl&rmative ; and a negotiation had been proposed for 
 effecting the object Nor .did his resolution give just cause of offense to 
 Mexico. Its terms guarded our relations with that republic. Our 
 intercourse with Mexico should be characterized by fair dealing, on 
 account of her unfortunate condition, resulting from a long continued 
 series of intestine dissensions. As long, therefore, as she should attempt 
 to assert her pretensions by actual force, or as long as there was a reason- 
 able prospect that she had the power and the will to resubjugate Texas, 
 he would not interfere. He believed that period had already passed. 
 In this opinion he differed, perhaps, from the executive. The negotia- 
 tion had been declined by the secretary of state, becaus'' it would involve 
 our relations with Mexico. Admitting that the executive had more 
 extensive and exact information upon this question than he (Mr. P.) 
 could have ; the resolution therefore expressed an opinion in favor of 
 annexation only when it could be done without disturbing our relations 
 with Mexico. 
 
 The acquisition of territory, Mr. P. said, had heretofore been effected 
 by treaty ; and this mode of proceeding had been proposed by the Texan 
 minister. Gen. Hunt. But he believed it would comport more with the 
 importance of the measure, that both branches of the government should 
 concur ; the legislature expressing a previous opinion .; which being done, 
 all difficulties might be avoided by a treaty tripartite, between Mexico, 
 Texas, and the United States, in which the consent and confirmation of 
 Mexico (for a pecuniary consideration, perhaps,) might be had without 
 infringing the acknowledged independence and free agency of Texas. 
 
 Mr. P. proceeded to show that the Texan territory was once a part of 
 the United States. In 1762, France ceded Louisiana to Spain, lu 
 1800, Spain receded it to France. In 1804, France ceded it to tho 
 United States. The extent of the French claim, therefore, determined 
 ours, and included Mississippi and all the territories drained by its west- 
 
SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. 705 
 
 orn tributaries. It rested upon the discovery of La Salic, in 1683, who 
 penetrated from Canada b} land, descended the Mississippi, and estab- 
 lished a few posts on its banks. Soon afterwards, endeavoring to enter 
 the mouth of that river from the Gulf, he passed it unperceived, and 
 sailing westward, discovered the bay of St. Bernard, now called Mata- 
 gorda, whence, a short distance in the interior, he established a military 
 post on the bank of the Guadaloupe, and took possession of the country 
 in the name of his sovereign. The western limits of the territory, 
 enuring to the French crown by virtue of this discovery, was determined 
 by the application of a principle recognized by European powers making 
 settlements in America, viz. : that the dividing line should be established 
 at a medium distance between their various settlements. At the time 
 of La Salle's settlement, the nearest Spanish possession was a small post 
 called Panuco, at the point where a river of that name falls into the bay 
 of Tampico. The medium line between Panuco and the Guadaloupe was 
 the Rio Grande, which was assumed as the true boundary between France 
 and Spain. France asserted her claim to. that boundary from 16S5, the 
 period of La Salle's discovery, up to 1762, when, by the cession of 
 Louisiana to Spain, the countries were united and the boundaries 
 obliterated. 
 
 Mr. P. referred to Mr. Adams' letter to Don Onis, of March, 1818 
 in which he recapitulated tho testimony in favor of the French title. 
 Mr. Jeiferson expressed the same opinion. Messrs. Monroe and Pinck- 
 ney, in 1805, in obedience to instructions from Mr. Madison, then secre- 
 tary of state, asserted our claim west to the Rio Grande, in their 
 correspondence with the Spanish commissioner. Mr. Monroe, when pre- 
 sident, held equally strong language, through Mr. Adams, his secretary 
 of state. Gen. Jackson entertained the same opinion. 
 
 To the testimony of these presidents, he added the authority of the 
 senator from Kentucky. Durmg the delay on the part of Spain, m 
 ratifying the treaty of 1819, that senator, then in the other house, taking 
 the same view of the treaty which he (Mr. P.) was now urging — that it 
 was a cession of a part of our territory to which the treaty-making power 
 was incompetent, oflfered the following resolutions : 
 
 " 1. Resolved^ That the constitution of the United States vests iu 
 congress no power to dispose of the territory belonging to them ; and 
 that no treaty purporting to alienate any portion thereof is valid, with- 
 out the concurrence of congress. 
 
 " 2. Resolved, That the equivalent proposed to be given by Spain to 
 the United States, for that part of Louisiana west of the Sabine, was 
 inadequate, and that it would be inexpedient to make a transfer thereof 
 to any foreign power." 
 
 45 
 
706 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 The author of these resolutions, in advocating them, said : " He pre- 
 sumed the spectacle would not be presented of questioning, in this branch 
 of the government, our title to Texas, which had been constantly main- 
 tained by the executive for more than fifteen years past, under three suc- 
 cessive administrations." And he said : " In the Florida treaty, it was 
 not pretended that the object was simply a declaration of where the 
 western line of Louisiana was ; it was, on the contrary, the case of 
 an avowed cession of territory from the United States to Spain. The 
 whole of the correspondence manifested that the respective parties to the 
 negotiation were not engaged so much in an inquiry where the limit of 
 Louisiana was, as where it should be. We find various limits discussed. 
 * * * Finally the Sabine is fixed, which neither of the parties ever 
 contended was the ancient limit of Louisiana. * * * And the treaty 
 itself proclaims its purpose to be a cession of the United States to Spain." 
 Such, Mr. P. said, were the opinions of the senator in 1820, and he 
 trusted the wisdom and patriotism which warred against that rash treaty 
 of 1819, would now be exerted against its great and growing evils, by 
 the reannexation of Texas. 
 
 But he took higher ground than this. Mr. Clay rested the constitu- 
 tional objection upon the incompetency of the treaty-making power to 
 alienate territory; he (Mr. P.) considered it incompetent to the whole 
 government The constitution vests in congress the power " to dispose 
 of the territory or other property of the United States." This clause 
 was inserted to give power to effect the objects for which the states had 
 granted these lands to the general government ; and the true exposition 
 of the clause was found in our vast and wise land system. It was never 
 dreamed that congress could dispose of the sovereignty of territory to a 
 foreign power. The south, he said, had gone blindly into this treaty. 
 The importance of Florida had led th|p precipitately into a measure 
 by which we threw a gem away that would have bought ten Floridas. 
 Under any circumstances, Florida would have been ours in a short time; 
 but our impatience had induced us to purchase it by a territory ten 
 times as large, a hundred times as fertile, and to give five millions of 
 dollars into the bargain. He acquiesced in the past; but he proposed 
 to seize the present fair and just occasion to remedy the mistake made 
 in 1819 ; to repair, as far as possible, the evil effect of a breach of the 
 constitution, by getting back into the union that fair and fertile provmce 
 which, in an evil hour, we severed from the confederacy. 
 
 This proposition which now inflamed the public mind was not a novel 
 policy. It was strange that a measure which had been urged for twelve 
 years past should be met by a tempest of opposition; and very strange 
 that he should be riding upon and directing the atorm, who was first to 
 
SPEECHES OP PRESTON AND ADAMS. 707 
 
 propose the annexation of Texas, as one of the earliest measures of his 
 administration after he was made president. He had endeavored to 
 repair the injury inflicted upon the country by the treaty of 1819. Aa 
 secretary of state in 1819, he negotiated the treaty of transfer; in 1825, 
 as president of the United States, he instituted a negotiation for the 
 reannexation. Through his secretary of state, Mr. Clay, he instructed 
 Mr. Poinsett, minister to Mexico, to urge a negotiation for the reacqui- 
 sition of Texas, and the establishment of the south-west line of the 
 United States at the Rio Grande del Norte. Jackson and Van Buren 
 had continued the effort ; and why it had failed, it was useless now to 
 inquire. It was certain, that president Jackson never lost sight of it, 
 and that he continued to look to its accomplishment as one of the 
 greatest events of his administration, to the moment when the title of 
 Mexico was extinguished for ever by the battle of San Jacinto. [Ap- 
 pendix, Note L.] 
 
 Mr. P. considered the boundary line established by the treaty of 
 1819, as an improper one, not only depriving us of an extensive and 
 fertile territory, but winding with " a deep indent" upon the valley of 
 the Mississippi itself, running upon the Red river and the Arkansas. 
 It placed a foreign nation in the rear of our Mississippi settlements. 
 within a stone's throw of that great outlet which discharged the com- 
 merce of half the union. The mouths of the Sabine and the Mississippi 
 were of a dangerous vicinity. The great object of the purchase of 
 Louisiana was to remove all possible interference of foreign states in 
 the vast commerce of the outlet of so many states. By the cession of 
 Texas, this policy had been to a certain extent compromised. He also 
 referred to the instructions of secretary Van Buren to Mr. Poinsett, 
 saying : " The line proposed as the most desirable to us would consti- 
 tute a most natural separation of the resources of the two nations." 
 
 Mr. P. next considered the report of a committee of the Massachu- 
 setts legislature, which said : " The committee do not believe that any 
 power exists in any branch of this government, or in all of them united, 
 to consent to such a union, (viz. with the sovereign state of Texas,) nor, 
 indeed, does such authority pertain, as an incident of sovereignty, or 
 otherwise, to the government, however absolute, of any nation." Both 
 of these propositions he controverted As to the powers of this govern- 
 ment, the mistake of the committee laid in considering it, as to its 
 nature and powers, a consolidated government. The states originally 
 came together as sovereign states, having no power of reciprocal control. 
 North Carolina and Rhode Island stood off for a time, and at length 
 oame in by the exercise of a sovereign discretion. So Missouri and 
 other new states were fully organized and perfect, and self-governed,. 
 
708 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 before they came in ; and so might Texas be admitted. The power to 
 admit new states was expressly given ; and by the very terms of tho 
 grant they must be states before they were admitted. The power 
 granted to congress was, not to create, but to admit new states ; tho 
 states created themselves. Missouri and Michigan had done so, and 
 exercised all the functions of self-government, while congress deliberated 
 whether they should be admitted. In the mean time, the territorial 
 organization was abrogated, and the laws ot congress superseded. 
 
 After some farther discussion of the question Mr. P. said : " There 
 is no poiot of view in which the proposition for annexation can be con- 
 sidered, that any serious obstacle in point of form presents itself If 
 this government be a confederation of states, then it is proposed to add 
 another state to the confederation. If this government be a consolida- 
 tion, then it is proposed to add to it additional territory and popula- 
 tion. That we can annex, and afterwards admit, the cases of Florida 
 and Louisiana prove. We can therefore deal with the people of Texas 
 for the territory of Texas; and the people can be secured in the rights 
 and privileges of the constitution, as were the subjects of Spain and 
 France." 
 
 Having considered these " formal difficulties," he next adverted to 
 those which exercised a more decisive influence over that portion of the 
 union which was offering such determined opposition to this measure. 
 He regarded this joint movement of the northern states as " a combina- 
 tion conceived in a spirit of hostility towards one section, for the pur- 
 pose of aggrandizing the political power of another." It could not fail 
 to make a deep and mournful impression upon the south, that the oppo- 
 sition to the proposed measure was contemporaneous with the recent 
 excitement on the subject of abolition. He said : " All men, of all 
 parties, from all sections, in and out of office, Mr. Adams most con- 
 spicuous amongst them, desired the acquisition of Texas, until the 
 clamorous interference in the affairs of the south was caught up in Nev/ 
 England from Old England. Then, for the first time, objections were 
 made to this measure ; then those very statesmen who were anxious for 
 the acquisition of Texas for their glory, found out that it would subvert 
 the constitution and ruin the country. # * * You are called upon 
 to declare that the southern portion of your confederacy, by reason of 
 certain domestic institutions, in the judgment of your petitioners wicked 
 and detestable, is to be excluded from some part of the benefits of this 
 government. The assumption is equally insulting to the feelings and 
 derogatory to the constitutional rights of the south. * • » Wo 
 neither can nor ought — I say it, Mr. President, in no light mood or 
 wrong temper — we neither can nor ought to continue in political union 
 on auch terms." 
 
SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAM^. 709 
 
 Mr. P. spoke of the diminution of the comparative political power of 
 the south. The sceptre, he said, had passed from them, and forever. 
 All that was left them was to protect themselves. All they asked was 
 Bome reasonable check upon an acknowledged power ; some approach to 
 equipoise in the senate. All the power they coveted was the power to 
 resist incursions. He suspected that the idea of checking the extension 
 of domestic slavery was but a hollow and hypocritical pretext to cover 
 political designs. He did not think the extension of slave territory and 
 the increase of the slaveholding population, would increase the number 
 of slaves. Instead of this, annexation would rather prevent such 
 increase. * * * We stand entirely on the defensive ; we desire 
 safety, not power, and we must have it. Give us safety and repose, by 
 doing what all your most trusted and distinguished statesmen have been 
 so long anxious to do. Give them to us by restoring what you wantonly 
 and unconstitutionally deprived us of. Give us this just and humble 
 boon, by repairing the violated integrity of your territory, by augment- 
 ing your wealth and power, by extending the empire of law, liberty and 
 Christianity." 
 
 In the house of representatives, on the 12th of December, 1837, Mr. 
 Adams presented a large number of memorials against the annexation of 
 Texas, and moved that these and all others presented by himself and 
 his colleagues at the extra session, be referred to a select committee. 
 His colleagues had assented to approve the motion. Mr. Howard, of 
 Maryland, having moved their reference to the committee on foreign 
 affairs, Mr. Adams expressed his views on the question of annexation in 
 a manner which subjected him to several interruptions. 
 
 Mr. Adams said he and his colleagues viewed this question as one 
 which involved even the integrity of the union — a question of the most 
 deep, abiding and vital interest to the whole American nation. " For," 
 said he, " in the face of this house, and in the face of Heaven, I 
 avow it as ray solemn belief, that the annexation of an independent 
 foreign power to this government, would, ipso facto, be a dissolution of 
 this union. And is this a subject for the peculiar investigation of your 
 committee on foreign affairs ?" Mr. A. said the question involved was, 
 whether a foreign nation — acknowledged as such in a most unprecedented 
 and extraordinary manner, by this government, a nation " damned to 
 everlasting fame" by the reinstitution of that detestable system, slavery, 
 after it had once been abolished within its borders — should be admitted 
 into union with a nation of freemen. *' For, sir," said Mr. A., " that 
 name, thank God, is still ours ! And is such a question as this to be 
 referred to a committee on foreign affairs?" 
 
 Mr, A. said the exact grounds upon which the memorialigts based their 
 
710 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 prayer, were not yet oflBcially known to the house. He had presented 
 one hundred and ninety petitions upon this subject, signed by some 
 20,000 persons, and his colleagues had presented collectively a larger 
 number. Members from other states had also presented similar memo- 
 rials ; but his colleagues had thought it fitting to move the reference to 
 a select committee of those only which he and they had presented. All 
 had the same object ; and they contained nothing that had the least 
 connection with the foreign affairs of the country. 
 
 These memorialists from Massachusetts, Mr. A. said, had observed 
 with alarm and terror the conduct of the government towards Mexico, 
 during the last, and as far as it had gone, of the present administration, 
 in relation to the affairs of Texas. One strong reason of the remon- 
 strance, on the part of his constituents, was, that the nation sought to 
 be annexed to our own had its origin in violence and fraud ; an impression 
 by no means weakened by the impulses given by the late and present 
 administrations to push on this senseless and wicked war with Mexico. 
 They had seen the territory of that republic invaded by the act of the 
 executive of this government, without any action of congress ; and they had 
 seen conspirators coming here, and contriving and concerting their plans 
 of operations with members of our own government ! Amidst all these 
 demonstrations, they had heard the bold and unblushing pretense that 
 the people of Texas were struggling for freedom, and that the wrongs 
 inflicted upon them by Mexico had driven them into insurrection, and 
 forced them to fight for liberty ! 
 
 There had been recent evidence afforded the country as to the real 
 origin of the insurrection. A citizen of Virginia, (Dr. Mayo,) who for 
 years had held offices under the late administration, had just issued a 
 pamphlet in this city, giving a copy of a letter by himself, in December, 
 1830, to the president of the United States, in which he declared, that, 
 in February, 1830, the person now called jvesident Houston, did in this 
 city, disclose to himself, the author of this letter, all his designs as to 
 this then state of the republic of Mexico — Texas. What that letter 
 contained as to the disclosure of a scheme to be executed, was now a 
 matter of history. It disclosed the particulars of a conversation which 
 detailed the plan of the conspiracy, since consummated, to rob Mexico of 
 the province of Texas. 
 
 Mr. A. then inquired what were the pretenses upon which the dis- 
 Beverment of Texas from Mexico were justified. As early as 1824, the 
 legislature of the republic of Mexico, to its eternal honor, passed an act 
 for the emancipation of slaves, and the abolition of slavery ; and the 
 only real ground of rebellion was that very decree : the only object of 
 the insurrection, the revival of the detested system of slavery ; and sbo 
 
SPEECHES OF PRESTON AND ADAMS. 711 
 
 had adopted a constitution denying to her legislature even the 2:>ower of 
 ever emancipating her slaves ! 
 
 Mr. Adams did not wish to refer the memorials to the committee on 
 foreign affairs, because it was not properly constituted. Its chairman, 
 (Mr. Howard,) was himself a slaveholder, and, it was feared, entertained 
 a widely different opinion, as to the morality of slavery, from that held 
 by the mass of the memorialists; and that a majority of the committee 
 were in favor of annexing Texas to this government. It was conforma- 
 ble with the parliamentary rule to appoint a majority of a committee in 
 favor of the prayer of the memorialists. This seemed to him as one of 
 the incidents of freedom of petition itself. Six out of nine of the com- 
 mittee on foreign affairs were slaveholders ; and he took it for granted, 
 that every member of the house who was a slaveholder, was ready for the 
 annexation of Texas ; and its accomplishment was sought, not for the 
 acquisition of so much new territory, but as a new buttress to the totter- 
 ing institution of slavery. 
 
 After a brief interruption by southern members, Mr. A. proceeded : 
 
 He said, discussion must come : though it might for the present be 
 delayed, he believed it would not forever be smothered by previous ques- 
 tions, motions to lay on the table, and all the other means and arguments 
 by which the institution of slavery was wont to be sustained on that 
 floor — the same means and arguments, in spirit, which in another place 
 have produced murder and arson. Yes, sir, the same spirit which led to 
 the inhuman murder of Lovejoy at Alton 
 
 The chair remarked that Mr. A. was straying from the question of 
 reference ; and some conversation ensued as to his right to proceed, 
 which he was at length permitted to do. 
 
 In the course of his remarks, he said that he and his colleagues had 
 seen, in reading the late message of the executive, how much was not in 
 that document as well as how much was in it. It contained much allu- 
 sion to the grievances of this government at the hands of Mexico, and 
 none to our relation with Texas. The annexation of Texas and the 
 proposed war with Mexico, were one and the same thing, though express- 
 ed in different forms. The message was adverse to the prayer of the 
 memorialists. Under the decision of the chair, he should reserve what 
 he had to say further on this point until the mouths of members inclined 
 to advocate the cause of freedom upon that floor, should be permitted to 
 be opened more widely ; if indeed, there was any hope that that time 
 should ever arrive. 
 
 Mr. Wise said there was no need, at present, of any such reference as 
 had been proposed. Texas had attempted to open a negotiation for ad- 
 mission j but her overture had been declined on the ground of our rela- 
 
712 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 
 
 tions with Mexico. No memorial in favor of such a measure had evei 
 been before this house. It would be time enough to discuss the subject 
 dwelt upon with so much feeling by the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
 when it should come up regularly for discussion. He therefore moved 
 to lay the motions of reference on the table; and, having refused to 
 withdraw his motion at the request of Mr. Khett and Mr. Dawson to 
 enable them to reply to Mr. Adams, the question was taken, and decided 
 in the aifirmative : yeas, 127; nays, 68. 
 
 Oi- che 13th of June, 1838, the committee on foreign aiFairs reported 
 that there was no proposition pending in the house either for the admis- 
 sion of Texas as a state, or for its territorial annexation to the United 
 States. And in October it was announced in the official paper (Globe) 
 that, since the proposition submitted by Texas for admission into the 
 union had been declined, the Texan minister had communicated to our 
 government the formal and absolute withdrawal of that proposition. 
 The question was not again agitated in congress during the administra- 
 tion of Mr. Van Bur en. 
 
 CHAPTER LVlll. 
 
 " PATRIOT WAR." AFFAIR OF THE CAROLINE. TRIAL OF M'kENZIE 
 
 AND VAN RENSSELAER. TRIAL OF m'lEOD. « 
 
 In December, 1837, an affair occurred, which, for a time, tnreatened 
 to interrupt our amicable relations with Great Britain. An insurrec- 
 tionary movement was made in Upper Canada, having in view a reform 
 in the government of that province. A proclamation had been issued 
 from Navy island, signed by Wm. Lyon Mackenzie, chairman, pro. tem. 
 of the provincial government, calling upon the reformers to make that 
 island their place of rendezvous, and to aid otherwise in revolutionizing 
 the province. It offered a bounty of three hundred acres of land to all 
 volunteers; and a reward of five hundred pounds for Sir Francis Head, 
 the governor of the province. It stated that the command of the forces 
 was given to Gen. Van Rensselaer, a son of Gen. Solomon Van Rens- 
 selaer, of Albany. The sympathy manifested by some citizens of tha 
 United States with the Canadian insurgents, induced the governors of 
 New York and Vermont to issue proclamations, exhorting the citizens 
 of these states to refrain from any unlawful acts within the territory of 
 the United States. Notwithstanding these proclamations, the insurgents 
 
AFFAIR OF THE CAROLINE. 713 
 
 were joined by citij^ens of the United States ; whence also theji received 
 arms and munitions of war. 
 
 On the night of the 29th of December, the steamboat Caroline, owned 
 by one of our citizens, while lying at Schlosser, on the American shore, 
 was seized by a party of seventy or eighty armed men in boats, which 
 came from, and returned to the Canadian shore. The crew and several 
 other persons on board, were attacked while asleep, and one of them 
 killed ; the boat was set on fire, taken into the river, and left to be 
 carried over the Niagara falls. The boat having conveyed visiters to 
 and from Navy island, it was suspected by the Canadians, that it had 
 been employed in transporting supplies to the insurgents. It appeared 
 subsequently, that the outrage had been committed by the order of the 
 British commanding officer. Col. M'Nab. 
 
 A proclamation was promptly issued, (January 5,) by president Van 
 Buren, enjoining on all citizens obedience to the laws, warning them that 
 the violation of our neutrality would subject the offenders to punish- 
 ment. Information of the aifair was also communicated by the presi- 
 dent to congress. Gen. Scott was forthwith ordered to the Canada 
 frontier to assume the military command there; and requisitions were 
 made upon Gov. Marcy, of New York, and Gov. Jenison, of Vermont, 
 for such militia force as Gen. Scott might require for the defense of the 
 frontier. 
 
 A letter was also addressed by Mr. Forsyth, secretary of state, to Mr. 
 Fox, British minister at Washington, communicating a copy of the 
 evidence of the outrage, which, having been committed, " at the moment 
 when the president was anxiously endeavoring to allay the excitement, 
 and earnestly seeking to prevent any unfortunate occurrence on the 
 frontier," would " necessarily form the subject of a demand for redress 
 upon her majesty's government," And the expectation was expressed, 
 that an early explanation might be obtained by Mr. Fox from the Cana- 
 dian authorities, of the circumstances of the transaction, and that, by 
 his advice, precautions might be used to prevent" similar occurrences. 
 
 In the senate, a bill was reported by the committee on foreign rela- 
 tions, to protect the frontier, and to preserve our neutral relations. It 
 authorized the seizure of vessels belonging to citizens of the United 
 States, fitted out upon our lakes and rivers, with arms and munitions of 
 war on board, when there should be cause to suspect that they were de- 
 signed to aid persons who had taken up arms against the government of 
 a neighboring state or colony. The bill passed the senate; but in the 
 house it was laid on the table ; and a bill was passed, amending an exist- 
 ing act having in view the same cbjet3t; which bill also passed the 
 Bcuate, and became a law. 
 
714 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 A history of this " patriot war," as it was called, does not come within 
 the scope of this work. Suffice it to say, that all the patriot forces along 
 the frontier, from Vermont to Michigan, were disbanded before the 
 ensuing spring, and tranquillity was restored. A considerable number 
 of Americans were taken prisoners by the Canadians, and tried under tho 
 British laws. A number of them were convicted : some of whom were 
 executed, and others sentenced to transportation to Van Dieman's land. 
 Of the latter was Gen. Sutherland, one of the principal commanding 
 officers of the patriot army. He, however, never was taken farther than 
 England, where he was finally discharged. It should be added, that, 
 in November and December of 1838, an ill-advised and reckless invasion 
 of Canada was attempted at Prescott, opposite Ogdensburg, and another 
 at Sandwich, near Detroit. But the almost entire destruction of the 
 invaders, and another proclamation from president Van Buren, seem to 
 have put a check upon these movements, which soon after entirely ceased 
 
 There were incidents, however, growing out of this attempted revolu- 
 tion, and involving legal principles, which deserve notice in this place. 
 Mackenzie, having taken up his residence in this country, was indicted, 
 tried, and convicted in a circuit court of the United States, for a viola- 
 tion of our neutrality law. In his defense, he attempted to show that 
 the revolt in Canada was justifiable and proper; that what he had done, 
 had been done by others with impunity and approval, as in the cases of 
 Texas, South America, Greece, &c. ; and he referred to a decision of 
 this same court in the city of New York, that it was not a violation of 
 the neutrality act to furnish money, supplies, and munitions of war, to 
 enable Texas to carry on a war against Mexico. 
 
 The court, (Judge Thompson,) in his charge to the jury, held, th-at 
 the oppression of the people of Canada, though it might justify an 
 attempt to free themselves from such oppression, had no bearing on 
 this question. Those who governed those provinces might govern them 
 as they pleased, and those who lived under that government might find 
 what fault they pleased. It was a family quarrel with which we had 
 nothing to do. Any interference on our part would be improper, per- 
 haps lead to war. To prevent such interference, the neutrality act war 
 passed. The act, however, did noj. prevent an individual from entering 
 the service of any body of men or of any nation ; it only prohibited the 
 assisting in fitting out, or the providing means for, or aiding in an expe- 
 dition from the United States against a power with which we are at 
 peace. Hence, the mere meeting together of individuals, or the raising 
 of money, or the collection of arms, to send to Texas, was not a violation 
 of this law ; because it did not contemplate the fitting out of an expedi- 
 tion in this country , and sending it to another country. 
 
TRIAL OF m'kENZIE AND VAN RENSSELAER. 715 
 
 Reference had been made to the destruction of the Caroline to show 
 the existence of war. But we had no right to draw such an inference 
 from that act. War could not be presumed to exist, until it had been 
 declared by congress. Nor was the argument correct, that he alone 
 was responsible who organizes or commands an expedition. But any 
 person who participates in, or is in any way connected with it is equally 
 culpable. 
 
 It appeared that the defendant addressed a meeting in the city of 
 Buflfalo. He had endeavored to excuse himself by saying that he had 
 been invited to do so. That, however, did not aifect the question of 
 guilt. But no guilt was incurred in attending and addressing the meet- 
 ing, but by his subsequent acts : the speeches could only go as evidence 
 of the intent of what followed. He said those in arms in Canada wanted 
 munitions of war. In this was nothing wrong. But after the meeting, 
 he joined Sutherland, who asked for volunteers in the presence of the 
 defendant. There was music at the door, and a party followed that 
 mjsic with Sutherland at its head. And the noxt day the defendant 
 was with him at Black Rock. In what way,was he connected with him ? 
 The proclamation had been produced as evidence. Had the proclama- 
 tion been proved upon him ? It had been proved that he had procured 
 the printing of a thousand copies, had read the proof, and at Navy island 
 had given copies to Smith and others ; and they had been distributed. 
 But this proclamation is important only because it identifies him with 
 Sutherland and Van Rensselaer as cooperators in the expedition. 
 
 Under the charge of which this is a sketch, the defendant was found 
 guilty. The court having no authority to send him to the state's prison, 
 he was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment in the county jail, 
 (at Rochester,) and to pay a fine of $10. After a confinement of ten 
 or eleven months, the residue of his punishment was remitted by the 
 president. Van Rensselaer was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, 
 and a fine of $250. Being unable to pay the fine, the president remit- 
 ted the same. 
 
 Another case was that of Alexander M'Leod, a Canadian, who was 
 charged with having participated in cutting out and burning the Caro- 
 line. Ho was arrested at Lockport, Niagara county, N. Y., in the fall 
 of 1840, and committed to jail in that jlace. He was afterwards 
 indicted by a grand jury for the murder of Amos Durfee, who was on 
 board the Caroline at the time of the burning of that vessel. This case 
 excited much interest, and not a little apprehension of a collison between 
 the two countries. M'Leod had been indicted for an ofi"ense against the 
 laws of New York ; and, if convicted, it was presumed the penalty of 
 the law would be inflicted upon him. But tlie act for which M'Leod 
 
716 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 had been arraigned having been sanctioned by the British government, 
 that government would, it was presumed, feel bound to protect its sub- 
 jects. On this presumption was founded the apprehension above men- 
 tioned. 
 
 In May, 1841, M'Leod was taken under a writ of habeas corpus , 
 returnable at the May term of the supreme court, which was to be held 
 in the city of New York ; but the decision of the court was not given 
 until the July term. The Brjtish government had, through their minis- 
 ter, demanded the release of M'Leod, on the ground, "that the trans- 
 action on account of which he had been arrested, was one of a public 
 character, planned and executed by persons duly authorized to do any 
 acts necessary for the defense of her majesty's territories, and for the 
 protection of her subjects." Being thus in the performance of a public 
 duty, it was alleged, " that he could not be made personally and indi 
 vidually answerable to the laws and tribunals of a foreign country." 
 
 The court held, however, that the Canadian provincial authorities had 
 no inherent right to institute a public war ; nor did such war exist. The 
 sovereign power of neither ^country had characterized the transaction as 
 a public war, actual or constructive. If it were such a war, the United 
 States might take possession of M'Leod as a prisonei of war ; and there 
 would have been no need of this motion. The civil war which England 
 was prosecuting against various individuals, had been insisted on as a 
 ground of protection. The court admitted, " that the strongest possi- 
 ble color for the extraordinary right claimed, was to be derived from 
 taking the United States to stand in the attitude of a neutral nation 
 with respect to two parties engaged in actual war, England on one side, 
 and Van Rensselaer, Durfee and their associated assailants on the other, 
 called by Grotius mixed war, being made on one side by public authority, 
 and on the other by mere private persons. In such a war, had England 
 any right to follow Durfee into the neutral territory of the United 
 States? According to the books, she had not. 1 Kent's Com. 119-20. 
 Independently of fresh pursuit, no writer on the laws of nations had 
 ever ventured the assertion, that one of two belligerents could law- 
 fully do any hostile act against another upon neutral ground. All right- 
 ful power of M'Leod and his associates to harm any one, ceased the 
 moment they entered a country with which their sovereign was at peace. 
 
 Much had been said by the prisoner's counsel about the hardship of 
 treating soldiers as criminals, who were obliged to obey their sovereign. 
 The court said the rule was the same in respect to the soldier as to any 
 other agent bound to obey the process or command of a superior. A 
 sheriff is obliged to execute a man regularly sentenced to capital execu- 
 tion ij. this state But should he execute a man in Canada under such 
 
TRIAL OF m'lEOD, 717 
 
 Benteuce, he would be a murderer, A soldier in time of war between us 
 and England might be compelled, by an order from our government, to 
 enter Canada, and fight and kill her soldiers. !But should congress pass 
 an act compelling him to do so on any exigency in time of peace, if he 
 should obey, and kill a man, he would be guilty of murder. 
 
 This point was strengthened by the citation of numerous authorities ; 
 and other arguments of the prisoner's counsel were duly considered. 
 The court decided that the prisoner must be remanded to take his trial 
 in the ordinary forms of law. 
 
 At the extra session, (June, 1841,) the subject was discussed in both 
 houses of congress. The discussion seems to have partaken in some 
 degree of a party character, notwithstanding the disclaimers of speakers 
 of being influenced by party feelings. The British minister (Mr. Fox) 
 having informed our government that the transaction in which M'Leod 
 was concerned had been avowed by his government as an authorized and 
 public act, and that he was instructed to demand the release of M'Leod, 
 who, for the performance of a public duty, could not be individually 
 answerable to the laws of a foreign country, our secretary of state, (Mr. 
 Webster,) took the ground that, by this avowal, the British government 
 had become responsible for the oflFense of M'Leod, who had acted under 
 the orders of that government ; and that he should be discharged. 
 
 In the senate, Mr. Buchanan maintained the opinion subsequently 
 given by the supreme court of New York, as above stated, that the act 
 of M'Leod was an offense against the laws of New York, for which he 
 was individually responsible. Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Webster's predecessor, 
 had, in his correspondence with the British minister, held that the avowal 
 of the act of M'Leod, if it should be made, would not exculpate him ; 
 and it would, at the same time, also implicate the British government 
 in his guilt. In connection with the demand for the release of M'Leod, 
 Mr. Fox had entreated the president " to take into his most deliberate 
 consideration the serious nature of the consequences which must ensue 
 from a rejection of this demand." Mr. Buchanan thought Mr. Webster 
 had done wrong in giving an answer to Mr. Fox, until this threat had 
 been withdrawn or explained. He had not displayed sufficient decision 
 and firmness. 
 
 Mr. B., to establish the responsibility of both the British government 
 and M'Leod, quoted Vattel, as follows: " But if the nation or its chief 
 approves and ratifies the act of the individual, it then becomes a public 
 concern, and the injured party is then to consider the nation as the real 
 author "^of the injury, of which the citizen was perhaps only the instru- 
 ment." " If the offended state has in her power the individual who baa 
 done the injury, she may, without scruple, bring him to justice and 
 
718 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 punish him. If he has escaped and returned to his own country, she 
 ought to apply to his sovereign to have justice done in the case." 
 
 If this doctrine was incorrect, said Mr. B., to what consequences would 
 we be forced ? A British marauder on this side of the line is seized in 
 the very act. We are to wait until we can ascertain whether his govern- 
 ment recognizes his criminal act before we can punish him for violating 
 our laws. If it does, the jail door is thrown open, the offender, perhaps 
 murderer, takes his flight to Canada, and we must settle the question with 
 the British government. Such, he said, was the doctrine of that govern- 
 ment and of our own secretary of state. This principle would lead to a 
 war with that power. In a state of war, captured invaders of our territory 
 would be treated as prisoners of war. But in time of peace, a man thus 
 taken could not be made a prisoner of war. M'Leod, however, was 
 not to be punished under our laws, if guilty, lest we should offend the 
 majesty of England. The laws of New York were to be nullified, and 
 the murderer was to run at large. 
 
 Mr. Rives replied to Mr. Buchanan. He said this unwarrantable out- 
 rage had been committed in December, 1 837, and aroused the public 
 indignation. Our minister at London, (Mr. Stevenson,) under the 
 instructions of his government, represented the subject to the British 
 government, to obtain a " disavowal and disapproval of the act, and also 
 such redress as the nature of the case required." Notwithstanding the 
 enormity of the outrage, the senator's political friends, the late adminis- 
 tration, in whom he thinks there was no want of energy in prosecuting 
 the demand for redress, slept over this national injury, till March, 1841, 
 when they went out of power. So profound had been the slumber, that 
 lord John Russell had stated in the house of commons, that the 
 complaint of the American government had been, for a long period, 
 considered as dropped. When, in 1839, Mr. Stevenson wrote to Mr. 
 Forsyth to know if he should renew the subject, Mr. F. replied No : 
 " the president expects, from the tone of Mr. Fox's conversation, that the 
 British government will answer your application in the case without much 
 further delay." But no answer was given. All this while, the destruc- 
 tion of the Caroline stood unexplained and unavowed by the British 
 government ; and there was nothing of a conclusive nature to determine, 
 whether it was to be viewed as an authorized act of an individual, or aa 
 the public act of the British authorities. In this state of things M'Leod, 
 in November last, ( 1 840,) came into the state of New York, and, having, 
 from his idle, and, as is now universally believed, false boasts, incurred 
 the suspicion of having been an actor in that scene, he was arrested and 
 indicted. In December, Mr. Fox demanded the release of M'Leod on 
 the ground that the destruction of the Caroline was a public act. The 
 
TRIAL OF m'lEOD. 719 
 
 deman(l was refused, because the government of the United States had 
 no right to interfere with the judicial tribunals of New York ; and the 
 recognition of the destruction of the boat as a public act, had not been 
 communicated to our government by any person authorized to make the 
 admission. Mr. Fox stated to Mr. Forsyth, that he was not authorized 
 to pronounce the decision of her majesty's government upon the remon- 
 strance of the United States against the act in question. 
 
 On the 12th of March, eight days after the inauguration of president 
 Harrison, Mr. Fox informed Mr. Webster that he had been instructed 
 to avow the act as authorized by his government, and again demanded 
 the release of M'Leod. Mr. Rives defended the doctrine of the admin- 
 istration, that the act having been recognized as a public act, the indi- 
 vidual was not answerable ; and he controverted the opinion of Mr. 
 Buchanan, that the principle was applicable only to a formal and declared 
 war. He read from Vattel a passage relating to the case of an unjust 
 war : " It is the duty of subjects to suppose" the orders of their sover- 
 eign "just and wise," &c. "When, therefore, they have lent their 
 assistance in a war which is afterwards found to be unjust, the sovereign 
 alone is guilty. He alone is bound to repair the injuries. The sub- 
 jects, and in particular the military, are innocent ; they have acted only 
 from a necessary obedience." " Grovernment would be impracticable, if 
 every one of its instruments were to weigh its commands." 
 
 Mr. R. considered the ground taken by our government as highly hon- 
 orable. He said : " The destruction of the Caroline being at length 
 avowed as a public act, the administration could not but feel that it was 
 unworthy of the character of the nation, to dignify a miserable and 
 subordinate instrument who may have been employed in it, by making 
 him the selected object of national vengeance." The principle of ex- 
 empting individuals in such cases, he said, was founded in reason and 
 humanity, and recognized by the universal practice of civilized nations. 
 " What, then, did it become a high minded and honorable government to 
 do under these circumstances ? Frankly and unreservedly to admit the 
 principle — to put itself in the right — and to do whatever should devolve on 
 it as a moral and responsible power, to fulfill and maintain the right, 
 It had a higher game — a nobler mission — than to make war upon 
 M'Leod." Mr. R. also adverted to what Mr. Buchanan had denominated 
 a menace in the communication of Mr. Fox. It was remarkable that 
 language almost identical, in a letter from Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth, had 
 not aroused the jealous sensibilities of the gentleman. Said Mr. Fox : 
 " I can not but see the very grave and serious consequences that must 
 ensue, if, besides the injury already inflicted upon Mr. M'Leod, of a 
 vexatious and unjust imprisonment, any further harm may be done him 
 
720 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 in the progress of this extraordinary proceeding." But I must say that 
 punctilios like these are not of substance sufficient in my opinion, to 
 occupy, in this age of the world, the grave discussions of a body like the 
 senate of the United States. The calm dignity of conscious strength ia 
 not prone to be astute in imagining or suspecting insult. 
 
 Mr. R. added, that the honor of the country would not be compro- 
 mised by those to whose keeping it had been intrusted. The president 
 had announced, as the maxims of his policy toward foreign powers, to 
 render justice to all, submitting to injustice from none ; esteeming it 
 " his most imperative duty to see that the honor of the country shall 
 sustain no blemish.''' And these sentiments found a faithful echo in the 
 letter of the secretary of state to Mr. Fox : " This republic does not 
 wish to disturb the tranquillity of the world. Its object is peace, its 
 policy peace. But still it is jealous of its rights, and among others, 
 and most especially, of the right of the absolute immunity of its territory 
 from aggression abroad ; and these rights it is the duty and determina- 
 tion of this government fully and at all times to maintain, while it will 
 as scrupulously refrain from infringing on the rights of others." 
 
 Mr. Choate followed on the same side, and was replied to by Mr. 
 Calhoun, who contended, that the authority or sanction of his govern- 
 ment did not exempt an individual from responsibility to the injured 
 government, even in case of war. But if gentlemen should succeed in 
 making the attack on the Caroline an act of war, it would avail them 
 nothing in their attempt to defend the demand of Mr. Fox, or the con- 
 cession of Mr. Webster, If it were war, M'Leod would be a prisoner 
 of war, and forfeit his liberty ; and his government would have no right 
 tO demand his release. 
 
 In the house, a debate arose upon a resolution offered by Mr. Floyd, 
 of New York, proposing an inquiry into the objects and result of a visit 
 of the attorney -general of the United States to the state of New York, 
 in reference to the trial of M'Leod. Mr. Adams dissented from the 
 opinion of the supreme court of New York, delivered by Judge Cowen. 
 The great and important question with other nations in relation to this 
 affair was, "Who was right, and who was wrong? Who struck the 
 first blow ?" He held, that the persons connected with the Caroline had 
 committed an act of war against the British government. Nor did he 
 subscribe to the opinion that every nation goes to war on issuing a declar- 
 ation or proclamation of war. Nations often wage war for years, without 
 issuing any declaration ; and the question was not here upon a declara- 
 tion of war, but acts of war. In the judgment of impartial men of other 
 nations, ive would be held as a nation responsible; and the Caroline would 
 be considered in a state of war against Great Britain — the w orst kind of 
 
TRIAL OF m'lEOD. 721 
 
 war — to sustain an insurrection. There was very little disguise about 
 this expedition ; this vessel was there for the purposes of hostility against 
 the Canadian government. What was the steamboat about ? What had 
 she been doing ? What was she to do the next morning ? And what 
 ought you to do ? You have reparation to make for all the men and 
 for all the arms and implements of war we had transported and were 
 going to transport -to the other side, to foment and instigate rebellion in 
 Canada. 
 
 Mr. Adams defended the course of the administration. He said that, 
 in negotiation, the United States would be held responsible for the per- 
 sonal safety of M'Leod. He approved the instructions given to the 
 attorney-general when sent to New York, and which averred, that, 
 " whether the process be criminal or civil, the fact of having acted under 
 public authority, and in obedience to lawful superiors, must be regarded 
 as a valid defense ; otherwise individuals would be holden responsible 
 for injuries resulting from acts of government, and even from the opera- 
 tions of public war." It was true the British government had been 
 given to understand, that since the avowal that M'Leod had acted under 
 authority he must be ultimately released or surrendered. " And what 
 then?" said Mr. A. " Is it not so ? Why, sir, Indian savages — canni- 
 bals, to whom revenge is the first of virtues — accept of ransom for the 
 blood of their relatives slain; and is it for a Christian nation, in cold 
 blood, four years after a defensive irregularity of border war, provoked 
 by their own people, to hold a man responsible to their own municipal 
 law for murder, because the life of a man was lost in a nocturnal foray, 
 authorized by the public authorities, civil and military, of the country 
 in whose defense it was undertaken and achieved ? Sir, there is not a 
 civilized country on earth but would cry shame upon us for carrying 
 sucl#)arbarian principles into practice. * » * j ask every member 
 of this house to put himself in the position of a prisoner in a foreign 
 land for an act done by the orders of his government — for the burning 
 of a boat, or the killing of men : I ask every man here to put himself 
 in the situation of M'Leod, either in Great Britain or in any part of 
 the British dominions, and suppose it a matter of negotiation between 
 the two governments — what would he say if the British secretary of 
 state, from a representation that this was done by the orders of the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, and that the nation held itself responsible 
 for the act, should say, ' of course ultimately we shall release him ?' 
 Now, I would ask, if this would be disgraceful to the British nation." 
 Mr. A. rejoiced that the letter of the secretary had calmed the irritation 
 and resentment of the British government produced by the inflammatory 
 report of the house. It was one of the best papers ever written ; and 
 the effect of it upon the nation was to be one of glory and not of reproach. 
 
 46 
 
722 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The resolution waa laid on the table, 109 to 70. 
 
 This question was also discussed in the legislature of Now Tort, on a 
 resolution offered by Mr. Swackhamer, of New York, requesting the 
 governor to communicate to the house certain information in reference 
 to the case of M'Leod. 
 
 Mr. Hoffman justified, under the British government, the attack 
 made upon the Caroline. The rebels, he said, had gained possession of 
 Navy Island ; the drafts of men there had been made from the United 
 States; the officers in command were over our citizens. By the naticna. 
 law, the sovereign whose territory was endangered had a right to repel 
 the danger ; and if in so doing he should momentarily pass the line 
 between the two countries, it must be the subject of negotiation. He 
 would ask where the man was in this state who would not have obeyed 
 a similar order from the local authorities. In case of sedition or rebel- 
 lion in this state, — if a boat were seen daily plying from the Canadas 
 furnishing those in arms with the means of warfare, and orders should 
 be issued by the authorities of this state to destroy that boat, who would 
 for a moment refuse to obey that order ? He moved to refer the reso- 
 lution with instructions to bring in a bill " to enter a nolle prosequi ou 
 the indictment, and to grant M'Leod a safe conduct to his sovereign." 
 
 The trial of M'Leod took place at Utica in October, 1841 ; a special 
 term of the circuit court having been appointed by the legislature for 
 that purpose. The trial occupied more than a week. The jury, after 
 a retirement of about twenty minutes, returned with a verdict of not 
 GUILTY. There was testimony identifying him as one of the party who 
 destroyed the Caroline and killed Durfee ; and there were several wit- 
 nesses to whom M'Leod had boasted that he had '* killed one d d 
 
 Yankee." From the testimony of the defense, however, it appeared 
 that he was during the whole of that night in Canada. * 
 
 The question as to the responsibility of the participators in the 
 destruction of the Caroline and the murder of Durfee, to the laws of 
 the state of New York, did n it end with the trial. A review of the 
 opinion of Justice Cowen, by Judge Tallmadge, of the superior court 
 of the city of New York, was subsequently published, in which that 
 opinion is controverted, and the doctrine of Webster, Adams, and 
 others is supported. Chancellor Kent, Judge Ambrose Spencer, and 
 other eminent jurists, expressed their concurrence in the doctrines of 
 this review. A review of Judge Tallmadge's review appeared in the 
 Democratic Review, maintaining the opinion of the supreme court, aB 
 delivered by Justice Cowen on the trial of the habeas corpus. Those 
 who desire to investigate this question are referred, for the first review, 
 to 26 Wendell ; for the latter, to 3 Hill, p. 635. 
 
THE SLAVE SCHOONER AMISTAD. 723 
 
 CHAPTER LIX. 
 
 THE SLAVE SCHOONER AMISTAD. CAPTIVES LIBERATED. MEETING OF 
 
 THE TWENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. SEATS OF NEW JERSEY MEMBERS CON- 
 TESTED. FLORIDA WAR. 
 
 In August, 1839, a vessel lying near the coast of Connecticut, under 
 suspicious circumstances, was captured by Lieut. Gedney, of the brig 
 Washington, and taken into New London. This vessel was a 'schooner, 
 called L'Amistad, bound from Havana to Guanaja, Port Principe, with 
 fifty-four blacks and two passengers on board. The former, four nights 
 after they were out, rose and murdered the captain and three of the 
 crew ; then took possession of the vessel with the intention of returning 
 to Africa. The two passengers were Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez,, the 
 former owning forty-nine of the slaves, and most of the cargo ; the latter 
 claiming the remaining five, all children from seven to twelve years of 
 age, and three of them females. These two men were saved to navigate 
 the vessel. Instead, however, of steering for the coast of Africa, they 
 navigated in a difi'erent direction, whenever they could do so without the 
 knowledge of tlfe Africans. It appeared that the slaves bad been pur- 
 chased at Havana, soon after their arrival from Africa. Cingues, who 
 was the son of an African chief, and leader of the revolt, with thirty- 
 eight others of the revolters, was committed for trial ; and the three 
 girls were put under bonds to appear and testify. 
 
 A demand was soon after made upon our government by the acting 
 Spanish minister in this country, for the surrender of the Amistad, cargo, 
 and alleged slaves, to the Spanish authorities. 
 
 The children were brought before the circuit court of the United 
 States, held at Hartford, in September, on a writ of habeas corpxis, with 
 a view to their discharge, on the ground that they were not slaves ; proof 
 of which was given by two of the prisoners who testified that the children 
 were native Africans. The discharge was resisted by Mr. Ingersoll, 
 counsel for the Spanish claimants, who stated, that the persons were libeled 
 in the district by Capt. Gedney, his officers and crew, as property ; they 
 were also libeled by the Spanish minister as the slave property of Span- 
 ish subjects, and as such ought to be delivered up ; and they were libeled 
 by the district attorney, that they might be delivered up to the executive, 
 in order to their being sent to their native country, if it should be found 
 right that they should be so sent. The counsel presumed that this (cir- 
 ami) court would not, under this writ, take this case out of the legiti. 
 aate jurisdiction of the district court, as, if the decision of that court 
 
724 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ehould not be satisfactory, the matter could be brought before this court 
 by appeal. 
 
 [For the information of some readers, it may be necessary here to say 
 that the word libel^ as used in courts of admiralty, signifies "a declara- 
 tion or charge in writing, exhibited in court, particularly against a ship 
 or goods, for a violation of the laws of trade or revenue." Also vessels 
 captured in time of war and claimed as prizes, are thus libeled. When 
 a prize is brought into a port, the captors make a writing called libel 
 stating the facts of the capture, and praying that the property may be 
 condemned ; and this paper is filed in the proper court. If it shall ap- 
 pear on trial that the property captured was subject to condemnation, it 
 is distributed among the captors.] 
 
 It v.as maintained by Mr. Baldwin, counsel for the children, that they 
 had been feloniously and piratically captured in Africa — contrary to the 
 laws of Spain — consequently, they were not property, and therefore the 
 district court was ousted of its jurisdiction. The district judge had not 
 issued his warrant to take these individuals. This he could not do with- 
 out first judicially finding that they were property. The warrant issued by 
 his honor to the marshal was to take the vessel and other articles of 
 personal property. These children were not, and never could become 
 personal property. They formed a part of a number tf persons, who, 
 born free, were captured and reduced to slavery. They had come here, 
 not as slaves, but as free ; and we are asked first to make them slaves, 
 and then give them up to the Spaniards. But we can only deliver up 
 pi'operty ; and before they can be delivered up, they must be proved to 
 he property. Mr. Staples, associate counsel for the Africans, said, Montez 
 had the hardihood to come into a court of justice in our free country, and 
 in contravention of our treaty with Spain, to ask the surrender of these 
 human beings, when the very act he desired us to countenance, would, by 
 his own sovereign's decree, have subjected him to forfeiture of all hia 
 goods and to transportation ; and he would himself have become a slave. 
 This was a case of felony ; and felony could not confer property. 
 
 The next day, a second writ of habeas corpus having been issued, all 
 the Africans were before the court. The counsel recapitulated the facta 
 of the case,, and again denied the jurisdiction of the district court. As 
 a court of admiralty, it could do nothing with them but as property ; 
 and the applicant must first prove them to be property. Some of them were 
 taken on shore ; these were within the jurisdiction of the common law. 
 
 As to the libel of the district attorney at the suit of the Spanish min- 
 iater — what had the minister to do with it ? The parties claimed were 
 neither fugitives nor criminals. The district attorney libels them and 
 prays that they may be kept in custody, that, if at some future time it 
 
CAPTIVES LIBERATED. 725 
 
 should appear that they had been brought hither illegally, they might be 
 delivered up to the president to be sent back to their own country. The 
 counsel then asked their discharge. He said they should be taken care 
 of (as it was right they should be) by the state of Connecticut. 
 
 The counsel for the claimants followed in support of the jurisdiction 
 of the district court ; and the district attorney in support of his libel 
 on behalf of the executive. 
 
 The decision of the court (Judge Thompson) in relation to the motion 
 of the prisoners' counsel to discharge the Africans, was to deny the motion, 
 as the question before the court was simply as to the jurisdiction of the 
 district court over this subject. If the seizure was made upon the high 
 seas — and the grand jury said it was made a mile from the shore — then 
 the matter was right — fully before the court for this district. If, as was 
 supposed by the counsel on both sides, the seizure was made within the 
 district of New York, the court could endeavor to ascertain the locality. 
 To pass upon the question of property, belonged to the district court. 
 Should either party be dissatisfied with the decision of that court, an ap- 
 peal could be taken to the circuit court, and afterwards to the supreme 
 court of the United States. 
 
 The court said the question now disposed of had not been affected by 
 the manner in which the grand jury had disposed of the case upon the 
 directions of the court. They had only found that there had been no 
 criminal offense committed which was cognizable by the courts of the 
 United States. Murder committed on board a foreign vessel with a 
 foreign crew and foreign papers, was not such an offense ; but an offense 
 against the laws of the country to which the vessel belonged. But if 
 the offense had been against the law of nations, this court would have 
 jurisdiction. The murder of the captain of the Amistad was not a 
 crime against the law of nations. 
 
 The district court was opened ; and the judge said he should order the 
 district attorney to investigate the facts to ascertain where the seizure 
 was made ; and then adjourned the court to November. 
 
 At the adjourned term of the court in November, it was pleaded in 
 behalf of the Africans, that neither the constitution, laws, or any treaty 
 of the United States, nor the law of nations, gave this court any juris- 
 diction over their persons ; they therefore prayed to be dismissed. The 
 counsel for Capt. Gedney denied that the Africans had anything to do 
 with the question now before the court. It was a claim for salvage ; and 
 the parties were the libelants (Gedney and the other officers and crew of 
 the Washington,) and Ruiz and Moutez, owners of the vessel and cargo, 
 Gedney and others claimed salvage for saving the property of theso 
 Spaniards, who did not resist the claim. 
 
726 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The district attorney presented a claim in behalf of the United States 
 for the vessel, cargo and negroes, with a view to their restoration to their 
 owners, who were Spanish subjects, without hinderance or detention, ag 
 required by our treaty with Spain. 
 
 The interpreter being absent and sick, the court adjourned to New 
 Haven in January next. 
 
 In January, the decision of Judge Judson was given. The blacks 
 who murdered the captain and others on board the schooner, were set 
 free. But if they had been whites, they would have been tried and 
 executed as pirates. The schooner having been proved to have been 
 taken on the " high seas," the jurisdiction of the court was established. 
 The libel of Gedney and others bad been properly filed, and the seizers 
 were entitled to salvage. Ruiz and Montez had established no title to 
 the Africans, who were undoubtedly Bozal negroes, or negroes recently 
 imported from Africa in violation of the laws of Spain. The demand 
 of restoration made by the Spanish minister, that the question might be 
 tried in Cuba, was refused, as by Spanish laws the negroes could not be 
 enslaved ; and therefore they could not properly be demanded for trial. 
 One of them a Creole, and legally a slave, and wishing to be returned 
 to Havana, a restoration would be decreed under the treaty of 1795. 
 These Africans were tc be delivered to the president, under the act of 
 1819, to be transported to Africa. 
 
 An appeal was taken from the decree of the district judge to the cir- 
 cuit court, judge Thompson presiding, who af5rmed that decree. And 
 the government of the United States, at the instance of the Spanish 
 minister here, appealed to the supreme court of the United States. That 
 court affirmed the judgment of the district court of Connecticut in every 
 respect, except as to sending the negroes back to Africa : they were di&- 
 charged as free men. 
 
 A deep interest seems to have been taken by the British government 
 iu the case of these Africans. Their minister in this country, Mr. Fox, 
 was instructed to intercede with our government in their behalf; and 
 their minister in Spain was directed to ask for their liberty if they 
 should be delivered to the Spaniards at the request of the Spanish minis- 
 ter at Washington, and should be sent to Cuba ; and to urge Spain to 
 enforce the laws against Montez and Ruiz and any other Spanish sub- 
 jects concerned in the transaction in question. 
 
 A disposition was manifested on the part of our government to effect 
 the delivery of the captives to the Spanish authorities, at Cuba, to bo 
 there dealt with according to the laws of Spain. The friends of the 
 Africans in this country deprecated such event, apprehending that the 
 freedom of the negroes might not be obtained through the Spanish tri- 
 bunals. 
 
CAPTIVES LIBERATED. . 727 
 
 On the 10th of February, 1840, probably suspecting unfairness on the 
 part of the administration, a resolution was offered, requesting the pre- 
 sident to communicate to the house copies of any demand by the Spanish 
 government for the surrender of the Africans, and of the correspon- 
 dence between the state department and the Spanish minister and the 
 district attorney of the United States in the judicial district of Con- 
 necticut. 
 
 On the 20th of January, 1841, while the question of the prisoners 
 was still pending in the supreme court of the United States, the British 
 minister addressed to Mr. Forsyth, secretary of state, a letter repre- 
 senting the interest felt by his government in the case of the African 
 negroes, mentioning the obligation of Spain, by treaty with Great Britain, 
 to prohibit the slave trade from the 30th of May, 1820, and the mutual 
 engagements of the United States and Great Britain, by the 10th 
 article of the treaty of Ghent, to use their endeavors for the entire aboli- 
 tion of the slave trade. And as the freedom of the negroes may depend 
 upon the action of the United States government, he expresses the hope, 
 that the president would find himself empowered to take such measures 
 in their behalf, as should secure to them their liberty. 
 
 Mr. Forsyth, in his answer of the 1st of February, says in substance, 
 that the introduction of the negroes into this country did not proceed 
 from the wishes or direction of our government. The vessels and the 
 negroes had been demanded by the Spanish minister, and the grounds 
 of that demand were before the judicial tribunals. He tells Mr. Fox 
 that our government is not willing to erect itself into a tribunal between 
 Spain and Great Britain ; that he, (Mr. Fox,) had doubtless observed 
 from the correspondence published in a congressional document, that the 
 Spanish minister intended to restore the negroes, should their delivery 
 to his government be ordered, to the island of Cuba, to be placed under 
 the protection of the government of Spain, There was the proper place, 
 and there would be a full opportunity, to discuss questions ariising under 
 the Spanish laws and the treaties of Spain with Great Britain. 
 
 The decision of the supreme court was awaited with deep interest by 
 all who sympathized with the negroes. Mr. Adams, who had not argued 
 a case for thirty or forty years before^hat court, made a very elaborate 
 as well as able argument in their behalf. The opinion of the court was 
 pronounced by Mr. Justice Story, early in March, 1841, affirming the 
 decision of the district court in every particular, except that which 
 ordered the negroes to be delivered to the president to be transported 
 to Africa. The court reversed this part of the decree, and ordered the 
 cause to be remanded to the circuit court which had affirmed the same, 
 with directions to enter in lieu thereof, that the negroes be declared free, 
 and be discharged from suit.^ 
 
728 • THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The 26th congress assemLled on the 2d of December, 1839; on or 
 dux'ing •which day, every member of the house of representatives waa 
 present, except Mr. Thomas Kempshall, of Rochester, N. Y., who waa 
 necessarily detained at home. This unusually full attendance on the first 
 day of the session was doubtless caused by the anxiety of both parties 
 in relation to the election of speaker. The gains of the whigs had been 
 Buch as to render it doubtful which party would control the action of the 
 house during this congress. This doubt was increased by the fact that 
 there were no less than six members returned whose seats were to be 
 contested, viz. : Mi\ Naylor, of Pennsylvania, whose seat was claimed 
 by Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, and five of the six members from New-Jersey 
 The returned members were all whigs. The contestants, also, were all 
 said to be in attendance. 
 
 At twelve o'clock, the clerk of the last house, Hugh A. Garland, in 
 conformity with the former practice, commenced calling the roll of the 
 members elect. Having called the members from the New England 
 states and the state of New York, and one of the members, Mr. Ran- 
 dolph, from New Jersey, he paused, and proposed, if it were the pleasure 
 of the house, to pass over the names of the five whose right to seats 
 was to be contested, until the members of the remaining states should 
 have been called. A stormy and disorderly debate ensued, which con- 
 tinued several days, during which time several propositions were unsuc- 
 cessfully made. It was insisted by the opposition members, that, accord- 
 ing to custom, the claimants having regular certificates of election, should 
 be admitted to seats until a formal investigation could be had. The 
 difficulty of determining upon any course of proceeding consisted, in a 
 great measure, in there not having been a quorum of members called, 
 and in the undetermined question whether those who claimed the con- 
 tested seats should be permitted to vote. 
 
 Mr. Ogden Hoffman, of New York, insisted that it was the duty of 
 the clerk to call the names of members having the regular legal certifi- 
 cates of election. He asked the clerk by what' right he had called his 
 own (Mr. H's) name. If the laws of New Jersey required, as proof of 
 a man's election, a certificate, signed by the governor, that he had been 
 duly elected, would the clerk dar|^insert in his roll the name of one not 
 bringing such certificate ? Let the law of New Jersey be read ; they 
 had no right, on the threshold, to pass it over and disregard its pro- 
 visions-^to set aside or postpone the claims of men presenting themselves 
 as the representatives of a sovereign state, and bringing in .their hands 
 the legal proofs of their official character and rights. 
 
 Mr. Halsted, of New Jersey, demanded that his name should be 
 called ; and, in the course of his remarks, he read that section of the 
 
SEATS OF NEW JERSEY MEMBERS CONTESTED. 729 
 
 law of his state which makes the governor's certificate the evidence of 
 election, which, he insisted, the clerk was bound to receive as prima 
 facie evidence of his right to sit there. At length in the midst of great 
 confusion, and after much altercation with the clerk, Mr. Rhett, of South 
 Carolina, moved that Lewis Williams, of North Carolina, the oldest 
 member of the house, be appointed temporary chairman. Mr. Williams 
 objected, as such proceeding was out of form. Mr. Rhett then modified 
 his motion by substituting for the name of Mr. Williams that of John 
 Quincy Adams. Mr. R. himself put the question, which was carried 
 apparently by a large majority ; and Mr. Adams took the chair. 
 
 Mr. Wise ofi"ered a resolution, that the clerk proceed with the call of 
 members in the usual way, calling such as held the regular and legal 
 commissions. The next day, (December 6,) Mr. Rhett moved to lay 
 the resolution of Mr. Wise on the table, with a view to enable him to 
 ofi"er one, that the house proceed to call the names of members whose 
 right to seats is not disputed ; and then, before a speaker should be 
 elected, hear and determine the claims to the contested seats. One of 
 the tellers asked the chair which of the ten gentlemen from New Jersey 
 claiming seats they were to admit to pass between the tellers. The chair 
 replied that, according to the rule, those only who held commissions in 
 conformity with the laws of the state of New Jersey, were entitled to 
 vote. Mr. Vanderpoel, of New York, appealed from this decision of 
 the chair, which he called " a gross act of usurpation." It was virtually 
 declaring that the gentlemen from New Jersey should vote in their own 
 cases, contrary to the rule of order which forbade members voting on 
 questions in the event of which they were immediately and particularly 
 interested. The chair replied that the rule did not apply to the present 
 case, as it was not the representatives that were concerned, but their con- 
 stituents and their state. 
 
 An animated debate here followed, in which many members partici- 
 pated, and in the course of which three New York members, Messrs. 
 Hoffman, Granger, and Vanderpoel came into a somewhat sharp col- 
 lision ; the two first named gentlemen sustaining the decision of the 
 chair, that the members entitled to vote were those who had certificates 
 of election. Mr. Granger referred to the memorable contest — familiar 
 to politicians in the state of New York — between two claimants to a 
 Beat in the legislature, Allen and Fellows, in 1816, the former having re- 
 ceived the certificate of election, and being allowed the seat until the 
 house was orgaVized and certain other party questions were disposed of. 
 ' By the vote of this one member, the party scales were turned ; and after 
 the main objects of the party had been effected, the contesting member 
 was admitted to the seat. 
 
730 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 On the lOth of December, the decision of the chair was negatived, 
 
 114 to 108. The announcement of the result created great confusion in 
 the house. Mr. Wise, of the opposition, now rose and said, that, as the 
 gentlemen who held the governor's certificate were denied the right to 
 vote, he moved that the other claimants, who had the certificate of the 
 secretary of state, be allowed to vote. Mr. Rhe ii moved to lay this 
 motion on the table. Mr. Wise inquired if his motion was in order. 
 Mr. Adams (the chairman) decided that it was ; and observed " that the 
 state of New Jersey cannot be deprived of her representation in this 
 house, and shall not he, so long as I have a seat as chairman of the 
 meeting^ The question to be decided was, which set of members 
 should be allowed to vote — the members must now decide that. [The 
 reporter here says " a scene of confusion here followed which it would 
 be difficult to describe, even if we had room."] 
 
 By the previousquestion,avotewa8 then forced upon Mr. Rhett's motion 
 to lay upon the table Mr. Wise's resolution, that the New Jersey members 
 having the governor's certificate be Allowed their seats. The result was, 
 
 1 1 5 ayes, 1 1 4 noes, but the chairman voting in the negative, there was 
 an equal division, and the motion was therefore lost. Mr. Naylor having 
 voted, Mr. Smith, of Maine, questioned his right to vote, Mr. N. said 
 he had the governor's certificate of election and the people's, and no man 
 had a right to question his right to vote. Additional confusion followed, 
 which was terminated by a motion to adjourn: ayes, 116; noes, 113' 
 three of the New Jersey claimants and three of the certified members 
 voting upon the question. 
 
 The next day, (December 11,) Mr. Naylor 's right to vote in organizing 
 the house, was decided in the negative: 119 to 112; and the right of 
 Mr. IngersoU's negatived, by 158 noes, ayes, none. The right of the 
 certified members to vote was denied, the question being taken upon the 
 right of each separately ; a part of each set of the New Jersey claimants 
 voting. Mr. Wise's resolution, that the New Jersey members be 
 enrolled and take part in organizing the house, was negatived: ayes, 115; 
 noes 118; Mr. Randolph alone from New Jersey voting. Mr. Rhett 
 then proposed a resolution, that the clerk call the names of all the mem- 
 bers whose seats were uncontested, and that the members thus called 
 ghould be a quorum to settle the claims of members — Mr. Naylor's seat 
 not to be included in the contested seats — and that the quorum should 
 decide the contested elections before proceeding to the election of a 
 speaker. 
 
 The next day, (12th,) the clerk completed the calling of the roll of the 
 house. Mr. Randolph then sent to the clerk's table a paper which he 
 wished to be read, and which, after some opposition, was permitted to 
 
SEATS OF NEW JERSEY MEMBERS CONTESTED. 721 
 
 be done. Mr. Randolph then moved that this paper — ^which proved to 
 be a protest of the excluded claimants^ — ^be entered upon the journal of 
 the house. After a most bitter denunciation of the paper and the gentle- 
 man who presented it, by Mr. Bynum, of North Carolina, and some far- 
 ther confused debate, the question to enter the protest upon the journal 
 was negatived : ayes, 114; noes, 117. After a variety of other proceed- 
 ings during this day and the next, a direct vote was taken upon a propo- 
 sition of Mr. Wise, that the credentials of the certified members from 
 New Jersey were suflScient to entitle them to take their seats in the 
 house, leaving the question of contested election to be afterwards decided 
 by the house : and the result was, an equal division, 117 to 117. So 
 the resolution was lost. 
 
 On the day following, (I4th,) after sundry proceedings, the members 
 proceeded to the election of speaker, viva voce, according to the rule 
 adopted the day before. The name of Mr. Adams having 'been called, 
 he answered : "Reserving all my rights of objecting hereafter to this 
 election as unconstitutional and illegal, I vote for John BelV A simi- 
 lar protest was made by Mr. Wise. Before the result of the first ballot 
 was announced, the certified New Jersey members successively demanded, 
 that having been legally returned, their votes should be recorded for Mr. 
 Bell ; which, of course, was not done. On this ballot, John W. Jones, 
 of Virginia received 113 votes : John Bell, 102 ; scattering 20. On the 
 6th trial, Jones received 39; Bell, 21 ; Dixon H. Lewis, of Alabama, 
 79 ; Robert M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, 63. The house then adjourned to 
 Monday, (16th,) when after five more ballots had been taken, Mr. Hunter 
 was declared elected, having received 119 votes out of 232, and Mr. 
 Jones 55. Mr. Hunter, formerly, it is believed, a Jackson man, was nov/ 
 with the opposition, but in favor of the sub-treasury. A clerk was chosen 
 on the 2Ist ; and on the 24th, the president's message was delivered. 
 
 On the 28th of February, 1840, the question being still undecided, the 
 committee on elections were instructed to report forthwith which five 
 of the claimants received the greatest number of lawful votes of the 
 whole state, with all the evidence of that fact in their possession. [It 
 will be perceived by the reader that representatives were elected in New 
 Jersey by general ticket.] A report was accordingly made the 5th of 
 March, in favor of the administration members, viz. : Philemon Dicker- 
 son, Peter D. Vroom, Daniel B. Ryall, William R, Cooper, and Joseph 
 Kille. The majority of the committee concurring in the report, were, 
 Messrs. Campbell, of S. C. ; Rives, (Francis E.,) of Virginia, Medill, of 
 Ohio ; Brown, of Tennessee ; and Fisher, of N. C. 
 
 Mr. Fillmore, of the same committee, moved a resolution, that, as the 
 committee had refused to consider evidence referred to them, tending to 
 
732 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Bhow certain illegalities in the election, the report be recommitted. Mr 
 Petrikin, of Pa., moved an amendment or substitute declaring the admin- 
 istration claimants entitled to take their seats. After several days' 
 debate, (March 10,) the resolution with this amendment was adopted, 
 111 to 81. 
 
 The minority of the committee, Messrs. Fillmore, Botts, of Va., Crabb 
 of Ala., and Smith, of Conn., published, under date of March 12, an 
 address " to the American people," in which they call attention to an ac- 
 companying report, entitled, " Thesuppressed report of the minority of the 
 committee on elections on the New Jersey case: presented to the house of 
 representatives on the 10th of March, 1840, and, contrary to all prece- 
 dent, excluded from the house, (its reception and reading being refused, 
 with the previous question pending, and all debate cut off,) by a party 
 vote in the negative." This report purports to set forth minutely the 
 facts of the case, and the action of the committee, and concludes with 
 a protest against what they " conceive to be a most indefensible and 
 unlawful proceeding." 
 
 This address and the accompanying report were replied to in an addresg, 
 " to the people of the United States," by the members of the majority, 
 as private individuals, in which they defend themselves against the 
 charges of the minority, and vindicate their report. At a late period of 
 the session, (July,) additional testimony having been received, another 
 report was made by the majority of the committee, declaring the sitting 
 members duly elected; which report was adopted (July 16th): ayes, 
 102; noes, 22; a large number of the opposition members declining to 
 vote. Many of them had asked to be excused from voting, not having 
 had the means of examining the evidence. It filled a volume of 
 nearly seven hundred pages — was now for the first time laid before the 
 house — and members were to be compelled to decide on an important 
 question without being allowed time to read the testimony or to hoar 
 the opposing claimants. Here this long and exciting controversy ended. 
 
 At the session of 1839-40, the independent treasury was established. 
 The subject was again presented to congress by Mr. Van Buren in his 
 annual message ; and a bill was again reported by Mr. Wriglit in the 
 penate. Having passed that body, the bill was reported in the house on 
 the 26th of March. The discussion was, as at former sessions, quite pro- 
 tracted, and especially in the house, where it was passed, June 30, by a 
 vote of 124 to 107. 
 
 The question then recurring on the title, Mr. Cooper, of Pennsylvania, 
 moved to amend it by striking out the present title, and inserting the 
 following : " A bill to reduce the value of property, the products of the 
 farmer, and the wages of the laborer ; to destroy the indebted portion 
 
FLORIDA WAR. 733 
 
 of the community, and to place the treasury of the nation in the handa 
 of the president," Mr. Gushing, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the 
 amendment ao as to read : " An act to enable the public money to be 
 drawn from the treasury without appropriation made by law." An angry 
 and desultory discussion arose between Mr. Gushing and others ; and 
 the house was filled with commotion, and could not be restored to order 
 by the speaker, but by the aid of the sergeant-at-arms. The amendments 
 were of course rejected. The title under which the bill was reported was 
 retained : " An act to provide for the collection, safe-keeping, transfer, 
 and disbursement of the public revenue." 
 
 This act required the payment of all duties, taxes, land sales, and all 
 olher government dues, to be made, one-fourth in specie, after the 30th 
 of June, 1840, and an additional one-fourth each successive year, until 
 the whole should become payable in specie. It also provided for the 
 necessary rooms for the treasurer, and vaults and safes for the moneys, 
 and for the appointment of receivers-general ; who, with all other officers 
 receiving public moneys, were required to give bonds, with sureties, for 
 the faithful discharge of their duties. It contained such other provisions 
 as were deemed necessary to secure the objects expressed in its title. 
 
 The war with the Seminole Indians which had commenced in 1835, 
 had not yet been brought to a termination. This small tribe, number- 
 ing only about 2000 capable of bearing arms, had for nearly five years 
 baffled the attempts of our army to reduce them to submission. In 
 1840, a bill was reported to the senate by Mr. Benton, from the com- 
 mittee on military afi"airs, to provide for the armed occupation and 
 settlement of that part of Florida which was infested by these maraud- 
 ing bands of hostile Indians, It was hoped in this way to effect their 
 extirpation, and thus to rid the territory of an enemy whom the govern- 
 ment had hitherto been unable to subdue. This bill proposed grants 
 of land to settlers, not exceeding ten thousand men able to bear arms, 
 three hundred and twenty acres each. The settlements were to be in 
 stations, each including not less than forty nor more than one hundred 
 men. This bill did not become a law. 
 
 In the winter of 1839-40, it was announced that a pack of blood- 
 hounds had been imported from Guba to scent the Indians, and thus aid 
 in their capture. The employment of brute beasts as allies against 
 savages, was regarded as in the highest degree dishonorable to the gov 
 ernment of a civilized and Ghristian people ; and numerous memorials 
 remonstrating against the use of these animals were presented to con- 
 gress. On a motion by Mr, Buchanan to refer these petitions to the 
 military committee, a debate arose, in which Mr, Benton stated, that 
 this matter had only been asserted by the opposition newspapers and 
 
734 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 that it ought to have been known that the government had expressly 
 repudiated the employment of bloodhounds in the war. Mr. Lumpkin, 
 of Georgia, thought their use by the people of Florida was justified by 
 the frequent murders and the destruction of property committed by the 
 Indians, Contradictory accounts were for a time given respecting the 
 efficiency of these hounds. After repeated trials, their use was aban- 
 doned. 
 
 On the 10th of May, 1842, the senate received a communication from 
 the president, (Mr. Tyler,) proposing a different course of measures in 
 relation to the Indians in Florida. Their number had been reduced by 
 surrender and capture to a few hundred ; less than one hundred of whon^ 
 were warriors, or males capable of bearing arms. The president thougl* 
 the farther pursuit of these miserable beings by a large military force 
 as injudicious as unavailing. Their mode of warfare, their dispersed 
 condition, and the smallness of their numbers, which increased the diffi- 
 culty of finding them in their almost inaccessible hiding places, rendered 
 any farther attempt to subdue them by force impracticable, except by 
 the employment of the most expensive means. And coinciding with the 
 views of the commanding officer there, the governor of the territory, and 
 other persons, he had determined to resort to peaceable means, with the 
 view of inducing them to a voluntary surrender, and removal to the 
 west. He thought it desirable that settlements should be made similar 
 to those contemplated by the bill of Mr. Benton, in 1840, providing 
 for the occupation of the soil of the frontiers of the territory. An act 
 for this purpoie was accordingly passed at this session. It offered to 
 any head of a family or any single man over eighteen years of age, able 
 to bear arms, and making an actual settlement, one quarter section of 
 land, on certain conditions, one of which was that he should reside on 
 the same for four years, erect a house fit for habitation, and clear, inclose, 
 and cultivate at least five acres of land. 
 
 The war may be considered as having been terminated by this cessa- 
 tion of hostilities on the part of the United States. Only a few acts 
 of violence were afterwards committed ; and by occasional surrenders 
 and removal, the territory was left in the peaceable possession of its white 
 inhabitants. Settlements under the act of congress before mentioned^ 
 were made, in the meantime, with great rapidity. The act was to con- 
 tinue in force but one year, during which time the 200,000 acres granted 
 by the government were all, or nearly all, taken up. 
 
 The expense of this war, considering the very small number of the 
 Indians, was enormous, amounting to about twenty miliions of dollars. 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OP 1840. 735 
 
 CHAPTEK LX. 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OP 1840. CLAIMS ON MEXICO. CLOSE CF MR. 
 
 VAN BUREN's ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 The whig national nominating convention met at Harrisburg on the 
 4th of December, 1839. James Barbour, of Virginia, presided. On 
 the third day, the 6th of December, the nominations were made. Of 
 the 254 votes, William Henry Harrison received 148^ Henry Clay, 90; 
 and Winfield Scott, 16. Mr. Clay was preferred by a plurality of the 
 delegates ; but many of his friends, considering him less available as a 
 candidate than Gen. Harrison, consented to the adoption of the latter. 
 John Tyler received as a candidate for vice-president, 231 votes, being 
 all that were cast. The delegates from Virginia, of whom Mr. Tyler 
 was one, at his request, did not ballot for vice-president. The delega- 
 tions from the several states balloted separately. All the states were 
 represented except South Carolina, G-eorgia, Tennessee, and Arkansas. 
 The convention adjourned on the 4th day of its session.- 
 
 The democratic convention was held at Baltimore, the 5th of May, 
 1840, being represented by twenty-one states. Mr. Van Buren, as was 
 expected, was unanimously nominated for president. No nomination 
 for vice-president was made ; each state being left to make a nomination 
 for itself. 
 
 The abolitionists, who had hitherto voted according to their former 
 party attachments, now brought into the field candidates of their own. 
 A meeting of the Western New York anti-slavery society was held at 
 Warsaw in November, 1839, at which was discussed the propriety of 
 making nominations ; and, although this was not among the objects for 
 which the convention had been called, the proposition was adopted. 
 James Gr. Birney, of New York, formerly of Alabama, was nominated 
 for president, and Francis J. Lemoyne, of Pennsylvania, for vice-presi- 
 dent. 
 
 The presidential canvass of 1840 was unusually spirited. There had 
 been during a great part of Mr. Van Buren 's administration, a pressure 
 in the money market ; and a general depression in business affairs. This 
 state of things was ascribed to the interference of the government with 
 the currency. The bank of the United States had been destroyed ; and 
 notwithstanding its capital continued to be employed, under a charter 
 from the state of Pennsylvania, state bank capital had been enormously 
 increased ; having been tripled or quadrupled. Much of the paper 
 issued by theso banks had greatly depreciated, and that of many of them 
 
736 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 had become worthless. In Mississippi, where, in 1830, there was, be- 
 eides the branch of the United States bank, but one chartered bank, with 
 a capital of less than one million of dollars, in 1838, the chartered 
 bank capital of that state had reached upward of sixty millions. The 
 excessive issue of bank paper had been followed by its natural result, the 
 suspension of specie payments, which was at this time still continued in 
 some states, especially in the western and south-western states. And 
 where suspension had ceasea, it was necessary for the banks greatly to 
 restrict their issues. 
 
 But the whigs found othe:? causes than " experiments " upon the eur- 
 rency, to which to attribute the public distress. The lowest rates of du- 
 ties contemplated by the compromise tariff of 1833, had nearly been 
 reached ; and for the want of adequate protection, domestic manufac- 
 tures had been to a great extent superseded by importations, which were 
 draining the country of its specie ; the consequences of which were the 
 inability of the banks to supply the business wants of the community, 
 and at the same time to diminish the demand for labor. 
 
 This depressed condition of the country contributed essentially to the 
 success of the whig party. Many who had approved the policy of the 
 administration, began to doubt the wisdom of its measures. A still 
 greater number, unable to either trace existing evils to their true source, 
 or to judge intelligently in relation to any proposed remedy, were dis- 
 posed to try a change of policy, under the persuasion that it could not 
 well be for the worse. True, the measures of the administration were but a 
 continuation of the policy of that which preceded it ; but, although the 
 principles of the two administrations were the same, Gen. Jackson and 
 Mr. Van Buren were different persons. Although the latter was pledged 
 to tread in " the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor," he found it 
 impossible to carry with him his popularity. Gen. Jackson was the 
 ' hero of two wars ;" Mr. Van Buren had never in this way " exposed 
 himself to the enemy." No measure of statesmanship could afford him 
 half the advantage which his predecessor derived from the single victory 
 of New Orleans. Here, his competitor had a vast advantage. He, liko 
 Gen. Jackson, had a military fame. He, too, had fought the Indians 
 The battle of Tippecanoe, however inferior, as a military achievement to 
 the battle of New Orleans, furnished the whiga with an amount of 
 political capital scarcely less than their opponents had found in the 
 crowning act of the military career of their former candidate. Log 
 cabins were doing for the whig cause what had been done by hickory 
 poles in other contests for " the democracy" — controlling the votes of 
 thousands who want the disposition or the capacity for intelligent invoa- 
 ligation. 
 
 if 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTTON OF 1840. 737 
 
 Not the least of the advantages of the whigs in this campaign was, that 
 their candidate had been taunted with having dwelt in a " log cabin,'' 
 and used " hard cider" as a beverage. At least they charged upon their 
 opponents the attempt thus to disparage him. Hence, the term " log 
 cabin" was seized upon, and became the great talismanic word of the 
 party, the effect of which all the arts of the " little magician " were 
 insufficient to counteract. Miniatuife log cabins were a part of the para- 
 phernalia got up to give effect to the mass meetings, which were not 
 unfrequently measured by acres. These rude structures, decorated with 
 ^coon skins, were also erected of sufficient dimensions for the accommo- 
 dation of the local assemblages. There was scarcely a city or village 
 which was not adorned with an edifice of this description. And the 
 number was " legion" of those who traced their conversion to the " new 
 light" emitted from these political forums. 
 
 It is, however, believed to be due to the American people to say, that 
 thousands who participated in these fantastic exhibitions, would regret 
 their recurrence. The idea of having recourse to such measures to pro- 
 mote an election, presupposes the lack of that popular intelligence which 
 is the boast of our nation, and is made the subject of panegyric by every 
 public orator. It is seriously doubted whether any immediate benefit 
 secured by such means compensates for their debasing effect upon the 
 public mind, or their reflection upon the national dignity. In the pre- 
 sent instance, although the majorities were thus doubtless increased, the 
 same general result would have been attained without a resort to the ex 
 traordinary measures which appear to be liable to the objections above 
 mentioned. 
 
 Mr. Tyler, at an early period of this administration, as will be seen, 
 disappointed the expectations, and lost the confidence of the party that 
 elected him. He was charged with a gross and wanton violation of his 
 pledges to the party, and of the principles upon which he had been 
 elected. Of the grounds of this charge, his former political course may 
 help us to judge. He had been identified with the Virginia school of 
 politicians. In 1824, in common with his fellow- citizens of that state, 
 he supported Mr. Crawford for president. Preferring, however, Mr. 
 Adams to Gen. Jackson, he wrote a letter to Mr. Clay, approving his 
 vote in the house of representatives in favor of Mr. Adams. Soon after 
 the election of Mr. Adams, he went over with the friends of Mr. Craw- 
 ford to the support of G-en. Jackson. Ho was in favor of a strict con- 
 struction of the constitution, and was thei :!fore opposed to a tariff foi 
 protection, and to internal improvements b} the general government, ap- 
 proving Gren. Jackson's vetoes of the Maysville road bill aud other simi- 
 lar bills. He opposed, when in the senate, the renewal of the charter 
 
 47 
 
738 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the bank of the United States. He favored the doctrine of the South 
 Carolina nullifiers in relation to state rights ; and turned against Gen 
 Jackson for putting down nullification in that state. He opposed the 
 force bill, both by a vehement speech and by his vote. He became 
 attached to the Calhoun party in the senate, who united with the whigs 
 in opposing the course of the president in assuming the power of con- 
 trolling the deposit of the public moneys, although he was opposed to 
 the bank on the ground of its unconstitutionality. He voted for Mr. 
 Clay's resolutions charging Gen. Jackson with usurpation of power in 
 directing the removal of the deposits. Thus far, therefore, Mr. Tyler 
 is found to have adhered to the distinctive views of the party opposed 
 to the whigs, having separated from his former friends only on the sub- 
 treasury and other financial questions. 
 
 He was appointed a delegate to the whig national convention held in De- 
 cember, 1839, and expressed, as is said, his preference for Mr. Clay. This 
 fact, in connection with subsequent professions or declarations, were re- 
 garded as at least an implied pledge of support to the whig party. The 
 selection of a candidate for vice-president from the state rights branch of 
 the whig party, was a matter of policy ; and as that officer is not intrusted 
 with administrative power, entire conformity of his principles with those 
 of the whigs was regarded as comparatively unimportant. Their indif- 
 ference on this point, however, they soon had occasion to regret. 
 
 Of the electoral votes at the ensuing election, the whig candidates 
 received each 234. Mr. Van Buren received 60 ; R. M. Johnson, for 
 vice-president, 48 ; L. W. Tazewell, of Virginia, 1 1 ; and James K. 
 Polk, 1. 
 
 The claims of the United States upon Mexico for injuries to the per- 
 sons and property of our citizens, remained unadjusted. A convention 
 was made between the two governments in September, 1838, by which 
 it was agreed to refer these claims to a board of commissioners, of whom 
 two were to be appointed by each party ; and in case of a difi"erence of 
 opinion, the question was to be submitted for decision to the king of 
 Prussia, or an arbiter to be appointed by him ; the ratifications to be 
 exchanged oii or before the 10th of February, 1839. This day passed 
 without the performance of this part of the obligation on the part of 
 Mexico. Reasons were assigned which were unsatisfactory to the com- 
 mittee on foreign relations, to whom this subject had been referred, and' 
 who reported resolutions to the house, declaring these reasons insuffi- 
 cient ; expressing the hope that, in view of the unreasonable procrasti- 
 nation on the part of Mexicf hitherto, the minister who was about to be" 
 sent to that country, would press for a speedy settlement of the demand* 
 so repeatedly but ineffectually made ; and declaring the impatient expeo- 
 
CLOSE OF MR. VAN BUREN'S ADMINISTRATION. 73S 
 
 tation, by the house, of the result of the mission, and its determination, 
 if it should prove unavailing, to sustain the executive in any ulterior 
 measures that might be deemed necessary. 
 
 One of the reasons assigned by Mexico for not presenting to its con- 
 gress the convention providing for the settlement of claims, was the 
 belief that the king of Prussia wpuld decline the office of arbitrator in 
 case of the disagreement of the commissioners. The president, in his 
 next annual message to congress, December, 1839, considered this rea- 
 son unsatisfactory ; but he did not hesitate, in the most conciliatory 
 spirit, to receive it in explanation; and he had consented to a new con- 
 vention, for which purpose Mr. Ellis had been directed to repair to 
 Mexico; and diplomatic intercourse had been resumed. In 1842, a 
 treaty was concluded, the ratifications to be exchanged at Washington, 
 within three months from its date, if congress should be in session ; if 
 not, then within one month after the commencement of the next session. 
 The amount awarded to claimants, as stated by the president in his mes- 
 sage in December, 1842, was $2,026,079, leaving a large amount of 
 claims, submitted to the board too late for consideration, still to be 
 determined. The first payment, $270,000 — the interest on the sum 
 awarded — was to be made the 30th of April, 1843. The whole was to 
 be paid in five years, quarterly, in gold and silver, in the city of Mexico. 
 
 At the last Session of congress under 3Ir. Van Buren's administra- 
 tion, few acts of great importance were passed. 
 
 A new issue of treasury notes was authorized, not to exceed five millions 
 at any one time outstanding. The sum of $75,000 was appropriated 
 for the survey of that part of the north-eastern boundary line whicl 
 separates the states of Maine and New Hampshire from the British pro 
 vinces. 
 
 The most prominent characteristic of Mr. Van Buren's administra- 
 tion, was its consummation of what was begun by his predecessor — the 
 separation of the government from the banks, or, as it has been tei-med, 
 the "divorce of bank and state;" a policy which existed just long 
 enough to prostrate the party which brought it into being; which expired 
 with the elevation of the opposing party — was revived with the restora- 
 tion of " the democracy ;" and has since continued, through changes of 
 administration, undisturbed ; having received the general acquiescence 
 of the popular will, if not the positive approval of the public judgment. 
 
740 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER LXI. 
 
 IVATJGURATION OF GENERAL HARRISON. HIS DEATH. INAUGURATION OF 
 
 MR. TYLER. EXTRA SESSION OF COi^GRESS, BANK VETOES. DISSOLU- 
 TION OF THE CABINET. 
 
 General Harrison was inaugurated as president of the United States, 
 on the 4th of March. 1841. On no similar occasion, probably, was 
 there ever a greater concourse of people, or a more enthusiastic expres- 
 sion of popular feeling. The inaugural address was one of more than 
 ordinary length. It conta'; s a review of the leading features of our 
 political system, points ou'*t;'he evils which have grown out of the 
 administration of the governm-^nt, and what he considered defects in the 
 constitution. 
 
 General Harrison apprehended " less danger to our institutions from 
 usurpation, by the government, of power not granted by the people, than 
 from the accumulation, in one of the departments, of that which was 
 assigned to others. Limited as are the powers which have been granted, 
 still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism, if concentrated 
 in one of the departments. This danger is greatly heighlened, as it has 
 always been observable, that men are less jealous of encroachments of 
 one department upon another, than upon their own reserved rights." 
 
 One of the defects of the constitution, he considered to be the eligi- 
 bility of an individual to a reelection as president. One mode of cor- 
 rection, however, was in the power of every president — the refusing to 
 accept the office for a second term. 
 
 There was also danger to public liberty " from a misconstruction of 
 that instrument as it regards the powers actually given." He proceeds 
 to apply this remark to the veto. He says : "I can not conceive that, 
 by fair construction, any or either of its provisions would be found to 
 constitute the president a part of the legislative power. It cannot be 
 claimed, from the power to recommen4, since, although enjoined as a 
 duty upon him, it is a privilege which he holds in common with every 
 other citizen. And although there may be something more of confi- 
 dence in the propriety of the measures recommended in the one case than 
 in the other, in the obligations of ultimate decision there can be no dif- 
 ference. In the language of the constitution, * all the legislative powers' 
 which it grants ' are vested in .the congress of the United States.' It 
 would be a solecism in language to say th?t any portion of these is not 
 iDcluded in the whole. 
 
INAUGURATION OF GENERAL HARRISON. 741 
 
 It may be said, indeed, that the constitutioa has given to the execu- 
 tive the power to annul the acts of the legislative body ly refusing to 
 them his assent. So a similar power has necessarily resulted from that 
 instrument to the judiciary ; and yet the judiciary forms no part of the 
 legislature. There is, it is true, this difference between these grants of 
 power : the executive can put his negative upon the acts of the legisla- 
 ture^ for other than want of conformity to the constitution, while the judi- 
 ciary can only declare void those which violate that instrument. But the 
 decision of the judiciary is final in such a case, whereas, in every instance 
 where the veto of the executive is applied, it may be overcome by a vote 
 of two-thirds of both houses of congress. The negative upon the acts 
 of the legislative, by the executive authority, and that in the hands of 
 one individual, would seem to be an inconf^'-uity in our system. Like 
 some others of a similar character, howeve' '"-it appears to be highly expe- 
 dient ; and if used only with the forbeart ace and in the spirit which was 
 intended by its authors, it may be productive of great good, and be 
 found one of the best safeguards to the union." 
 
 A provision so apparently repugnant to the leading democratic prin- 
 ciple, that the majority should govern, could not, he thinks, have been 
 intended by the framers to justify the exercise of this power in the ordi- 
 nary course of legislation. He says : " It is preposterous to suppose 
 that a thought could for a moment have been entertained, that the presi- 
 dent, placed at the capital, in the centre of the country, could better 
 understand the wants and wishes of the people, than their own immediate 
 representatives, who spend a part of every year among them, living with 
 them, often laboring with them, and bound to them by the triple tie of 
 interests, duty, and affection. To assist or control congress, then, in its 
 ordinary legislation, could not, I conceive, have been the motive for con- 
 ferring the veto power on the president. This argument acquires ad- 
 ditional force from the fact of its never having been thus used by the 
 first six presidents, and two of them were members of the convention, 
 one presiding over its deliberations, and the other having a larger share 
 in consummating the labors of that august body than any other person. 
 But if bills were never returned to congress by either of the presidents 
 above referred to, upon the ground of their being inexpedient, or not as 
 well adapted as they might be to the wants of the people, the veto was 
 applied upon that want of conformity to the constitution, or because 
 errors had been committed from a too hasty enactment." 
 
 One object of the veto power, he presumed, was to secure "a just 
 and equitable action of the legislature upon all parts of the union." 
 Congress might favor particular classes of people, or local interests. 
 '* It was proper therefore, to provide some umpire, from whose situation 
 
742 THE AMER.JAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and mode of appointment more independence and freedom from such 
 influences might be expected. Such a one was afforded by theexeoutivo 
 department, constituted by the constitution. A person elected to that 
 high office, having his constituents in every section, state, and sub- 
 division of the union, must consider himself bound by the most solemn 
 sanctions, to guard, protect, and defend, the rights of all, and of every 
 portion, great or small, from the injustice and oppression of the rest. I 
 consider the veto power, therefore, given by the constitution to the exe- 
 cutive of the United States, solely as a conservative power : to be used 
 only, 1st, to protect the constitution from violation; 2dly, the people 
 from the effects of hasty legislation, where their will has been probably 
 disregarded or not well understood; and, 3rdly, to prevent the effects 
 of combinations violative of the rights of the minorities. In referen<?e 
 to the second of these objects, I may observe that I consider it the right 
 and privilege of the people to decide disputed points of the constitution, 
 arising from the general grant of power to congress to carry into effect 
 the powers expressly given. And I believe, with Mr. Madison, ' that 
 repeated recognitions under varied circumstances, in acts of the legisla- 
 tive, executive, and judicial branches of the government, accompanied 
 by indications in different modes of the concurrence of the general will 
 of the nation, afford to the president sufficient authority for his con- 
 sidering such disputed points as settled.'" 
 
 He adverts to the power of the president " as the sole distributor of 
 all the patronage of the government. The ^Tamers of the constitution 
 do not appear to have anticipated at how short a period it would become 
 a formidable instrument to control the free operations of the state gov- 
 ernments." It is not difficult to perceive to whom and to what mea- 
 sures the following extract was intended to apply : " But it is not by 
 the extent of its patronage, alone, that the executive department has be- 
 come dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the 
 appointing power, to bring under its control the whole revenues of the 
 country. The constitution has declared it to be the duty of the presi- 
 dent to see that the laws are executed, and it makes him the commander'^ 
 in-chief of the armies and navy 'of the United States. If the opinion of 
 the most approved writers upon that species of mixed government, which, 
 in modern Europe, is termed 'monarchy, in contradistinction to despotism^ 
 is correct, there was wanting no other addition to the powers of our 
 chief magistrate to stamp a raonarohical character on our government, 
 but the control of the public finances. And to me it appears strange 
 indeed, that any one should doubt that the entire control which the 
 president possesses over the officers who have the custody of the public 
 money, by the powei of removal with or without cause, does, for all 
 
INAUGURATIOX OF GENERAL HARRISON. 743 
 
 miseliievouB purposes at least, virtually subject the treasure also to his 
 disposal. 
 
 " I am not insensible of the great difficulty that exists in devising a 
 proper plan for the safe keeping and disburscuioiit of the public revenues, 
 and I know the importance which has becu attached by men of great 
 abilities and patriotism to the divorce, as it is called, of the treasury 
 from the banking institutions. It is not the divorce which is complain- 
 ed of, but the unhallowed union of the treasury with the executive 
 department which has created such extensive alarm. To this danger to 
 our republican institutions, and that created by the influences given to 
 the executive through the instrumentality of the federal officers, I pro- 
 pose to apply all the remedies which may be at my commaudl It was 
 certainly a great error in the framers of the constitution, not to have 
 made the officer at the head of the treasury department entirely inde- 
 pendent of the executive. He should at least have been removable only 
 upon the demand of the popular branch of the legislature. I have de- 
 termined never to remove a secretary of the treasury without communi- 
 cating all the circumstances attending such removal to both houses of 
 congres.'. * * * Never, with my consent, shall an officer of the 
 people, CO npensated for his services out of their pockets, become the 
 pliant instrt nent of executive will." 
 
 lie also discusses the question of the currency. " The idea of making 
 it exclusively metallic, however well intended, appears to me to be 
 fraught with more fatal co,vi sequences than any other scheme, having no 
 relation to the personal rights of the citizen, that has ever been devised. 
 If any single scheme could produce the effect of arresting, at once, that 
 mutation of condition by which thousands of our most indigent fellow- 
 citizens, by their industry and enterprise, are raised to the possession 
 of wealth, that is one. If there is one measure better calculated than 
 another to produce that state of things so much deprecated by all true 
 republicans, by which the rich are daily adding to their hoards, ;ind the 
 poor are sinking deeper into penury, it is an exclusive metallic currency. 
 Or if there is a process by which the character of the country for gene- 
 rosity and nobleness of feeling may be destroyed by the great increase 
 and necessary toleration of usury, it is an exclusive metallic currency." 
 
 He deprecates the agitation of the question of slavery, and thus 
 inculcates a spirit of forbearance : " Our citizens must be content with 
 the exercise of the powers with which the constitution clothes them. 
 The attempt of those of one state to control the domestic institutions 
 of another, can only result in feelings of distrust and jealousy, and are 
 certain harbingers of disunion, violence, civil war, and the ultimate de- 
 struction of our free institutions. Our confederacy is perfectly illm> 
 
7-14 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 trated by the terms and principles governing a common copartnersMp. 
 There a fund of power is to be exercised under the direction of the joint 
 counsels of the allied members, but that which has been reserved by the 
 individuals is intangible by the common government, or the individual 
 members composing it. To attempt it, finds no support in the princi- 
 ples of our constitution. It should be our constant and earnest endeavor 
 mutually to cultivate a spirit of concord and harmony among the various 
 parts of our confederacy. Experience has abundantly taught us that 
 the agitation by citizens of one part of the union of a subject not con- 
 fided to the general government, but exclusively under the guardianship 
 of the local authorities, is productive of no other consequences than bit- 
 terness, alienation, discord, and injury to the very cause which is intend- 
 ed to be advanced. Of all the great interests which appertain to our 
 countr}', that of union — cordial, confiding, fraternal union — is by far the 
 most important, since it is the only true and sure guarantee of all others." 
 
 Passing over several topics of the address, we copy the following para- 
 graph: " I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn 
 to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence 
 for the Christian religion, and a thorough conviction that sound morals, 
 religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essen- 
 tially connected with all true and lasting happiness ; and .0 that good 
 Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who 
 watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers, and has hitherto 
 preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any 
 other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our 
 beloved country in all future time." 
 
 President Harrison made choice of the following named persons as 
 members of his cabinet : Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, secretary 
 of state; Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, secretary of the treasury; John 
 Bell, of Tennessee, secretary of war: George E. Badger, of North 
 Carolina, secretary of the navy ; Francis Granger, of New York, post- 
 master-general ; John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, attorney-general. 
 
 The state of the currency and finances being such as, in the opinion of the 
 president, required immediate attention, he issued a proclamation on the 
 17th of March, convening congress on the last Monday (31st) of May 
 
 No administration had a more auspicious commencement than that of 
 president Harrison, and no other has had so brief an existence. Before 
 it could be said to have acquired any positive character, it was terminated. 
 After an illness of eight days, the new president died, on the 4tb of 
 April, at the executive mansion in the city of Washington. In jusl 
 one month from the day the executive duties were assumed, they passed 
 unexpectedly into the hands of an accidental successor. Bj virtue of a 
 
INAUGURATION OF MR. TYLER. 745 
 
 provision of the constitution, John Tyler, the vice-president, became the 
 president of the United States. 
 
 The inaugural address of Mr. Tyler was short; the usual opportunity 
 of preparing one not having, under the peculiar circumstances which had 
 brought him into office, been afforded him. In regard to foreign nations, 
 his policy would be both to render and to demand justice. As the ten- 
 dency of human institutions was to concentrate power in the hands of 
 a single man, " a complete separation should take place between the 
 sword and the purse. No matter where or how the public moneys shall 
 be deposited, so long as the president can exert the power of appointing 
 and removing, athis pleasure, the agents selected for their custody, the 
 commander in-chief of the army and navy is in fact the treasurer. A 
 permanent and radical change should therefore be decreed. * * » 
 The right to remove from office, while subjected to no just restraint, is 
 inevitably destined to produce a spirit of crouching servility with the 
 official corps, which, in order to uphold the hand which feeds them, 
 would lead to direct and active interference in the elections, both state 
 and federal, thereby subjecting the course of state legislation to the dic- 
 tation of the chief executive officer, and making the will of that officer 
 absolute and supreme. * • # j -^m remove no incumbent from 
 office who has faithfully and honestly acquitted himself of the duties of 
 his office, except in cases where such officer has been guilty of an active 
 partisanship, or by secret means — the less manly, and therefore the 
 more objectionable — has given his official influence to the purposes of 
 party, thereby bringing the patronage of the government into conflict 
 with the freedom of elections." 
 
 He said, a rigid economy in all public expenditures should be observed, 
 and all sinecures should be abolished. War bfetween the government 
 and the currency should cease. He " regarded existing enactments as 
 unwise and impolitic, and in a high degree oppressive;" and he would 
 " promptly give his sanction to any constitutional measure, which, origi 
 natingin congress, should have for its object the restoration of a sound 
 circulating medium, so essentially necessary to give confidence in all the 
 transactions of life, to secure to industry its -just and adequate rewards, 
 and to reestablish the public prosperity. In deciding upon the adapta- 
 tion of any such measure to the end proposed, as well as its conformity 
 to the constitution," he would " resort to the fathers of the great repub- 
 lican school for advice and instruction, to be drawn from their sage views 
 of our system of government, and the light of their ever glorious ox- 
 ample." 
 
 No change in the cabinet as constituted by Gen. Harrison, was made 
 by Mr. Tvler. 
 
746 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Pursuant to the proclamation of president Harrison, the 27th congress 
 assembled in special session, on the 31st of May, 1841. The principal 
 subjects presented in the message of the president, were those of the 
 revenue, and of a suitable fiscal agent, capable of adding increased facil- 
 ities in its collection and disbursement. The deficit in the available 
 funds in the treasury to meet the wants of the government for the year, 
 v^as estimated at nearly eleven and a half millions ; for which some 
 temporary provision was necessary. He advised congress, in providing 
 for the wants of the treasury, not to alter the compromise act of March, 
 1,833. He reviewed the course of the two preceding administrations 
 in relation to the public moneys, and stated the effect^ of that policy. 
 As to the question whether existing evils would be remedied by a na- 
 tional bank, he expressed no opinion. He considered Gen Jackson to 
 have been sustained by the popular vote in his opposition to the bank. 
 The employment of the state banks as fiscal agents had been abandoned by 
 its early advocates, and, he believed, had also been condemned by pop- 
 ular sentiment. And, lastly, the sub-treasury had been condemned in 
 a manner too plainly indicated to admit of a doubt. He concludes this 
 part of the message as follows : 
 
 " What is now to be regarded as the judgment of the American peo- 
 ple on this whole subject, I have no accurate means of determining but 
 by appealing to their more immediate representatives. The late contest, 
 which terminated in the election of General Harrison to the presidency, 
 was decided on principles well known and openly declared ; and while 
 the sub-treasury received in the result the most decided condemnation, 
 yet no other scheme of finance seemed to have been concurred in. 
 
 " To you, then, who have come more directly from the body of our 
 common constituents, I» submit the entire question, as best qualified to. 
 give a full exposition of their wishes and opinions. I shall be ready to 
 concur with you in the adoption of such system as you may propose, 
 reserving to myself the ultimate power of rejecting any measure which 
 may, in my view of it, conflict with the constitution, or otherwise 
 jeopard the prosperity of the country — a power which I could not part 
 with even if I would, but which I will not believe any act of yours will 
 call into requisition. * * » 
 
 " With the adoption of a financial agency of a satisfactory charac- 
 ter, the hope may be indulged, that the country may once more return 
 to a state of prosperity : measures auxiliary thereto, and in some 
 measure inseparably connected with its success, will doubtless claim the 
 attention of congress. Among such, a distribution of the proceeds of 
 the sales of the public lauds, provided such distributi m does not force 
 upon congress the necessity of imposing upon commerce heavier burdena 
 
EXTRA SESSION OF CONaRESS. 747 
 
 than those contemplated by the act of 1833, would act as an efficient 
 remedial measure, by being brought directly in aid of the states." 
 
 John White, a whig member from Kentucky, was elected speaker of 
 the house of representatives. The election was made viva voce. The 
 vote was for White, 121 ; for John W. Jones, of Virginia, 84 ; scatter- 
 ing 16. There was also a whig majority in the senate. 
 
 Bills were introduced for the repeal of the sub-treasury, and for the 
 incorporation of a " fiscal bank," as the proposed institution was to be 
 called. The former of these bills was ordered to be engrossed in the 
 senate, by a vote of 30 to 16; and was afterward passed, (June 9,) 29 
 to 18. It passed the house on the 9th of August, 134 to 87, and 
 became a law by the approval of the president on the 13th. This act 
 contained a provision making it a felony for any officer charged with the 
 safe-keeping, transfer, or disbursement of the public revenue, to convert 
 it to his own use; or to 'loan it with or without interest; or to make an 
 investment of it in any manner. This, section was designed to prevent 
 defalcations, of which there were so large a number, and for so very 
 large an amount, during the administration of Mr. Van Buren. [Ap- 
 pendix, NoteM.] 
 
 The secretary of the treasury, in his report accompanying the presi- 
 dent's message, recommended the establishment of a bank. The presi- 
 dent having signified to some of his friends a desire that the secretary 
 of the treasury should be called on for a plan, a call to this eSect was 
 moved in both houses : in the house, on the 3d of June ; in the senate, 
 on the 7th. The report of the secretary was accordingly made on the 
 12th. With a view to free the proposed bank from constitutional objec- 
 tion, it was to be incorporated in the District of Columbia, with power 
 to establish branches only with'' the Assent of the states. Its title was 
 to be " The fiscal bank of the United States." 
 
 In the senate, that part of the message relating to the currency and a 
 fiscal agent for the government, was referred to a select committee, of 
 which Mr. Clay was chairman, who, on the 21st of June, reported a 
 bill based on the plan of the secretary. The leading features of the bill 
 were the following : 
 
 To guard against the exercise of any undue government or official 
 influence, or the imputation of any unworthy transactions, the parent 
 bank was prohibited from making discounts or loans, except loans to 
 the government authorized by express law. 
 
 The capital of the bank was to be thirty millions, to be increased, if 
 congress should find it necessary, to fifty millions. 
 
 To guard against undue expansion of the currency, the dividends were 
 limited to seven per cent., the excess, beyond losses and contingencies 
 
748 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to be paid into the treasury. The debts due the bank were not to exceed 
 the amount of the capital stock paid in, and 75 per cent, thereon. It 
 was not to contract debts exceeding twenty-five millions over and above 
 its deposits. A free examination of its books was secured. It prohib- 
 ited the renewal of loans, thus confining the bank to fair business trans- 
 actions. Discounts or loans were to stop whenever its notes in circula- 
 tion should exceed three times the amount of its specie in its vaults. 
 
 To protect the community and the stockholders against mismanage- 
 ment, loans to its officers were forbidden. Voting by proxy was re- 
 stricted. Dealing in stocks, and all commercial operations by the bank, 
 were prohibited. A majority of the whole board of directors was 
 necessary to transact business. Embezzlement of the funds of the bank 
 by any of its officers or agents was made a punishable ofi"ense. 
 
 The bill was under debate in the senate until the 28th of July, when, 
 after some amendment, it passed that body, 2h to 23. It passed the 
 house of representatives on the. 6th of August, 128 to 97. It was 
 retained by the president until the 16th, and returned with a veto. 
 This was not altogether unexpected, as it had been ascertained by pri- 
 vate interviews with him, that he was not satisfied with the bill. 
 
 The following were the objections of the president to the bill: 
 
 It created a national bank to operate per se over the union. The 
 power of congress to incorporate such a bank had been in dispute from 
 the origin of the government. He had for twenty-five years uniformly 
 proclaimed his opinion to be against the exercise of such a power. With 
 a knowledge of his opinions, the people had elected him to the office of 
 vice-president. He had providentially become president ; he was sworn 
 to support the constitution j and it would be criminal to give his sanc- 
 tion to the bill. 
 
 He objected to its being made a bank of discount. The right to 
 discount was not necessary to enable the government to collect and to 
 disburse the public revenue, and incidentally to regulate the commerce 
 and exchanges. Local discounts had nothing to do with this business. 
 To be free from constitutional objection, it must be confined to dealing 
 in exchanges. 
 
 Another objection was, that the assent of the states was not suffi- 
 ciently secured. The directors were required to establish an office of 
 discount and deposit in any state in which two thousand shares should 
 have been subscribed ; and it might be done in any state giving its 
 assent; and such assent was to be presumed, if the state did not at the 
 first session after the establishment of such office, unconditionally declare 
 its assent or dissent. And once established, whatever might prevent a 
 etate from speaking within the time prescribed, its assent was to be 
 
 
BANK VETOES. 749 
 
 implied ; and the branch once established could not be withdrawn but 
 by order of congress. 
 
 The course of the president was regarded by the whigs as inexplicable. 
 Whatever may have been his former views in regard to a bank, they 
 were warranted in inferring that Mr. Ewing's plan was acceptable to 
 him ; and there was no constitutional objection stated in the veto that 
 did not equally apply to Mr. Ewing's bill. Anxious to prevent a rup- 
 ture in the party, as well as to secure to the country the benefits of a 
 bank, its friends resolved to prepare a bill which should insure the con- 
 currence of the president. Not only was the message examined, but a 
 deputation, consisting of Mr, Berrien, of the senate, and Mr. Sergeant, 
 of the house, was sent to learn definitely what kind of a bill he would 
 sanction. A new bill was prepared, reported in the house, and on the 
 23d of August was passed without alteration, 125 to 94. It was 
 passed in the senate on the 3d of September, 27 to 22. This bill also 
 was negatived by the president. The title of the last bill was " An act 
 to provide for the better collection, safe-keeping, and disbursement of 
 the public revenue, by means of a corporation to be styled, the fiscal 
 corporation of the United States." 
 
 The bill having been framed with special reference to the wishes of 
 the president, and after a consultation with him by a majority of the 
 members of his cabinet, the second veto was received with surprise. It 
 was sent to the house on the 9th of September. On the 11th, all the 
 cabinet officers, except Mr. Webster, sent in their resignations. Secre- 
 tary Ewing, in his letter to the president, gives a detailed statement of 
 the conversation at the cabinet meeting referred to, from which it appears 
 that the president had expressed his approval of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Ewing states that the bill he reported to congress had been made 
 to meet the president's approbation. But in consequence of the changes 
 it had undergone, he was not surprised at its being disapproved. On 
 the 16th, the president read to Messrs. Ewing and Bell a portion of the 
 message which he was then preparing ; and, in reply to the remark of 
 Mr. Bell, that the minds of their friends were better prepared for the 
 veto than they had been, he said, there ought to be no difficulty about 
 it ; he had indicated in the message what kind of a bank he would 
 approve, and congress might pass such a one in three days. 
 
 On the 18th, at the cabinet meeting, Messrs. Crittenden and Granger 
 only absent, the president expressed a wish that congress would postpone 
 the subject until the next session. Mr. Badger expressed the belief 
 that congress was ready to take up the bill reported by Mr. Ewing, and 
 pass it at once. The president replied : " Talk not to me of Mr. Ewing's 
 bill; it contains that odious feature of local discounts, which I have 
 
750 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 repudiated in my inessage." Mr. Ewing thought the house, haviug 
 ascertained the president's views, would pass a bill in conformity to 
 them, if they were satisfied that it would answer the purposes of the 
 treasury, and relieve the country. The president expressed a wish that 
 the cabinet would stand by him in this emergency, and procure the pas- 
 eage of a bill which he could approve without inconsistency. Having 
 stated his objection to offices of discount and deposit in the several 
 states, even with their assent, Mr. Ewing said he understood him to be 
 !)f opinion that the bank might establish agencies in the states to deal 
 m bills of exchange without their assent. To which he replied : " Yes, 
 if thej' are foreign bills, or bills drawn in one state and payable in 
 another. That is all the power necessary for transmitting the public 
 funds, and regulating the exchanges and the currency." 
 
 Mr. Webster expressed the opinion that such a charter would answer 
 the purposes of the government, and satisfy the people ; and he pre- 
 ferred it to any other plan proposed, as it did not require the assent of 
 the states to an institution necessary to carry on the fiscal operations of 
 government. He examined it both as to its constitutionality, and its 
 influence on the currency and the exchanges. The president concurred 
 in these views, and desired that such a bill should be introduced, and 
 that it should go into the hands of some of his friends ; and he assented 
 to the selection of Mr. Sergeant. The details of the bill were agreed 
 on ; and to satisfy the president, the word corpwation was substituted 
 for " bank." Mr. Ewing having suggested that this would probably be 
 made the subject of ridicule, the president insisted on the change, saying 
 there was much in a name ; and the institution ought not to be called a 
 bank. At his request, Mr. Webster and Mr. Ewing both called on 
 Messrs. Berrien and Sergeant, with whom the bill was arranged. It 
 was afterward examined by the president, and by him assented to as it 
 finally passed. 
 
 Mr. Ewing farther narrates as follows : " You asked Mr. Webster 
 and myself each to prepare and present you an argument touching the 
 constitutionality of the bill ; and before those arguments could be pre- 
 pared and read by you, you declared, as I heard and believe, to gentle- 
 men, members of the house, that you would cut oflF your right hand 
 rather than approve it. After this new resolution was taken, you asked 
 and earnestly urged the members of your cabinet to postpone the bill ; 
 but you would neither give yourself, nor sufi"er them to give, any assu- 
 rance of your future course, in case of such postponement. By some 
 of us, and I was myself one, the effort was made to gratify your wishes, 
 in the only way in which it could be done with propriety ; that is, by 
 obtaining the general concurrence of the whig members of the two 
 
BANK VETOES. 751 
 
 houses in the postponement. It failed, as I have reason to believe, 
 because you would give no assurance that the delay was not sought as a 
 means and occasion for hostile movements. During this season of deep 
 feeling and earnest exertion upon our part, while we were zealously 
 devoting our talents and influence to serve and to sustain you, the very 
 secrets of our cabinet councils made their appearance in an infamous 
 paper, printed in a neighboring city, the columns of which were daily 
 charged with flattery of yourself and foul abuse of your cabinet. 
 All this I bore; for I felt that my services, so long as they could avail, 
 were due to the nation — to that great and magnanimous people whose 
 sufi'rages elevated your predecessor to Jhe station which you now fill, and 
 whose united voices approved his act when he summoned us around him, 
 to be his counsellors. I felt that what was due to his memory, to the 
 injunctions which he left us in his last dying words, and to the people, 
 whose servants we were, had not all been performed until every means 
 was tried, and every hope had failed of carrying out the true princi- 
 ples upon which the mighty movement was founded that elevated him 
 and you to power. 
 
 " This bill, framed and fashioned according to your own suggestions, 
 in the initiation of which I and another member of your cabinfet were 
 made by you the agents and negotiators, was passed by large majorities 
 through the two houses of congress, and sent to you, and you rejected 
 it. Important as was the part which I had taken, at your request, in the 
 origination of this bill, and deeply as I was committed for your action 
 upon it, you never consulted me on the subject of the veto message 
 You did not even refer to it in conversation, and the first notice I ha^. 
 of its contents was derived from rumor. 
 
 " And to me, at least, you have done nothing to wipe away the per- 
 sonal indignity arising out of the act. I gathered, it is true, from your 
 conversation, shortly after the bill had passed the house, that you had a 
 strong purpose to reject it; but nothing was said like softening or 
 apology to me, either in reference to myself or to those with whom I had 
 communicated at your request, and who had acted themselves and 
 induced the two houses to act upon the faith of that communication. 
 And, strange as it may seem, the veto message attacks in an especial 
 manner the very provisions which were inserted at your request ; and 
 even the name of the corporation, which was not only agreed to by you, 
 but especially changed to meet your expressed wishes, is made the sub- 
 ject of your criticisms. # * * 
 
 "The subject of a bank is not new to you; it is more than twenty 
 years that you have made it an objeot of consideration and of study, 
 especially in its connection with the constitutional powers of the genera] 
 
752 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 
 
 government. You, therefore, could not l>e, and you were not, taken un- 
 prepared on this question. The bill which I reported to congress, with 
 your approbation, at the commeBcement of the session, had the clausp 
 relating to agencies, and the power to deal in exchanges, as strongly 
 developed, as the one you have now rejected, and equally without the 
 assent of the states. You referred specially and with approbation to 
 that clause, many days after, in a conversation, held in the department 
 of state. You sanctioned it in this particular bill as detailed above. 
 And no doubt was thrown out on the subject by you, in my heanng, or 
 within my knowledge, until the letter of Mr. Botts came to your hands. 
 Soon after the reading of that letter, you threw out strong iutimationa 
 that you would veto the bill if it were not postponed. That letter I did 
 and do most unequivocally condemn, but it did not affect the constitu- 
 tionality of the bill, or justify you in rejecting it on that ground." 
 
 The statements of Mr. Ewing were confirmed by letters from Mr. 
 Badger and Mr. Bell, the secretaries of the navy and of war, to the 
 editors of the National Intelligencer. Mr. Bell is more full than Mr. 
 Ewing, upon some of the topics discussed at the cabinet meeting alluded 
 to. Mr. Clay had expressed the opinion — in which the members of the 
 cabinet probably concurred — that the assent or dissent of the states to 
 the establishment of branches in them, did not affect the question of the 
 constitutionality of a national bank. Mr. Tyler, however, seemed to 
 think otherwise ; but he agreed with them that if that objection could 
 be avoided, it was highly desirable that the institution, being an agent 
 of the general government, should be independent of the will of the 
 states. And he desired the opinion of his cabinet upon the question, 
 whether, without the power of discount and deposit, the distinction be- 
 tween the old bank and the one proposed was not sufficient to make a 
 difference as to the constitutional question, and to render his approval 
 of the latter consistent with his former expressed opinions on the sub- 
 ject of a national bank. He was apparently satisfied, that a bank 
 restricted in its dealings to bills of exchange, was not liable to the con- 
 stitutional objection. The privilege of issuing its own notes, of deal- 
 ing in exchanges, and of receiving moneys on deposit, all appeared 
 to have immediate reference to, or connection with, the power given in 
 the constitution over commerce between the states, over the currency, 
 and the necessary fiscal operations of the government in the collection, 
 eafe-keeping, and disbursement of the public revenue. 
 
 After all the material points had been disposed of to the satisfaction 
 of all present, he said he would not sanction a bank even in the form 
 agreed on, if he supposed it would at some future session be changed 
 into a bank of discount, and asked his cabinet if they would stand by 
 
DISSOLUTION OF THE CABINET. 753 
 
 him, and op^jose such attempt during his administration. Mr. Webster 
 and others gave him all proper assurances on this point. 
 
 The -etter to which allusion is made by Mr. Ewing, and which was 
 presumed to have had great influence in causing the veto, was written 
 by John M. Botts, representative of the Richmond district of Virginia, 
 addressed to " Coffeehouse, Richmond," postmarked " Washington, 
 16th August," and franked by Mr. Botts. The following is a copy of 
 the letter : 
 
 "August 16, 1841. 
 
 " Dear Sir : The president has finally resolved to veto the bank bill. 
 It will be sent in to-day at 12 o'clock. It is impossible to tell precisely 
 on what ground it will be placed. He has turned and twisted, and 
 changed his ground so often in his conversations, that it is difficult to 
 conjecture which of the absurdities he will rest his veto upon. 
 
 " In the last conversation reported, he said his only objection was to 
 that provision which presumed the assent of the states when no opinion 
 was expressed, and if that was struck out, he would sign the bill. He 
 had no objection to the location of branches by the directors, in the 
 absence of dissent expressed, but whenever it was expressed, the power 
 to discount promissory notes must cease, although the agency might con- 
 tinue, for the purchase and sale of foreign exchange. However, you 
 will see the message. 
 
 " Our Captain Tyler is making a desperate eflFort to set himself up 
 with the loco focos, but he'll be headed yet, and I regret to say, it will 
 end badly for him. — He will be an object of execration with both parties 
 with the one, for vetoing our bill, which was bad enough — with the other, 
 for signing a worse one; but he is hai'dly entitled to sympathy. He 
 has refused to listen to the admonition and entreaties of his best friends, 
 and looked only to the whisperings of ambitious and designing mischief- 
 makers who have collected around him. 
 
 " The veto will be received without a word, laid off the table, and 
 ordered to be printed. To-night we must and will settle matters, as 
 quietly as possible, but they must be settled. 
 
 " Yours, &o., Jno. M. Botts. 
 
 " You'll get a bank bill, I think, but one that will serve only to fasten 
 him, and to which no stock will be subscribed ; and when he finds out 
 that he is not wiser in banking than all the rest of the world, we may 
 get a better. The excitement here is tremendous, but it will be smoth- 
 ered for the present." 
 
 Whether the course of Mr. Webster in remaining in the cabinet, or 
 that of the resigning members, evinced the greater wisdom, is a question 
 
 48 
 
754 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 upon which there was a difference of opinion. Considered simply as a 
 matter of expediency, the majority of the cabinet, it is believed, com- 
 mitted an error. It was easy to foresee the consequences of the course 
 they adopted — the disruption and eventual prostration of the whig party. 
 Mr. Webster, writing to a friend on the day of the resignations, says ; 
 "I could not partake in this movement. It is supposed to be justified, 
 I presume, by the differences which have arisen between the president 
 and congress, upon the means of establishing a proper fiscal agency, and 
 restoring a sound state of the currency ; and collateral matters, growing 
 out of these differences. I regret these differences as deeply as any man ; 
 but I have not been able to see in what manner the resignation of the 
 cabinet was likely either to remove or mitigate the evils produced by 
 them. On the contrary, my only reliance for a remedy for those evils 
 has been, and is, on the union, conciliation and perseverance of the whole 
 whig party, and I by no means despair of seeing yet accomplished, by 
 these means, all that we desire. It may render us more patient under 
 disappointment in regard to one measure, to recollect, as is justly stated 
 by the president in his last message, how .great a number of important 
 measures had been already successfully carried through. I hardly know 
 when such a mass of business has been despatched in a single session of 
 congress. 
 
 " The annual winter session, is now near at hand ; the same congress is 
 again soon to assemble, and feeling as deeply as I ever did, the indis- 
 pensable necessity of some suitable provision for the keeping of the 
 public money, for aid to the operations of the treasury, and to the high 
 public interests of currency and exchange, I am not in haste to be- 
 lieve that the party, which has now the predominance, will not, in all 
 these respects, yet fulfill the expectations of the country. If it shall 
 not, then our condition is forlorn indeed. But for one, I will not give 
 up the hope." 
 
 The vacancils in the cabinet were filled by the appointment of Walter 
 Forward, of Pennsylvania, secretary of the treasury ; John M'Lean, of 
 Ohio, secretary of war ; Abel P. Upshur, secretary of the navy ; Charles 
 A. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, postmaster-general ; Hugh S. Legar^, of 
 South Carolina, attorney-general. Judge M'Lean, choosing to remain 
 in the supreme court, declined the ofiice of secretary of war ; and John 
 C. Spencer, of New York, was in October appointed to that office. 
 
 On the 1 1 th of September, a meeting of whig members of congress wae 
 held at Washington. Hon. Nathan F. Dixon, of Rhode Island, on the 
 part of the senate, and Hon. Jeremiah Morrow, of Ohio, on the part of 
 the house, were called to the chair ; and K. W. Rayuer, of North Caro- 
 lina, Christopher Morgan, of New York, and R. W. Thompson, of In- 
 
MR TYLER AND THE WHIG PARTY. 755 
 
 diana, were appointed secretaries. A committee of three on the part of 
 the senate, and five on the part of the house, was appointed to prepare 
 an address to the people of the United States, to be presented at an ad- 
 journed meeting on Monday the 13th. The senators appointed were 
 Messrs. Berrien, of Georgia, Tallmadge of New York, and Smith, of 
 Indiana ; the representatives, Messrs. Everett, of Vermont, Mason, of 
 Ohio, Kennedy, of Maryland, John C. Clark, of New York, and Ray- 
 ner, of North Carolina. 
 
 At the meeting on the 13th, Mr. Kennedy reported an address, which 
 was unanimously adopted; and 20,000 copies of the same were ordered 
 printed. The address adverted to the reforms promised by the whigs ; 
 in restraining the executive power and patronage ; in the wholesome 
 regulation of the currency ; and in the establishment of an economical 
 administration of the finances. It reviewed what they had done, and 
 the position into which the party had been thrown by the president. The 
 duties which remained for them to do, were. First, To effect a reduction 
 of the executive power, by a farther limitation of the veto ; by restrict- 
 ing the presidential office to a single term ; by separating the purse from 
 the sword, placing the appointment of the secretary of the treasury in 
 congress ; and by restricting the power of dismissal from office. Sec-ond, 
 The establishment of a fiscal agent competent to collect, keep, and disburse 
 the public moneys, to restore the currency, and to equalize exchanges. 
 Third, The introduction of economy in the administration, and the dis- 
 continuance of all sinecures and useless offices. 
 
 To effect these objects, the address enjoined it upon the party to 
 choose no members of congress who would not aid in their accomplish- 
 ment ; and to inscribe upon their flag, " The will of the nation uucon 
 trolled by the will of one man : one presidential term, a frugal govern- 
 ment, and no sub-treasury, open or covert, in substance or in fact : no 
 government bank, but an institution capable of guarding the people'g 
 treasure, and administering to the people's wants." 
 
 The course pursued by Mr. Tyler was almost universally disapproved 
 by the whig party. There were many, however, who deeply regretted 
 the course taken bj congress, as in their opinion unwise and inexpedient. 
 Although not doubting the utility of a bank, they believed public senti- 
 ment had been too recently expressed against the late bank to render the 
 reestablishment of a new one a popular measure. The attempt was con- 
 sidered as at least premature. They belie»ved also that forbearance 
 toward the president, even under abuse, was the proper course ; and 
 that a quarrel might and ought to have been by all means avoided ; 
 that, by the exercise of a more conciliatory spirit, and suitable efforts, 
 the cooperation of the president might have been secured in favor of the 
 leading measures proposed by the whig congress. 
 
756 THE AMEPaCAN STATESMAN. 
 
 As the chief object of the extra session had been to consider the sub- 
 jects of the finances and the currency, congress adjourned immediately 
 after the bank question was determined. Several laws, however, of soma 
 importance had been previously passed ; one of which was a general 
 bankrupt law, for which it was supposed a necessity had been created by 
 the numerous failures that had been produced by the recent revulsion in 
 the business of the country 
 
 An act was also passed to distribute among the states the proceeds of the 
 sales of the public lands — a measure which had for so many years been 
 attempted without success. The distribution, however, was subject to 
 the condition, that the duties established by the compromise tariff of 
 1833, were not to be raised. If at any time congress should increase 
 those duties, distribution was to be suspended until the cause of the sus- 
 pension should cease. The distribution was to be made semi-annually, 
 after the 1st of January, 1842. 
 
 An act was also passed, authorizing a loan of twelve millicns of 
 dollars 
 
 CHAPTER LXIl. 
 
 PETITION FOR A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. ATTEMPT TO CENSURE Mlt. 
 
 ADAMS. CENSURE OF MR. GIDDINGS. 
 
 On the 21st of January, 1842, Mr. Adams presented a petition pur- 
 porting to be from a number of respectable citizens of Georgia, complain- 
 ing, as a grievance to them, that he had been appointed chairman of the 
 committee on foreign relations, and calling upon the house to remedy the 
 grievance. Claiming the right to defend himself against these petitioners, 
 he moved the reference of the petition to the committee ^n foreign 
 affairs, with instructions to choose a chairman if they should think 
 proper. 
 
 Mr. Habersham, of Georgia, said he had seen the paper, and had told 
 the gentleman from Massachusetts, that he believed the petition to be a 
 hoax. The subject was laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Adams, the next day, again claimed, as a matter of privilege, tho 
 right of defending himself from the charges made in the petition. The 
 speaker being of opinion that the motion to lay on the table had carried 
 with it every thing connected with the petition, a motion was made and 
 
PETITION FOR A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. 757 
 
 adopted to reconsider tlie vote on that motion. Mr. A., in his remarks, 
 said the whole slave-trading representation of the house was against him, 
 with one exception. If it had been secret before, it was now disclosed 
 by a gentleman, late a senator from Alabama, in a letter to his constitu- 
 ents, [a portion of which Mr. A. here read.] The executive journal of 
 the extra session showed, that appointments of abolitionists had been 
 confirmed by votes of southern wuigs, while northern democrats had 
 voted against them. 
 
 Mr. Smith, of Virginia, rose to a point of order. The house had de- 
 cided that the gentleman from Massachusetts should have the privilege 
 of defending himself against the charge of monomania, and he asked if 
 he was doing it. [Cries of " Yes ! yes !" and also of " No, he is estab- 
 lishing the fact."] 
 
 Mr. Adams read farther from the letter, which stated that a coalition 
 had been formed between southern whig leaders and the abolitionists, as 
 well as the federalists of the north ; and that this extraordinary alliance 
 was not less indispensable for the prosperity of the union, than for the 
 safety of the south. This letter contained precisely the same charge in 
 substance against those whom it called the abolitionists of the north, as 
 this petition charged against him. He had other evidence of the same 
 spirit, in a letter from a place called Accomac, (Mr. Wise's residence.) 
 [He then read portions of the letter relative to complaints which had been 
 made against the " corporal's guard," the friends 2}ar excellence of the 
 president, for not supporting any of the whig measures proposed at the 
 extra session ; in which letter the question was asked, what measures 
 were meant — whether it was the abolition movement to keep the house 
 of representatives disorganized until the 21st rule (prohibiting the recep- 
 tion of anti-slavery petitions) was suspended or abolished ; or whether it 
 related to the constitution of committees ; so that, if the question of the 
 black republic of Hayti was referred, it went to a majority of non-slave- 
 holders.] What committee was that ? asked Mr. Adams. It was this 
 identical committee : and the speaker was charged with a violation of his 
 duty in its appointment. The feelings of the writer were the same as 
 those expressed in this memorial. It was not an individual or personal 
 feeling, but it was slaveholding, slavetrading, slavebreeding ; and the 
 complaint was that the majority of the committee were not slaveholders. 
 Mr. Adams had not finished reading from the letter, when the ques' 
 tion of order was raised^ the speech arrested, and the house adjourned. 
 
 On the 24th of January, 1842, Mr. Adams presented a petition, 
 signed by forty-six citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts, for the adop- 
 tion of measures peaceably to dissolve the union, assigning as one of the 
 reasons, the inequality of benefits conferred upon the different sections 
 
II 
 
 758 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 one section being annually drained to sustain the views and course of 
 another without adequate return. He moved its reference to a select 
 committee, with instructions to report an answer, showing the reasons 
 why the prayer should not be granted. 
 
 Sundry questions and motions from southern members followed in 
 rapid succession. Was it in order to move to burn the petition ? asked 
 one. A motion was made by another to lay on the table and print, that 
 the country might understand its character. Was it in order, asked Mr. 
 Wise, to move to censure any member presenting such a petition ? By 
 another the question of reception was raised — such a petition •should not 
 be allowed to come within the walls of the house. Another thought it 
 ought not to be thus lightly passed over. Mr. Gilmer, of Virginia, 
 submitted as a question of privilege, the following: '■'■Resolved, That, 
 in presenting to the consideration of this house a petition for the disso- 
 lution of the union, the member from Massachusetts has justly incurred 
 the censure of this house." The resolution was objected to as out of 
 order. The speaker decided that, being a question of privilege, it was 
 in order. 
 
 Mr. Adams said he hoped the resolution would be received and de- 
 bated, desiring the privilege of again addressing the house in his own 
 defense, especially ao tne gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Gilmer) had 
 thought proper to play second fiddle to his colleague from Accomac, 
 (Mr. Wise.) Mr. Gilmer said he played second fiddle to no man. He 
 was no fiddler, (cries of " order, order,") but was endeavoring to pre- 
 vent the music of him who, 
 
 " In the space of one revolving moon, 
 Was statesman, poet, fiddler, and bufibon." 
 
 The next day, a motion to lay Mr. Gilmer's resolution on the table 
 was negatived, 94 to 112, Mr. Adams himself voting in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky, then offered as a substitute for Mr. 
 Gilmer's resolution, a preamble and two resolutions, declaring a propo- 
 sition to the representatives of the people to dissolve the constitution 
 which they were sworn to support, to be " a high breach of privilege, 
 a contempt ofi"ered to the house, a direct proposition to each member to 
 commit perjury, and involving necessarily in its consequences the des- 
 truction of our country, and the crime of high treason;" that Mr. 
 Adams, in presenting the petition, had "offered the deepest indignity to 
 the ho'ase, and insult to the people," and would, if " uurebuked and un- 
 punished, have disgraced his country in the eyes of the world." It was 
 farther resolved, that this insult, the first of the kind ever offered, 
 deserved expulsion ; but, as an act of grace and mercy, they would only 
 inflict upon him " their severest censure, for the maintenance of thei* 
 
ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MR. ADAMS. 750 
 
 own purity, and dignity ; and for the rest, they turn him over to his 
 own conscience and the indignation of all true American citizens." 
 
 A debate then ensued which continued, with little intermission, until 
 the 7th of February. The nature of the subject of the resolutions, 
 the serious charges which they contained, and the individual accused, 
 as well as certain incidental topics which it embraced, imparted to thia 
 debate a surpassing interest throughout the country. For several days 
 Mr. Marshall, Mr. Wise, and Mr. Adams, were the chief participators. 
 Mr. Wise undertook to show, in the course of his speeches, that there 
 was a combination of pretended philanthropists of Great Britain and 
 the abolitionists of this country to overthrow slavery in the southern 
 states; and he charged Mr. Adams with being an ally of British emis- 
 saries in the furtherance of this object. Mr. Wise in support of his 
 opinion as to the existence of an "alien English influence " in this coun- 
 try, cooperating with that of American abolitionists, read from letters 
 and papers printed in both countries. A part of the general plan was 
 to bring the elective franchise to bear upon the question ; another was 
 to memorialize congress. 
 
 In relation to the plan of memorializing, which had been " thoroughly 
 digested," he said : " The directions were very minute, going down even 
 to the folding and indorsing of the forme of memorials, and directing 
 them to be forwarded to the Hon. Seth M. Gates, the agent of the aboli- 
 tionists on the floor of congress. Here, Mt. W. said, was a deliberately 
 formed plan of operation, with a member of the house for their oro-an 
 and agent, and all the forms of petition put into the people's mouths, 
 ready cooked and concocted beforehand. Many of them were, word for 
 word, such petitions as had been already presented to that house ; one, 
 indeed, the petition for the dissolution of the union, did not appear among 
 them, but every movement was planned which led to that result. The 
 entire train was carefully and skillfully laid ; the mine was already sunk 
 beneath the walls of the constitution : and the incendiary stood ready 
 with his torch prepared to blow the union into ten thousand fragments." 
 Mr. W. referred to Washington's farewell address, which warned us of 
 the ruinous consequences of arraying the north against the south — the 
 cast against the west. 
 
 Mr. Wise said he should at the proper time ask to be excused from 
 voting for the resolution of censure. Personally, he had not censured 
 him ; politically he had. He said : " The gentleman was honored, tune 
 honored, hoary — but he could not add, with wisdom. The gentleman 
 had immense power, the power of station, the power of fame, the power 
 of age, the power of eloquence, the power of the pen ; and any man was 
 greatly mistaken who should say or think, that the gentleman was mao. 
 
760 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The gentleman might say with an apostle, ' I am not mad mo&t noble 
 Festus,' though he could not add, ' but speak forth the words of truth 
 and soberness ' All who knew him would say he was not mad. In a 
 political, not in a personal sense, Mr. W. would say, and with entire 
 sincerity of heart, the gentleman was far more wicked than weak. A 
 mischief might be done by him. Mr. W. believed he was disposed to 
 do it, and would wield his immense intellectual, moral, and political power 
 to effect it. That mischief was the dissolution of this union, and the 
 agent of that dissolution, should it ever be effected, Mr. W. did in his 
 heart believe, would be the gentleman from Massachusetts. Governed 
 by his reputation, by his habits, by all considerations arising from 
 the belief of personal wrongs, his passions were roused, and his resent- 
 ment and his vengeance would be wreaked on the objects of his hatred, 
 if he could reach them. If this state of mind were monomania, then it 
 was hereditary ; no matter what might be its cause, it was dangerous — 
 deadly. The gentleman was astute in design, obstinate and zealous in 
 power, and terrible in action, and an instrument well fitted to dissolve 
 the union. 
 
 Mr. Adams questioned the right of the house to entertain the resolu- 
 tions of Mr. Marshall, because they charged him with crimes of which 
 the house had no jurisdiction ; and because, if it entertained the juris- 
 diction, it deprived him of rights secured to him by the constitution. All 
 that the house could try him for, was a contempt of the house, under 
 the resolution of Mr. Gilmer. "But," said Mr. A., " there was a trial 
 in this house, about four or five years ago, of a member of the house for 
 crimes. [Mr. Wise had had some connection with the duel between Messrs. 
 Graves and Cilley, in which the latter was killed.] There came into 
 this house then a man with his hands and face dripping with the blood 
 of murder, the blotches of which were yet hanging upon him ; and the 
 question was put, upon the proposition of those very democrats to whom 
 he has this day rendered the tribute and homage of his thanks, that he 
 should be tried by this house for that crime, the crime of murder. * * * 
 I opposed the trial of that crime by this house. • # * j -^^as willing 
 that the parties to that atrocious crime shoiild be sent to their 
 natural judges, to have an impartial trial ; . . . and it is very probable 
 that /saved that blood-stained man from the censure of the house at 
 that time." 
 
 Mr. Wise, interrupting Mr. Adams, inquired of the speaker whether 
 his character or conduct was involved in the issue before the house, and 
 whether it was in order to charge him with the crime of murder; a 
 charge made by a man who had at the time defended him from the 
 charge on that floor ; and who had, as he was informed by one of Mr. 
 
ATTEMPT TO CENSUKE MR. ADAMS. 761 
 
 A's. own colleagues, defended him before thousands of people in Massa 
 chusetts. 
 
 Mr. Adams said he never had defended the man on the merits of the 
 case ; and never did believe but what he was the guilty man, and that 
 the man who pulled the trigger was but an instrument in his hands. lie 
 repeated, that the house had no power to try and punish him for the 
 crimes charged against him. The constitution provides, that " in all 
 criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and 
 public trial by an impartial jury." The house was not an impartial tri- 
 bunal. " I wish," said Mr. A., " to speak of the slaveholders of this 
 house and of the union with respect. There are thre<. classes of persons 
 included in the slave interest as representatives here. As to the slave- 
 holder, I have nothing to say against him, except that if I am to be 
 tried by him, I shall not have an impartial trial. I challenge him for 
 partiality — for pre-adjudication upon this question, as a question of con- 
 tempt, which I repeat, is the only charge on which I can be made to 
 answer here. I say he is not impartial. Every slaveholder has not only 
 an interest, but the most sordid of all interests — a personal, pecuniary 
 interest — which will govern him. I come from a portion of the country 
 where slavery is known only by name ; I come from a soil that bears not 
 the foot of a slave upon it. I represent here the descendants of Bed- 
 ford, and Winslow, and Carver, and Alden — the first who alighted on 
 the rock of Plymouth. And am I, the representative of the descendants 
 of these men — of the free people of the state of Massachusetts, that bears 
 not a slave upon it — am I to come here and be tried for high treason be- 
 cause I presented a petition — a petition — to this house, and because the 
 fancy or imagination of the gentleman from Kentucky supposes that 
 there was anti-slavery or the abolition of slavery in it? The gentleman 
 charges me with subornation of perjury and of high treason, and he calls 
 upon this house, as a matter of mercy and grace, not to expel me for 
 these crimes, but to inflict upon me the severest censure they can ; and 
 to decide upon that, there are one hundred members of this house who 
 are slaveholders. Is any one of them impartial ? No. I trust they 
 will not consider themselves as impartial men ; I trust that many of 
 them will have those qualms of conscience which the gentleman from 
 Accomac (Mr. Wise) assigns as his reason for being excused, and that 
 they will not vote upon a question on which their personal, pecuniary, 
 and most sordid interests are at stake." 
 
 Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, also maintained that the house was not 
 the proper tribunal before which Mr. A., if guilty of the crimes alleged 
 ought to be arraigned. He defended the right of petition. He believed 
 where there was no power to graat the prayer of the petitioners, there 
 
762 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 was no right to petition. But lie had voted against the 21st rule, because 
 by that petitioners were excluded who had a right to be heard As a 
 slaveholder, he had differed from his brethren in reference to the whole 
 gag proceeding. In reference to all gag rules, he said, away with them. 
 Let those who wish discuss this topic as much as they pleased. He 
 attempted to show that the proceeding against Mr. Adams was to pun- 
 ish him for an imputed motive. What had he been guilty of? Had he 
 sanctioned the petition ? How could they judge his motive ? Nor had 
 he violated the rules of order. He had simply presented a petition ; 
 and they were attempting to punish him for the manner in which he had 
 considered it his duty to represent a portion of the people of Massachu- 
 setts. He told gentlemen to beware how they put it into the power of 
 the gentleman from Massachusetts to go home and tell his constituents 
 that he was a martyr to the right of petition. 
 
 Mr. Botts also defended Mr. Adams. He did not approve all that 
 he had said on that floor. But he would not wound the feelings of that 
 venerable gentleman. He believed he- had expressed many sentiments 
 in the irritability of the weight of years that hung on him, which his 
 own calm reflection would condemn. There was enough passing under 
 his immediate observation to provoke the gentleman, and if he might 
 use the expression, to " bedevil " him. But what was the offense with 
 which he stood charged? He had presented a petition; and he had 
 asked permission to present a remonstrance, and appeal to the petition- 
 ers against the folly of their course. This was not the first time the 
 house nad heard of the dissolution of the union. A gentleman from 
 South Carolina, now a member of this body, (Mr. Rhett,) had three or 
 four vears ago actually drawn up a resolution, asking congress to appoint 
 a committee, to consist of one member from each state, to devise measures 
 for the dissolution of the union. [This called out Mr. Rhett in expla- 
 nation. It was not his wish to dissolve the union; he intended it as an 
 amendment to a motion to refer with instructions to report a bill for 
 abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. He expected it to be 
 laid on the table with the original motion. His design was to place 
 before congress and the people what he believed to be the true issue 
 upon this great and vital question. The resolution proposed a commit- 
 tee of two from each state.] It was, said Mr. Botts, not only the doc- 
 trine of the gentleman, but of the majority of his state. They held 
 that a state had a right to secede from the union. If cne state had 
 such right, others had. 
 
 Mr. B. considered this affair a great farce — a storm in a tea-pot. 
 Talk of censuring the gentleman from Massachusetts ! Look at the 
 other end of this avenue. A man at the head cf the right arm of the 
 
ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MR. ADAMS. 763 
 
 defense of this nation — the secretary of the navy, (Mr. Upshur,) the last 
 time he had had conversation with him, was an open, avowed advocate 
 of the immediate dissolution of the union. [Mr. Wise : I deny it.] Mr. 
 B. repeated the declaration, and said, when the secretary denied it, he 
 would undertake to prove his statement. If there were to be any charges 
 for high treason, the secretary of the navy should be put on his trial. 
 
 Mr. Arnold, of Tennessee, spoke at length in opposition to the reso- 
 lutions, and in defense of Mr. Adams. He could have no possible 
 motive for desiring the dissolution of the union. He had presented 
 this petition, because he wanted, as the last and most glorious act of a 
 long life, to send forth, in these times of general confusion and political 
 degeneracy, a paper with healing in its wings — a report adverse to the 
 prayer of the petition, and which should state, in a luminous and con- 
 vincing manner, all the strong arguments in favor of union. He would 
 like to see such a paper from the able pen of that venerable patriot. It 
 would dissipate all doubts as to the purity and patriotism of its author. 
 " But," continued Mr. Arnold, " for the crime of presenting a petition 
 with such an object in view, the house was to put on record against him 
 a charge of aiding in high treason, and in suborning the members of 
 that house to the commission of perjury ; and he was to consider it as 
 a great favor that the house did not expel him, but contented itself 
 with giving him a reprimand. Mr. A. should like to witness the spec- 
 tacle. He should like to see that gentleman standing at the bar, with 
 his palsied hand, his bare head, and whitened locks, to be rebuked by 
 the speaker, comparatively a mere boy, after having been visited with 
 the vituperation and vindictive persecution of another, as much a boy 
 in comparison. What a spectacle ! Mr. A. turned from the thought 
 with loathing and disgust, and so would the nation. So far from help- 
 ing the cause of the south, it would kindle up against her a blaze high 
 as the very heavens. He was against it — utterly and totally against it 
 — from principle and from policy too." 
 
 Mr. Saltonstall, of Massachusetts, gave a history of the rise and 
 progress of the idea of dissolving the union, beginning with the various 
 threats from the southern portion of the union — from those opposed to 
 a tariff, from the nullification party, &c. This petition was frv;m his 
 own native town, and he felt much surprised and distressed at the cir- 
 cumstance. He then went into a vigorous and eloquent defense of his 
 venerable colleague from the numerous and violent charges made against 
 him in the long speech of Mr. Wise. 
 
 Several of the last days of the debate were nominally occupied by 
 Mr. Adams in his defense. It would seem, however, from the proceed- 
 ings, that quite as much time was taken up by others as himself. There 
 
764 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 were frequent interruptions, explanations, motions, and incidental ques- 
 tions, which serv^ed to protract the defense. 
 
 Mr. Adams called attention to the combination formed against him. 
 He spoke first of the " coalition" between Mr. Gilmer and Mr. Mar- 
 shall, both of whom had introduced resolutions of accusation against 
 him ; so that if acquitted on the charge of the latter, he would have to 
 defend himself against those of the former. This coalition was pointed 
 against one single individual, a member of this house, charged with 
 half a dozen capital crimes ; and this house was called upon to censure 
 him because he had presented a petition. In what part of the consti- 
 tution was this declared a crime ? He would like the gentleman from 
 Kentucky to look into his deep researches of law, to point out the law 
 which made it a crime to present a petition, lead to what it might. In 
 the first place, the gentleman had made the law ; he had then gone on 
 and accused an associate member of violating it — to sit as a judge upon 
 him, and then turn executioner. And to crown all, he had declared 
 that it was a great mercy and favor that the punishment was not much 
 more severe ! The report of the speech proceeds as follows : 
 
 " He had spoken of the extraordinary position of the gentleman from 
 Kentucky combined with the chief of the Tyler party, heretofore called 
 the corporal's guard, but who, Mr. A. should think, was the field-mar- 
 shal of the armies of the present administration. When he saw that 
 combination in the first instance, he could not help asking, What is 
 this? Misery, it was said, makes strange bed-fellows. And he thought 
 to himself, was the gentleman from Kentucky in such misery that he 
 was compelled to seek such companions? (Laughter.) Then came the 
 Georgia whigs, who, after endeavoring to produce an impression unfavor- 
 able to him for having presented a petition, on the ground that it was a 
 hoax, had all gone on voting against him, for the purpose of bringing 
 censure upon him. 
 
 " The third part of this combination was a large portion of the Vir- 
 ginia whigs, who were neither Tylerites nor Keutuckians. And then, the 
 great democracy of the free states — the auxiliaries of the " peculiar insti- 
 tution." (Laughter.) This was a combination of parties he was called 
 to meet in order to maintain his right as a member of this house, to pre- 
 sent petitions complaining of grievances. A very strange composi- 
 tion ! * * * 
 
 " He, Mr. A., hoped his southern confederates would lay it to their 
 hearts, that they should have no more such resolutions as were prepared 
 by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Rhett,) and kept in his '' 
 drawer to be presented to this house. He should have hoped that, out ^ 
 of mere sympathy, the gentleman, if he had thought him, (Mr. A.,) 
 
ATTEMPT TO CENSURE MR. ADAMS. 765 
 
 guilty of the crime of perjury or high tre;i80u, as he would be, necessar- 
 ily included in ii, would have given him, (Mr. A.,) the benefit of his vote 
 on this occasion. (A laugh.) But no, he was a part of the party. He 
 now voted that he (Mr. A.) was guilty of subornation of perjury or high 
 treason for presenting a petition exactly agreeing with his views ! (A 
 laugh.) That gentleman and the rest of the representatives from South 
 Carolina — that land of nullification, against whom Andrew Jackson him- 
 self was reduced to the necessity of issuing a proclamation threatening 
 them with the second section if they continued in it — here was the whole 
 representation from that state, ready to indorse the charges of the 
 gentleman from Kentucky, of high treason, because forty-five of his fel- 
 low-citizens thought on the particular points of the dissolution of the 
 union just as they did !" 
 
 Mr. Adams demanded that, before the house came to the conclusion 
 on the motives assumed in this charge, they should send him out to be 
 tried before a tribunal of the country. Then he should have the benefit 
 secured by the constitution. And he wanted, in that case, to have two 
 or three calls made on the departments for information necessary for his 
 defense ; and for this purpose he sent several resolutions to the chair. 
 The first of these resolutions requested the president to communicate 
 copies of the correspondence relating to an act of South Carolina direct- 
 ing the imprisonment of colored persons arriving from abroad in the ports 
 of that state ; also copies of the act or acts, and of any ofiicial opinions 
 given by judge Johnson of the unconstitutionality of the said acts. [The 
 act here referred to, subjects any colored person landing from a vessel in 
 any port of South Carolina, to be arrested and imprisoned, and in case 
 of inability to pay the costs incurred by such imprisonment, to be sold 
 for the same as a slave. It will be recollected that the honorable Sam- 
 uel Hoar, of Massachusetts, was sent by the authorities of that state to 
 South Carolina to take measures to test the constitutionality of that law 
 in the supreme court of the United States ; and that while there, he was 
 threatened with violence, and was compelled to flee from the state for hia 
 personal safety.] One of the other resolutions called for a copy of any 
 letter or letters from the president to a certain member of the house, 
 relating to the rule of the house excluding from reception anti-slavery 
 petitions, or to any agency of the said member in introducing the rule. 
 The first two resolutions, after considerable farther debate, were adopted. 
 Upon the two relating to the "21st rule," the vote was not then taken. 
 
 Mr. A. maintained that he was guilty of no ofi"ense ; he had, on pre- 
 senting the petition, declared that it was the last thing he would ever 
 vote for. He also repeated what he had said on former occasions, thnt 
 he had given notice to the house, the petitioners, and the whole country, 
 
766 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and his constituents among them, that if they sent to him their petitions 
 for abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, because they expected 
 him to support them, they were mistaken. 
 
 After Mr. Adams had occupied two or three days more in his defense, 
 a disposition was manifested to get rid of the subject, by laying it on 
 the table. He was willing to acquiesce in such a proposition, provided 
 it should never be taken up again. The subject was thereupon laid on 
 the table, by a vote of 106 to 93 ; and the reception of the petition was 
 refused, 40 to 106. 
 
 On the 28th of February, 1842, Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, presented a 
 petition from upwards of eighty citizens of Austinburg, in his district, of 
 both political parties, it was said, praying for an amicable divi.sion of 
 the union, separating the free and slave states. Mr. Gr. moved a refer- 
 ence of the petition to a select committee, with instructions to report 
 against the prayer of the petitioners, and to assign reasons why their 
 prayer should not be granted. Mr. Triplett, of Kentucky, considering 
 the petition disrespectful both to the house and the man who presented 
 it, moved that it be not received. The question on receiving the petition 
 was decided in the negative : ayes 24; noes, 1 16. 
 
 The reasons for the prayer of the petitioners were assigned by them in 
 a letter to Mr. Gr. from one of them, saying : " If our petitions are to bo 
 treated with open contempt and malignant insult, and we ourselves held up 
 to the world as incendiaries and fanatics ; if the federal government is to 
 go on, year after year, increasing its efforts to sustain the system of 
 slavery, by the aid of the money, the power and the influence of the 
 nation at large : then we ask, and ask sincerely too, for a division." 
 
 Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, offered a resolution, declaring that all 
 such petitions should thereafter be deemed offensive, and the member 
 presenting them liable to censure. The resolution, however, was not 
 received. For quite a different act, however, Mr. Giddings, at a later 
 period of the session, incurred a formal censure of the house. 
 
 In October, 1841, the brig Creole left Richmond for New Orleans, 
 with a cargo consisting principally of tobacco and slaves, about 135 in 
 number. On the 7th of November, the slaves rose upon the crew, killed 
 a man on board named Hewell, part owner of the negroes, and severely 
 wounded the captain and two of the crew. Having obtained command 
 of the vessel they directed her to be taken into the port of Nassau, in 
 the British island of New Providence, where she arrived on the 9tb. 
 An investigation was made by British magistrates, and an examination 
 by the American consul. Nineteen of the negroes were imprisoned bj 
 the local authorities as having been concerned in the mutiny and murder 
 Their surrender to the consul, to be sent to the United States for trial, 
 
CASE OF THE BRIG CREOLE. 767 
 
 was refused, until tlie advice of the government of England could be had. 
 A part of the remaining slaves were liberated and suffered to go beyond 
 the control of the master of the vessel and the consul. 
 
 Mr. Webster, secretary of state, in a letter dated January 29th, 1842, 
 instructed Mr. Everett, our minister at London, to present the case to 
 the British government, " with a distinct declaration, that, if the facta 
 turn out as stated, this government think it a clear case for indemnifica- 
 tion ;" and, in support of such a claim, he refers to an opinion said to 
 have been expressed by his majesty's government in other and similar 
 cases, that the rule by which these claims should be decided, was, that the 
 claimants must be entitled to compensation who were lawfully in posses- 
 sion of their slaves within the British territory, and who were disturbed 
 in their legal possession of those slaves, by the functionaries of the British 
 government. This admission, Mr. Webster thought to be broad enough to 
 cover the case of the Creole. " But," he says, " it does not extend to what 
 we consider the true doctrine according to the laws and usages of nations; 
 and therefore can not be acquiesced in as the exactly correct general 
 rule. It appears to this government, that, not only is no unfriendly 
 interference by the local authorities to be allowed, but that aid and 
 succor should be extended in these as in other cases which may arise, 
 affecting the interests of citizens of friendly states." None except the 
 mutineers having come voluntarily within British territory, the laws of 
 England affecting and regulating the conditions of persons could pro- 
 perly act upon them. It was not complained that English law should 
 decide the condition of persons incorporated with British population ; 
 but in the case of the Creole, the colored persons were still on board an 
 American vessel forcibly put out of the course of her voyage by mutiny ; 
 the master desiring to resume it, and calling upon the consul of his govern- 
 ment and upon the local authorities to enable him to do so. The vessel 
 must be considered as still on her voyage, and entitled to the succor due in 
 other cases of distress. This view, he said, was evident from the awkward 
 position of the British government in regard to the mutineers still 
 imprisoned. What was to be done with them ? How were they to be 
 punished ? That government probably would not undertake to try or 
 punish them ; and of what use would it be to send them to the United 
 States, separated from their ship, and at a period so late as that, if before 
 proceedings could be instituted against them, the witnesses might be 
 scattered over half the globe? And thus one of the highest offenses 
 known to human laws would be likely to go unpunished. 
 
 Lord Palnierston had said on a former occasion, " that slavery being 
 now abolished throughout the British empire, there can be no well- 
 founded claim for compensation in respect of slaves who, under any oir 
 
763 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 cumstancea, may come into the British colonies, any more tlian there 
 would be with respect to slaves who might be brought into the kingdom." 
 Our government, Mr. W. said, saw no ground for any distinction founded 
 on an alteration of British law in the colonies. The question did not 
 depend on the state of British law. " It is not that in such cases the 
 active agency of British law is invoked and refused ; it is, that un- 
 friendly interference is deprecated, and those good offices and friendly 
 assistances expected which a government usually affords to citizens of a 
 ft-iendly power when instances occur of disaster and distress. All that 
 the United States require, in these cases, they would expect in the ports 
 of England, as well as in those of her colonies. Surely, the influence 
 of local law cannot affect the relations of nations in any such matter as 
 this. Suppose an American vessel, with slaves lawfully on board, were 
 to be captured by a British cru'ser, as belonging to some belligerent, 
 while the United States were at peace ; suppose such prize carried into 
 England, and the neutrality of the vessel fully made out in the proceed- 
 ings in admiralty, and a restoration consequently decreed — in such case, 
 must not the slaves be restored exactly in the condition in which they 
 were when the capture was made ? Would any one contend that the 
 fact of their having been carried into England by force set them free ?" 
 
 A different view of the question was taken by Great Britain. Lord 
 Brougham stated in the house of lords, others concurring and none dis- 
 senting, that " the only treaty by which England or America could 
 claim any refugees, either from the other, related exclusively to murder- 
 ers, forgers, and fraudulent bankrupts ; and even that treaty had ex- 
 pired. There was no international law by which they could claim, or 
 we give up, the parties who had taken possession of the Creole ; and 
 those persons must stand or fall by British laws only." All agreed that 
 there was no authority to surrender the fugitives, nor hold in custody 
 the mutineers ; and it was stated that orders had been sent for their 
 liberation. 
 
 On the 21st of March, 1842, Mr. Giddings submitted a series of re- 
 solutions on a subject which, he said, had excited some interest in the 
 other end of the capitol, and in the nation, and which he wished to lay 
 before the country. These resolutions declared jurisdiction over slavery 
 to belong exclusively to the states; that by the 8th section of the 1st 
 article of the constitution, the states had surrendered to the federal gov- 
 ernment jurisdiction over commerce and navigation upon the high seas; 
 that slavery, being an abridgment of the natural rights of man, can oiist 
 only by force of positive municipal law, and is necessarily confined to 
 the territorial jurisdiction of the power creating it ; that when the brig 
 Creole left the territorial jurisdiction of Virginia, the slave laws of that 
 
CENSURE OF MR. GIDDINGS. 769 
 
 ftate ceased to have jurisdiction over the persons on board the said brig, 
 who became amenable only to the laws of the United States, and who, 
 in resuming their natural rights of personal liberty, violated no law of 
 the United States ; and that all attempts to reenslave the said persons, 
 or to exert our national influence in favor of the coastwise slave trade, 
 or to place the nation in an attitude of maintaining a " commerce in 
 human beings," were subversive of the rights and injurious to the feel- 
 ings and the interests of the free states, unauthorized by the constitution, 
 *nd incompatible with our national honor. 
 
 Mr. Ward, of New York, moved the previous question on these re- 
 solutions. Mr. Everett, of Vermont, with the view, probably, to their 
 discussion, moved to lay them on the table. This motion was rejected : 
 ayes, 52 ; noes, 125. The previous question having been seconded, and 
 the main question ordered, Mr. Giddings, in the midst of the coufusiotj 
 and excitement which ensued, withdrew his resolutions. 
 
 Mr. Botts then oflFered a resolution, upon the adoption of which he 
 intended to move the previous question. The preamble to the resolution 
 deprecated the resolutions of Mr. Giddings, " touching a subject of 
 negotiation between the United States and Great Britain of a most deli- 
 cate nature," and as possibly "involving those nations and the whole 
 civilized world in war ;" declared it to be the duty of every good citizen, 
 and especially of every representative of the people, to discountenance 
 all efforts to create excitement and division among the people under such 
 circumstances ; and denounced them as justifying mutiny and murder ' 
 in terms shocking to all sense of law, order and humanity : therefore 
 " Resolved^ That this house hold the conduct of the said member as 
 altogether unwarranted and unwarrantable, and deserving the severe 
 condemnation of the people of this country, and of this body in par- 
 ticular." 
 
 An excited and confused debate ensued, which continued during the 
 remainder of that day and the next, and in which sundry questions of 
 order, appeals, and of privilege were discussed. Several members having 
 expressed a desire that Mr. Giddings should be heard in his defense, he 
 rose and said : " I stand before the house in a peculiar situation." Mr. 
 Cooper, of Georgia, objected to his proceeding, but at the request of his 
 colleagues withdrew his objection. But Mr. G. did not resume tlie floor. 
 He, however, addressed to the reporter of the National Intelligencer a 
 note stating, that when he was called to order the last time, he had writ- 
 ten and desired to state to the house as follows : 
 
 " Ma. Speaker : I stand before the house in a peculiar situation. It is 
 proposed to pass a vote of censure upon me, substantially for the reason 
 that I differ in opinion from a majority of the members. The vote is 
 
 49 
 
770 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 about to be taken without giving me time to be heard. It would be idle 
 for me to say that I am ignorant of the disposition of a majority to pasa 
 the resolution. I have been violently assailed in a personal manner, but 
 h'ave had no opportunity of being heard in reply. I do not now stand 
 here to ask for any favor or to crave any mercy at the hands of the 
 members. But in the name of an insulted constituency — in behalf of 
 one of the sovereign states of this union — in behalf of the people of 
 these states and the federal constitution — I demand a hearing, agreeably 
 to the rights guarantied to me, and in the ordinary mode of proceeding. 
 I accept of no other privilege ; I will receive no other courtesy." 
 
 The T-esolution of Mr. Botts was adopted by a vote of 125 to 69 ; the 
 preamble, 129 to 66. 
 
 Mr. Griddings then addressed to the speaker a letter of resignation, 
 which was the next day (23d) laid before the house. He immediately 
 departed for his residence in Ohio — was reelected on the 26th of April, 
 at a special election called by the governor of the state, by a majority 
 of about 3,500 votes over his opponent — and returned to his seat in the 
 house on the 5th of May. 
 
 CHAPTER LXIII. 
 
 THE TARIFF OF 1842. PRESIDENTIAL VETOES. BRITISH COLONIAL TRADE. 
 
 NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION SETTLED. 
 
 The gradual reduction of duties provided by the compromise tariff 
 of March, 1833, had nearly brought them to the lowest rate established 
 bj that act. Sundry manufactures were languishing, from the want, as 
 was supposed, of adequate protection ; and a material augmentation of 
 the revenue had become necessary to supply the wants of the govern- 
 ment. Hence, whatever difference of opinion may have existed in regard 
 to the necessity of additional protection to manufactures, some measure, 
 it was universally conceded, was necessary to increase the public reve- 
 nue ; and, as it was contrary to the general policy of the government to 
 resort to direct taxation, congress was compelled to adopt the alternative 
 of a revision of the tariff. 
 
 Owing to delays in obtaining the necessary information upon which to 
 base their report, the committee on manufactures of the house of repre- 
 sentativea did not make their report until the 31st of March, 1842 
 
THE TARIFF OF 1842. 771 
 
 This report stated, that the estimated expenses of the government were, 
 for the current year, about $26,000,000 ; which would leave a deficit of 
 about $14,000,000. Such were the prospective demands upon the trea- 
 sury — increased by the enormous expenses of the Florida war which was 
 not yet terminated — that some permanent provision for an increased 
 revenue was indispensable. The committee presumed the effect of the 
 depressed price of cotton and all our principal articles of produce, the 
 derangement of the currency, state and individual indebtedness abroad, 
 and the general stagnation of business, would be to lessen importations. 
 The 20 per cent, duties to be collected after the 30th of June next, 
 under the tariff of 1833, would not yield a revenue exceeding about 
 $15,000,000. 
 
 The committee, being of the opinion that specific duties afforded the 
 best security against frauds, which opinion was confirined by that of 
 intelligent merchants and manufacturers, they had been to a great extent 
 retained. The committee state the provisions of their bill as follows : 
 
 1. A general ad valwem duty of thirty per cent., with few exceptions, 
 where the duty is on that principle. 
 
 2. A discrimination is made, for the security of certain interests 
 requiring it, by specific duties, in some instances below, in others above, 
 the rate of the general ad valorem duty. 
 
 3. As a general principle, the duty on the articles subject to dis- 
 crimination, is made at the rate at which it was in 1840, after the deduc- 
 tion of four-tenths of the excess over twenty per cent, under the act of 
 1833. Many departments of industry were successful under this reduc- 
 tion, which could not bear the great reduction of January last, and 
 which would be overwhelmed under the full operation of that act. 
 
 The views of the committee in relation to the encouragement of 
 domestic industry by duties on imports, are stated at great length. A. 
 few paragraphs are given. 
 
 " All the great interests of the country are now in an extremely 
 depressed condition ; every branch of industry is paralyzed. How is it 
 that, in a time of profound peace, with a country abounding in natural 
 resources, . . . and blessed by Heaven beyond any other people 
 who ever existed, the voice of complaint should come up from every 
 part of the land ? 
 
 " There are several causes for the present depression of property and 
 general stagnation of business, one of which will be admitted to be the 
 large amount of our importations over the amount of exports. This 
 depresses our home industry, and draws from the country annually large 
 balances in specie, crippling our banks, and depriving them of the power 
 to grant the necessary facilities. The same causes produced the exhaus- 
 
772 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tion of our resources and the embarrassment which were the principal 
 cause of the adoption of the constitution. As stated in the very able 
 petition from Windsor county, Vermont, ' from 1783 to 1789, the trade 
 of the thirteen old states was perfectly free to the whole world. The 
 result was, that Great Britain filled every section of our country with 
 her manufactures of wool, cotton, linen, leather, iron, glass, and all other 
 articles used here, and in four years she swept from the country every 
 dollar and every piece of gold,' &c. 
 
 " In the last term of Gen. Jackson's administration, the imports 
 exceeded the exports each year, making an excess of $129,681,397. 
 
 " The excess of imports during the three first years of Mr. Van 
 Buren's administration, was nearly seventy millions. In 1840, for the 
 first time for ten years, there was an excess of exports. In 1841, the 
 imports exceeded the exports about three millions. 
 
 " A tariff of duties which, while it will supply the necessary revenue, 
 will check excessive importations, and prevent the flow of specie abroad 
 for the payment of large balances, will do much to restore the prosperity 
 of the nation. * * * 
 
 "And why should we not rely more upon ourselves and on our policy? 
 Is there anything in the policy of other nations to induce us to lead the 
 way in free trade ? Free trade I Where shall we go to find an exam- 
 ple for it ? All the great nations of Europe are protecting their own 
 industry, and encouraging their own manufactures, to an extent before 
 unknown. France, Prussia, the German States, and even Russia, are 
 making rapid advances in manufactures, under a system of rigorous 
 restrictions. 
 
 " Until the European nations change their policy, there can be no 
 really free trade for the United States. Should we only adopt this 
 policy, free trade will be only on one side, and that not ours. We shall 
 enjoy just so much commerce with them as they in their good pleasure 
 may allow us. Shall we look to England for our example of free trade ? 
 England imposes prohibitory duties on all articles she can raise or manu- 
 facture. This is her settled policy. Should an insuflficient tariff, with 
 her vast surpluses poured in upon us, break down our establishments, 
 and we again import our cotton, woolen and other manufactured goods, 
 what would she receive in return for them ? With what could we pay 
 her ? She will not take from us our wheat and corn, unless her popula- 
 tion is in a starving condition, because they will interfere with her own 
 agricultural interests. The products of our fisheries and our forests 
 will find no admission there, because she must encourage her own fishe- 
 ries and her colonial timber trade. She will take a few thousand hogs- 
 heads of tobacco but charged with a duty and excise of ten times its 
 
THE TARIFF OF 1842. 773 
 
 original cost, and thus yielding a twelfth part of her revenue from 
 imports. She will not take from us any article of the growth, produce^ 
 or manufacture of this country, except our cotton, which has become 
 essential to her cotton manufactures — tha* branch of her industry which 
 is now essential to her national wealth and power — and she is straining 
 every nerve to become independent of foreign nations for this. 
 
 " That most numerous and important class — the agriculturists — have 
 the greatest interest in the prosperity of manufacturing and mechanical 
 labor. A change of policy which should break these down, would 
 deprive them of their best markets. Wherever manufacturing establish- 
 ments are located, villages spring up around them ; their eifects are im- 
 mediately seen in the increased value of land in the vicinity. Perhaps 
 it would not be extravagant to state that the establishment of manufac- 
 tures had added an amount to the agricultural wealth of the country 
 equal to the capital employed in manufactures. Few are aware of the 
 extent of demand for ag.-icultural produce, for the supply of a single 
 manufacturing establishment. An interesting statement on this subject 
 is annexed to the testimony of Mr. Schenck." 
 
 Annexed to the report of the committee was a statement with statis- 
 tical tables, prepared by Mr. Triplett, a member from Kentucky, and 
 designed to show the great inequality of the duties levied in the United 
 States upon European goods, and those to which the productions of this 
 country are subjected in Europe. 
 The products of American industry sell in Europe, after 
 
 deducting freight and charges, except duties, in round 
 
 numbers, for - - - . ... $204,500,000 
 Of which we receive - 91,000,000 
 
 And lose in paying duties, $113,500,000 
 
 The products of European industry sell in the United 
 States, after deducting freight and other charges, except 
 
 duties, for $90,000,000 
 
 Of which the Europeans receive ... - 73,000,000 
 
 And lose in paying duties, $17,000,000 
 
 Showing that we pay upwards of 100 per cent, to European nations, 
 while they pay to us less than 20 per cent. " But," he says, " great 
 and unjust as this inequality is, on the total amount of exportations 
 from the United States, it becomes still more startling in its manifest 
 mjustiee when examined as to a particular export — the staple, to a great 
 extent, of several particular states. Unmanufactured tobacco pays, in 
 Great Britain, since the 1 5th May, 1840, a duty of 76 cents per pound, 
 
^7*^ THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 or upwards of 1250 per cent., valuing the pound of tobacco at 6 cents; 
 in Austria, within a fraction of 6 cents per pound, or 100 per cent.; in 
 Prussia, 3 1-2 cents per pound, or upwards of 50 per cent. ; and France 
 levies by her Regie, or indirect duty, about one dollar per pound, or 
 1,606 2-3 per cent." 
 
 Excluding Russia, Prussia, and Portugal, for which he had not yet 
 completed his calculations, Mr. Triplett says : 
 On this amount of average annual value of tobacco shipped 
 
 from the United States, for the years 1839 and 1840, 
 
 to wit, on $9,225,145 
 
 There is levied by the other European nations an annual 
 
 tax of 32,463,540 
 
 Showing the amount for which American tobacco sells in 
 Europe, exclusive of freight and other charges except 
 
 duties, to be $41,688,085 
 
 of which foreign governments retain upwards of three-tourths, and the 
 tobacco planters receive less than one-fourth. In view of these facts he 
 thinks it no wonder that the tobacco growing states had increased less in 
 population and wealth than any other states in the union ; and that other 
 agriculturists had sufifered more or less from a similar cause. 
 
 As usual, a counter report was made by the minority of the commit- 
 tee on manufactures, affording another instance of the opposite conclu- 
 sions of able minds from the same facts. The report gives a descrip- 
 tion of the condition of the people of Great Britain, which it considers 
 to be the result of her restrictive or protecting policy, and says, that 
 " a system productive of such effects upon her population, ought not to 
 be favored by a government established, as ours is, to protect the rights 
 and happiness of all, without regard to ranks or sectional interests." 
 But admitting the system of high protection to be beneficial to her 
 people, it affords no evidence that the same system io suited to our cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 In regard to the benefits supposed to be derived by a community from 
 the establishment of a factory within it, the minority contend that these 
 beiicfits are lost or neutralized by the system under consideration. 
 They say : " The whole neighborhood would be benefitted, if the govern- 
 ment did not, under the guise of protection to the labor of each, extract 
 a heavy amount of the profits of each and of all by high taxation ; not 
 by a tax operating directly upon the manufactures or the raw material, 
 both of which can be exported to foreign markets, and thus escape the 
 tax, but indirectly by a tax on the food of the laborer, who at last is the 
 sole producer This tax is levied in the shape of high duties, which 
 
THE TARIFF OF 1842. 776 
 
 prevents foreign grain and: other provisions from coming into competi- 
 tion with the home product, and thus, by keeping the latter at high 
 prices, forcet* the laborer to demand an equivalent in high wages, in order 
 to enable him to live ; and this increase of his wages retroacts again, to 
 neutralize the benefit which the farmer derives from the protection. A 
 mere revenue duty on foreign grain would not have produced these 
 effects ; and in such a case the amount of revenue would have been 
 increased by the increase of imports from abroad, while now no revenue, 
 comparatively, is derived from that source, in consequence of the h^gh 
 duty." 
 
 The minority illustrate their argument by the example of the opera- 
 tions of the woolen factory of Mr. Schenck of Dutchess county. New 
 York, of whose testimony the committee had availed themselves in pre- 
 paring their report. They say : " Thus, continues Mr. S., by the capital 
 of $140,000 of this single factory, a market is furnished for the pro- 
 ducts of that country, of $116,000; (consisting of fleece wool, soap, 
 teazles, and firewood, $76,281 ; and $40,000, the wages of operatives.) 
 The labor for 170 operatives, alone, supports not less that 500 persons, 
 and these consume, weekly, of the products of agriculture, not less than 
 the value of $200 per week, in beef, pork, flour, butter, eggs, milk, 
 cheese, &c., equal to $10,400 per annum. To sum up the whole, in his 
 own words : ' Thus $1,422,000 is the agricultural capital now in requisi- 
 tion to supply the manufacturing investment of £140,000.' This sup- 
 ply consists of the wool, soap, teazles and firewood, used in the factory ; 
 of winter fodder and summer pasture for the sheep, and provender for 
 the horses; and food for 170 operatives, with their families, estimated 
 at 500. 
 
 " Here, then, is a large expenditure, beneficial to most, if not all, of 
 the inhabitants of the country, in a greater or less degree, in the same 
 manner as the whole population of England is more or less benefited by 
 their manufactures ; that is, as long as the manufacturer can find a pro- 
 fitable market for his products, and as long as the government abstains 
 from heavy direct taxation outweighing the benefits. Is it surprising 
 that the people of Dutchess county, looking alone to the immediate 
 benefits to themselves, without regard to the ultimate effects on them- 
 selves, or to the immediate effect upon other portions of the union, should 
 be the advocates of high protection ? But let us pursue the statement 
 of Mr. Schenck, not for showing its temporary benefits to the people of 
 Dutchess county but for the purpose of showing its ultimate results 
 upon the interests of the whole union, and also upon the people of 
 Dutchess county themselves." 
 
 They then make the following statement ; 
 
776 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Duties paid on imported articles consumed in the factory, 
 
 olive oil, coal, and indigo, - - - - . $1,724 
 
 Value of manufactures produced, - . . - . $186 925 
 
 Duties on this sum of $186,925, at 33 1-3 per cent., about 
 
 the rate at which the foreign article would be imported, $62,308 
 
 Duty at 20 per cent, on home valuation, .... $37,385 
 Whole duty actually paid, as above, .... 1,724 
 
 Loss to the revenue by excluding the foreign article, - - $35,661 
 
 They then say : " Let not the laborer in the factory, or the farmer, or 
 the grazier, who supply it, be deceived by the immediate benefits to 
 themselves : they must also look to the immediate and ultimate effect 
 upon the revenue from customs, and reflect, that, if home manufactures 
 exclude the foreign, they must reduce or destroy revenue from foreign 
 manufactures ; and that the government will be forced, of necessity, to 
 supply revenue for its ordinary wants, to heavy taxation on tea and 
 coffee, now admitted free, and on salt and other foreign products of com- 
 mon use among them; and, when these fail to supply a sufficient income, 
 then to a direct taxation on their lands, buildings, sheep, and capital 
 and labor, as is now the case in England ; for revenue must be had, and 
 to an amount daily increasing, as the country increases, for the neces- 
 sary increasing expenditures of the government. The immediate benefit, 
 then, is lost, in the certainty of the ultimate burden, which, as in Eng- 
 land, will reduce a large mass of our people to a taxation pressing them 
 to starvation." 
 
 The minority then proceed to show the effects of the system upon the 
 different portions of the country, and upon the revenue. For this pur- 
 pose they select four of the principal branches of manufacture : wool; 
 iron, leather, and cotton, — stating the value of the manufactures of each 
 in the two divisions of the union ; the one embracing the eight states of 
 New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, 
 New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, with a free population of 
 6,258,000 ; and the rest of the union containing a free population of 
 8,316,000, and a slave population of 2,486,000 ; in all 10,802,000. 
 
 The value of the manufactures of wool, iron, leather, and cotton, in 
 the year 1840, are stated as follows : 
 
 Productions of the eight states, - • - $102,100,000 
 
 Productions of the rest of the union, ... 23,080,000 
 
 foreign products consumed in the union, - - 21,672,000 
 
 JS'oreign products paying duty into the treasury, - - 19,498,000 
 
THE TARIFF OF 1842. 777 
 
 Consumption of the above in the eight states, - - 48,140,000 
 
 Consumption in the rest of the union, ... 72,210,000 
 
 Consumption of imports in eight states, - - 8,667,800 
 
 Consumption of imports in all others, ... 13,002,200 
 
 Consumption of imports paying duty in eight states, - 7,797,000 
 
 Consumption of the same in all others, ... 11,698,200 
 *' The first of these results," they proceed to say, " is that the eight 
 states produced in 1840, $79,020,000 of the above four classes of manu- 
 factures more than all the other eighteen states and territories, and that 
 they consumed of that amount $48,140,000, leaving the residue, after 
 deducting the foreign exports, of $4,926,000, say $25,954,000, as the 
 consumption of the rest of the union, of the domestic manufactures of 
 woollens, iron, leather, and cottons, of the eight states. Now, if we 
 assume the average duties on similar articles to have been, in 1840, 35 
 per cent, ad valorum, which no one can, we think, doubt, who will ex- 
 amine the table No. 3, annexed to the report of the majority, the duty 
 on the $25,954,000, if the same amount had been imported, would have 
 amounted to $9,083,000, while the duty actually paid into the treasury 
 on all the imports of the like four classes of manufactures, calculated on 
 the same rate of duty, paid into the treasury only $6,823,000. Now, 
 all the manufacturers who have been examined before the committee, 
 seem to agree that, unless the duties on those articles are kept as high 
 as they were in 1 840, they can not live, or compete with the foreign 
 manufacture in our own market ; and in this opinion the majority of the 
 committee seem to have concurred, by reporting a bill assessing the 
 same amount of duties on those imports as were levied in 1840. If so, 
 the consumers pay, in the increased price of the domestic product over 
 the foreign, the whole duty of 35 per ceiat. ad valorem, (that is, $9,083,- 
 000,) which whole amount is paid by the eighteen states and territories 
 in the following proportions, according to representative population, at 
 the ratio of 65,500, that is to say, dividing the whole into 128 parts: 
 Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, pay 43 parts, or $3,054,000; 
 Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, 23 parts, or $1,632,000 ; Kentucky 
 and Tennessee, pay 21 parts, or $1,490,000; North and South Caro- 
 lina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, 41 parts, or 
 $2,907,000. In these estimates we have taken the two-fifths of tho 
 elave population unrepresented as equivalent to the consumption of the 
 state of Maine, and the three territories and the District. Of this 
 whole amount, not one dollar goes into the treasury, but the whole to 
 the manufacturers of the eight states, as the result of the difference of 
 price secured to them by the protective duty. This being the fact, tho 
 inquiry is presen+ec to these eighteen states, whether, as a mere matter 
 
T78 TIIE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of profit and loss, those states, or any portion of them, gain, in the pro- 
 tection afforded to their productions, an equivalent for this amount of 
 indirect taxation? We think not, especially when it is considered that 
 this consumption of the foreign article, thus excluded by the domestic, 
 would have paid into the treasury the greater part if not the whole of 
 the $9,083,^00, at no greater cost to them, and of a greater portion of 
 which they would have got the benefit of the expenditure. And 'for 
 this amount of duty, and the $29,994,000 of the consumption, they have 
 actually paid in their foreign exports, though not into the treasury, or 
 to the foreign producer, as will appear by the statement of foreign ex- 
 ports above. The distribution which we have thus made of this tax 
 ajnong the states, as above, must, of course, be modified by the greater 
 or less amount of their own domestic production of the several kinds." 
 
 While the majority proposed to raise the duiies in order to increase 
 the revenue, the minority seemed to apprehend danger to the revenue 
 from the increase of home manufactures and the consequent diminution 
 of importations; and they named several articles of which the quantity 
 imported had been so diminished by the home manufacture, as to re- 
 duce the duties on them to an inconsiderable amount. 
 
 They controverted the doctrine of the protectionists, that the addi- 
 tional tax to the consumer is neutralized or compensated by the bene- 
 fits derived from the domestic manufacture ; and reassert, and endeavor 
 to establish those which are usually maintained by the opponents of 
 protection. They endeavored to show that the effect of high duties and 
 protection hitherto in our country had been to excite ruinous competi- 
 tion, and to prevent an increase of revenue on particular articles of 
 manufacture, of large consumption, proportioned to our increasing neces- 
 sity for revenue. They also endeavored to show, that, whatever tempo- 
 rary benefits might have resulted to the people in manufacturing sections 
 from high protection, those benefits would be only temporary j and thai, 
 if the farther protection now demanded should be afforded, it would 
 hasten the evil day to them, which must come, and greatly aggravate 
 the evil when it does come — a day when the legislation most friendly 
 to the manufacturer, could not provide relief 
 
 No question in political economy has been more fruitful of discussion 
 than that of protection to domestic industry by duties on imports ; none, 
 probably, on which public opinion is still more equally divided. States- 
 men of gigantic intellects, the most euccesi.'ul business men, of equal 
 sagacity in private affairs, have, from the sam3 evidence, formed directly 
 opposite conclusions on this subject. 
 
 While the bill reported by the committee on manufactures was pend- 
 ing in the committee of the wholo, the bill accompanying the report of 
 
THE TARIFF OF 1842. 779 
 
 the secretary of the treasury, (Mr. Forward,) was reported to the house 
 by Mr. Fillmore, from the committee of ways and means. This was 
 considered as more particularly a revenue bill. 
 
 It will be remembered that, on the 30th of June, the last reduction 
 provided by the compromise act was to take place. There being no 
 prospect of the passage of any new tariff law in time to prevent the 
 operation of that act, a bill had been reported, and was taken up the 
 lOth of June, to extend, until the 1st of August next, all laws regulat- 
 ing duties existing and in force on the 1st cf June, with & proviso, that 
 nothing therein contained should suspend the operation of the distribu- 
 tion law — the law passed at the extra session the preceding year (1841) 
 to distribute the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the states. 
 The first half yearly distribution under that act was to be made the 1st 
 of July. Besides being simply designed to afford time to pass a per- 
 manent law, this proposed temporary act was deemed necessary for 
 another purpose. Under the compromise act, there was to be from and 
 after the 30th of June a home valuation, and cash duties. There had 
 as yet been no law enacted to regulate the collection under those pro- 
 visions ; and it was questioned whether there was any law to enforce 
 them. 
 
 In the debate on this bill, the proviso became a prominent topic of 
 discussion. It will be recollected, that the distribution act contained a 
 provision, that if at any time the duties under the compromise should 
 be raised above the rates prescribed by that act, then the distribution 
 should cease, and be suspended, until the cause of the suspension should 
 be removed. This proviso to the distribution was, at the time of the 
 passage of the bill, highly objectionable to many of the friends of dis- 
 tribution ; but its adoption was found necessary to insure its passage ; 
 as the advocates of a low tariff were apprehensive that the abstraction 
 of the money arising from land sales from the national revenues, would 
 create a necessity for an increase of duties. Those who were in favor 
 of high protective duties, desired the removal of the proviso of the dis- 
 tribution act, that the tariff might be raised without interfering with 
 distribution. The day having been spent in the discussion of this pro- 
 posed temporary extension bill, in committee of the whole, the committee 
 rose and reported ; when Mr. Fillmore offered a resolution to terminate 
 the debate on the bill in half an hour ; but the house " being evidently 
 in a bad temper," Mr. F. waived the question for the day. 
 
 On the 14th, the resolution was modified so as to close the debate in 
 committee the next day at 2 o'clock, and adopted. On that day, after 
 having rejected an amendment proposing to strike out the proviso which 
 prohibited the suspension of the distribution law, the bill was passed by 
 
780 THE AMERICAN STATEBMAN. 
 
 the house, 116 to 103. It passed the senate 24 to 19, and was sent to 
 the president for his approval ; who, on the 29th, returned it to the 
 house with his I forbid. 
 
 The bill was objected to because it abrogated, for the time, the pro- 
 visions of the compromise act, that is, it continued the existing duties 
 for one month after the 30th of June, when a reduction was to take 
 place. The alleged necessity for the act was to enable congress to pro- 
 vide rules and regulations for assessing the duties on imports after the 
 30th of June, according to the home valuation and cash payments of 
 duties then to take place; yet the bill provided, that if, before the 1st 
 of August there should be no further legislation upon the subject, the 
 existing laws were to be the same as if this act had not been passed. 
 Tho distribution which was to be made the 1st of July, was also to be defer- 
 red uutil the 1st of August. He considered the present laws sufficient to 
 enable the collecting officers, under the directions of the secretary, to 
 levy the duties imposed by the act of 1833. The government, he said, 
 was under moral obligation to adhere to the principles of the compro- 
 mise. That act provided *' that duties shall be laid for the purpose of 
 raising such revenue as may be necessary to an economical administra- 
 tion of the government." It therefore justified any enlargement of 
 duties required by the real exigencies of the public service. He admit- 
 ted that an increase of duties was necessary ; and congress might so dis- 
 criminate as to give incidenta. protection to manufacturing industry. 
 
 But he considered it as an indispensable condition of an iucreaso of 
 duties, that the distribution of the proceeds of the land sales should be 
 suspended ; and which, by the distribution act, were to cease whenever 
 the duties imposed by the compromise act should be raised above 20 per 
 cent. ; but the proviso of the bill under consideration would continue 
 the distribution, notwithstanding, after the 1st of August. To abandon 
 the principle for a month, is to open the way for its total abandonment. 
 If such is not meant, why postpone at all ? Why not let the distribu- 
 tion take place on the 1st of July ? 
 
 The veto was equally the cause of joy to one party and of indignation • 
 to the other Mr. Holmes, of South Carolina, said he had never felt a 
 moment of such spontaneous, heartfelt thanksgiving to Heaven as he did 
 at this moment. It had come from above to check the house's mad 
 career, when it had undertaken to violate a sacred compact between the 
 north and the south, and had rescued the country from impending civil 
 war. If the madness of party should carry such a bill again, it would 
 be vetoed again This placed John Tyler in the head and forefront of 
 the battle foi the institutions of his country, and there the people would 
 sustain him 
 
PRESIDENTIAL VETOES. 781 
 
 Mr. Granger called upon members to maintain their ground against 
 the extraordinary assumption of executive authority developed in the 
 veto message, and in support of the manufacturing interest as well as the 
 distribution. 
 
 Mr. Saltonstall deplored that the debate had been prematurely entered 
 upon, but contended against this unprecedented exercise of the veto 
 power. The veto went on the naked principle of expediency. It was 
 his opinion that the duties after to-morrow could not be collected, with- 
 out a system of regulations. 
 
 Mr. Fillmore asked, on what principle this veto was based. The presi- 
 dent could not consent that the distribution should cease for a single day. 
 That was the profession ; but it appeared to be but a pretense. What 
 was the law which that message vetoed ? It authorized the collection 
 of duties for a single month as they were levied on the first of January 
 last, to allow time for the consideration of a permanent revenue for the 
 country ; and postponed the distribution of the proceeds from the sale 
 of the public lands till the month should expire, and congress could 
 provide the necessary supplies for the exhausted treasury. Did the veto 
 prevent distribution ? By no means : it reduced the duties, in effect, to 
 20 per cent., and authorized the distribution of the laud fund among the 
 states, which would take piace the day after to-morrow. Mr. F. said the 
 secretary of the treasury doubted whether the duties could be collected, 
 but the president had told the house that any farther law was unneces- 
 sary ; he had power enough in his own hands, and he should use it. The 
 question then was, whether congress or the executive should legislate for 
 the people of this country. 
 
 Mr. Gushing advocated the veto power and this exercise of it ; and 
 insisted upon the land proceeds going into the treasury. It was the duty 
 of the house to retract. He appeared to doubt that the revenue could 
 be collected without farther legislation, but congress should immediately 
 pass the necessary laws. The question was whether the government 
 should be brought to a stand by the refusal of the house to perform its 
 duty. 
 
 Mr. Briggs (next day) followed in opposition, to the message, and to 
 some of the remarks of his colleague (Mr. Gushing,) who had said that 
 the issue was not between this house and the president, but between this 
 house and the people. Had the president no issue with the people that 
 had raised him to his office ? Was not an overwhelming majority of the 
 party that placed him in power in favor of distribution ? His colleague 
 said the house had an issue with the president. He (Mr. B.) had no 
 Buch miserable views. 
 
 The debate was continued for several days, when, (July 4,) the C[ues- 
 
782 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tion was taken upon the passage of the bill, notwithstanding tho veto ; 
 ayes, 114; noes, 91 ; absent, 31. Rejected; two-thirds not voting in 
 the affirmative. 
 
 The house, the next day, again took up the tariff or revenue bill^ 
 and the day following adopted a resolution offered by Mr. Fillmore, 
 that the debate on the bill should cease on or before the 12th, at 12 
 o'clock. It was accordingly debated, and, having received sundry amend- 
 ments, passed the house, July 16, by a vote of 116 to 1 12. This bill 
 provided to continue the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands, 
 notwithstanding the proposed increase of duties. It passed the senate 
 on the 5th of August, by a vote of 25 to 23. The vote in both houses 
 was almost a strict party vote. Only one democrat in the house, Mr. 
 Parmenter, of Massachusetts, voted for the bill. Against it were 16 
 whigs, all but one from southern states. In the senate, the votes in its 
 favor were all from whigs ; against it, 3 whigs, Preston, Graham and 
 Rives, all southern senators. The bill was sent to the president for 
 his approval, and on the 9th was returned to the house with another 
 
 VET". I 
 
 This veto — " ditto " veto, it was called — was taken up the next day 
 for consideration. Mr. Adams addressed the house ; and in the course 
 of his speech made some severe animadversions upon the numerous vetoes 
 of the president. He considered this last veto an " extraordinary exercise 
 of power." The president, he said, seemed to be acting with reference 
 to a reelection. He had united himself in some measure to the demo- 
 cratic party; but he (Mr. A.) predicted that, if that party succeeded 
 they wDuld be as much thwarted by the president, as the party now in 
 the majority had been. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Adams, the message was referred to a committee 
 of thirteen members, who made a report, written by Mr. Adams, contain-' 
 ing a review of the condition of the country, the action of congress, the 
 frequent application of the executive veto to measures adopted by con- 
 gress, and particularly the reasons assigned by the president for 
 applying the power of negative to the last bill. The committee say : 
 
 " They perceive that the whole legislative power of the union has been 
 for the last fifteen months, with regard to the action of congress upon 
 measures of vital importance, in a state of suspended animation, 
 strangled by the five times repeated stricture of the executive cord. 
 They observe, that, under these unexampled obstructions to the exercise 
 of their high and legitimate duties, they have hitherto preserved the most 
 respectful forbearance towards the executive chief; that while he has, 
 time after time, annulled by the mere act of his will their commission 
 from the people to enact laws for the common welfare, they have forborne 
 
PRESIDENTIAL VETOES. 783 
 
 even the expression of their resentment for these multiplied insults and 
 injuries — they believed they had a high destiny to fulfill, by administer- 
 ing to the people in the form of law remedies for the sufferings which 
 they had too long endured. The will of one man has frustrated all their 
 labors and frustrated all their powers. 
 
 " The power of the present congress to enact laws essential to the~ 
 welfare of the people has been struck with apoplexy by the executive 
 hand. Submission to his will is the only condition upon which he will 
 permit them to act. For the enactment of a measure earnestly recom- 
 mended by himself he forbids their action unless coupled '^'ith. a condition 
 declared by himself to be on a subject so totally different, that he will 
 not suffer them to be coupled in the same law. With that condition 
 congress can not comply. In this state of things he has assumed, as the 
 committee fully believe, the exercise of the whole legislative power to 
 himself, and is levying millions of money upon the people without any 
 authority of law." 
 
 The report concludes with a resolution proposing an amendment to the 
 constitution, requiring, instead of two-thirds, " a majority of the whole 
 number" of members of each house to pass a bill against the president's 
 objections. It was signed by ten of the committee. 
 
 Another report was presented, by two of the committee, C. J. Inger- 
 soll and James I. Roosevelt, in which they say it is not for their protest 
 to explain or enforce the executive objections. Letting them speak for 
 themselves, they vindicate constitutional rights and deprecate wrongs by 
 congress. They considered it the duty of congress, not to adjourn with- 
 out enacting a law for revenue. They shoulcl not afford the president so 
 great a triumph. 
 
 The remaining member, Mr. Gilmer, made a counter report and pro- 
 test, in defense of the president, and in opposition to the tariff bill and 
 the distribution of the proceeds of land sales. 
 
 Impelled by the necessity of providing additional revenue, a bill was 
 in a few days hastened through the house, the same as that before jassed, 
 the clause having been struck out which required distribution, and the 
 bill so modified as to admit free of duty, tea imported in American ves- 
 sels from beyond the Cape of Good Hope, and coffee. The vote was 106 
 to 103. The bill was sent to the senate, where, having received some 
 amendments, (afterwards concurred in by the house,) it passed 24 to 23 , 
 being saved only by Mr. Wright's having voted with the whigs. No 
 other democrat voted for the bill. The necessity of adopting some 
 measure for revenue, rather than his approval of the bill, probably 
 induced Mr. Wright to vote in its favor. The bill was approved by tho 
 president. 
 
784 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 A separate bill was then passed, repealing the proviso of the distriliu- 
 tion act, so as to allow the distribution to take place notwithstanding the 
 increase of duties ; but the bill was retained in the hands of the presi- 
 dent, and thus defeated. 
 
 Besides the numerous petitions at this session of congress for a modi- 
 "fication of the tariff, there were several memorials from the state of 
 Maine, praying for relief from the effects of the want of reciprocity in 
 the colonial trade between the United States and Great Britain, as 
 established by the arrangement of Mr. M'Lane in 1830. * * * 
 It was stated in a memorial from Portland, presented to the house by 
 Mr. Fesaenden, that the effect of that arrangement had been to cripple 
 our trade with the British West India colonies — which, though indirect, 
 had been valuable — and to increase largely that of Great Britain. Nine 
 tenths of that intercourse had been carried on in American vessels; 
 whereas, the amount of British and American tonnage was now about 
 equal. The effect upon Maine had been peculiarly disastrous. Before 
 the treaty went into operation, Maine had ten thousand tons of shipping 
 employed in the trade with the British North American colonies alone. 
 She had now been driven out entirely, while the shipping of the colonies 
 had been increased four-fold, and they had a direct and unembarrassed 
 trade with this country. 
 
 Another petition from that state declared that the opening of our 
 ports to Great Britain had been obtained by fraud. She had promised 
 reciprocity, but she would not grant it. A part only of her colonial 
 ^jorts had been opened. Those where return cargoes could be obtained 
 for our vessels, remained closed. Nor did we, at the colonial free ports, 
 enjoy equal privileges. Our vessels were subjected to many vexations 
 and charges from which British vessels were exempt. The petitionera 
 said, of the trade in plaster of paris, so important to that state, Maine 
 had lost the greater part. Nearly 200,000 tons annually were exported 
 from the provinces to the United States ; the most of which had been 
 transported in American vessels, but was now for the most part done by 
 British vessels. From some of the quarries, we were entirely excluded. 
 The same was true of the grindstone trade. The petitioners therefore 
 prayed, that the effect of the proclamation of the president in 1830, 
 making our ports free to the navigation of Great Britain, be done away, 
 and that the navigation acta of 1818, 1820 and 1828 be revived. No 
 action beyond the reception of the petitions appears to have been taken 
 upon the subject. 
 
 The ineffectual attempts hitherto to settle the north-eastern boundary 
 question have been already mentioned. The want of a territorial line had 
 been the source of constant irritation to the inhabitants of both coun- 
 
NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION SETTLED. 785 
 
 tries residing within the disputed territory, and of great annoyance to 
 those of Maine in particular. Military forces had been called out by 
 the authorities of both Maine and Canada to defend their respective ter- 
 ritories against intrusion and depredation. A citizen of Maine had been 
 taken prisoner on disputed territory. The act, however, was disclaimed 
 by the British authorities, and the prisoner released. This controversy 
 had been for many years a standing topic of presidential communication 
 to congress, and had generally been represented as being in a state unfa- 
 vorable to a speedy termination. 
 
 A new attempt at amicable adjustment by negotiation was made in 
 1842 ; and lord Ashburton was appointed by the British government as 
 minister extraordinary to the United States for this purpose. He 
 arrived in this country the 3d of April, and was introduced in due form 
 to the president on the 5th. The expectations of a successful negotia- 
 tion, founded upon the character of the British envoy, and the belief of 
 the sincerity of the professed pacific intentions on the part of his govern- 
 ment, were not disappointed. Commissioners appointed by the legisla- 
 tures of Maine and Massachusetts, and also by the government of the 
 province of New Brunswick, participated in the negotiation. On the 
 9th of August, a treaty of boundary was concluded, to the almost entire 
 satisfaction of the negotiators, and to the country generally. Mutual 
 concessions had of course been found necessary, with some of which, as it 
 was natural to presume, the people of Maine were not fully satisfied. 
 
 The line, to some extent, corresponded to that proposed by the king 
 of the Netherlands. The claim to that portion of the Madawaska settle- 
 ment lying south of the St. John's river, strenuously maintained hereto- 
 fore by Great Britain, was, after a warm contest with lord Ashburton, 
 relinquished to the United States. The Aroostook, also in dispute, was 
 yielded by Great Britain. A tract lying north of the St. John's and 
 claimed by Maine, was relinquished for the free navigation of that entire 
 river. Rouse's point also, of which Great Britain had for many years 
 had possession, was relinquished to the United States. This treaty pro- 
 vided for settling the entire line between the two countries to the Rocky 
 Mountains ; for the final suppression of the slave trade : and for the 
 giving up of criminals, fugitives from justice, in certain cases. 
 
 For the Buppreesion of the slave trade, each of the parties was to main- 
 tain in service, on the coast of Africa, an adequate squadron, carrying 
 not less than eighty guns ; to be independent of each other, but acting 
 in coQcert and cooperation. Persons charged in either country with 
 murder, or assault with intent to* commit murder, piracy, robbery, or 
 forgery, and found in the other, were to be delivered up to justice. 
 
 The treaty was ratified by Great Britain the 1 3th of October, and on 
 
 50 
 
786 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the 10th of November, proclaimed by the president of the United States. 
 The news of the ratification by the British government was received 
 with general satisfaction. In some places public rejoicings were held ; 
 and much applause was bestowed upon Mr. Webster for his successful 
 negotiation of the settlement of this long standing difficulty. Some of 
 the British papers contained expressions of strong dissatisfaction with 
 the concessions made by lord Ashburton. 
 
 CHAPTER LXIV. 
 
 ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. THE PROJECT DEFEATED. DEATH OF MESSR?. 
 
 UPSHUR AND GILMER. 
 
 Since the rejection, by the administration of Mr. Van Bureu, of the 
 proposition for the annexation of Texas to the union, the subject had 
 been permitted to rest in a state of comparative slumber. The project, 
 however, had been by no means abandoned. Both the purpose and the 
 object of annexation had been avowed by southern men and southern 
 legislatures. A report of a committee of the legislature of Mississippi 
 speaks of the importance of the annexation of Texas. It declares that 
 slavery is " highly beneficial to the country within whose limits it is 
 permitted to exist;" that "the south has very peculiar interests to 
 preserve ;" that " protection to her best interest will be afforded by the 
 annexation of Texas ; an equipoise of influence in the halls of congrens 
 will be secured, which will furnish us a permanent guaranty of protec- J 
 tion." 
 
 The intentions of the south had been thus avowed by Mr. Wise, a 
 confidential friend of president Tyler, on the floor of congress in 1842: 
 " True, if Iowa be added on the one side, Florida will be added on the 
 other. But there the equation must stop. Let one more northern 
 state be admitted, and the equilibrium is gone — gone for ever. The 
 balance of interests is gone — the safeguard of American property — of 
 the American constitution — of the American union, vanished into thin 
 air. This must be the inevitable result, unless, by a treaty with 
 Mexico, the south can add more weight to her end of the lever ! Let 
 the south stop at the Sabine, (the eastern boundary of Texas,) while the 
 north may spread unchecked beyond the Rocky Mountains, and the 
 southern scale must kick the beamy 
 
 Mr. Gilmer, a member of congress, and formerly governor of Vir- 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 787 
 
 ginia. wrote in January, 1842, to a friend: " Having acquired Louisi- 
 ana and Florida, we have an interest and a frontier on the Gulf of 
 Mexico, and along our interior to the Pacific, which will not permit us 
 to close our eyes or fold our arms with indifi"erence to the events which 
 a few years may disclose in that quarter. We have already had one 
 question of boundary with Texas ; other questions must soon arrive, 
 under our revenue laws, and on other points of necessary intercourse, 
 which it will be difficult to adjust. The institutions of Texas, and her 
 relations with other governments, are yet in that condition which 
 inclines her people (who are our countrymen) to unite their destinies 
 with ours. This must be done soon, or not at alV 
 
 Resolutions of the legislature of Alabama in favor of annexation had 
 been communicated to congress in 1843. And in the legislature of 
 South Carolina, resolutions were proposed, asserting that Texas was 
 already a part of the union. 
 
 President Tyler, in his annual message of December, 1843, intimated 
 a strong disposition to interpose by force to put an end to the war 
 between Texas and Mexico. The United States, he said, had an imme- 
 diate interest in the matter. Texas had for eight years maintained her 
 independence, which had been recognized by other powers ; and the 
 parent state ought so to regard and recognize hers; in doing which, 
 Mexico would follow the example of Great Britain in respect to the 
 United States. Texas was at the same time making movements towards 
 annexation. Resolutions, and also a bill for this purpose, were intro- 
 duced into the legislature. And it soon appeared that although the 
 object was not made public, negotiation was in progress. It was stated 
 in a Texas paper, that the opinion which had been there entertained, 
 that president Tyler was secretly in favor of annexation, had proved to 
 be correct. Despatches lately sent to the United States related to this 
 subject. It appeared, so said the paper, that Mr. Upshu , the American 
 secretary of state, had proposed to Mr. Van Zandt, the Texas charge 
 at Washington, to open a negotiation for annexing Texas to the union. 
 This proved to be true. Mr. Webster resigned the office of secretary 
 of state in May, 1843. No negotiation seems to have been attempted 
 while he was in office. He was known to be opposed to the B.nnexatioQ 
 Mr. Upshur was appointed in June following. On the 27tn of April, 
 1844, notwithstanding the injunctions of secrecy upon the action of the 
 Benate, the New York Evening Post announced the conclusion of a 
 treaty for the annexation of Texas, which was then pending in the sen- 
 ate, and contained the president's message and documents which accom- 
 panied it. The treaty had been concluded at Washington on the 12th 
 of April, by John C. Calhoun, secretary of state, on the part of the 
 
788 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 United States, and Isaac Van Zandt, and J. Pinckney Henderson on 
 the part of Texas, and communicated to the senate on the 22d, and 
 ordered to be printed in confidence for the use of the senate. 
 
 From the correspondence accompanying the message, it would seem 
 that the fresh impulse given to the annexation movement on the part 
 of our government, was the apprehension that Great Britain was about 
 to enter into a negotiation with the opponents of slavery in Texas, which 
 contemplated its abolition in that country. ' This apprehension pur- 
 ported to be founded on a letter from a private citizen of the United 
 States in London, stating that a Mr. Andrews, deputed by the Texas 
 abolitionists, was then there for that purpose. The project was said to 
 be, that money was to be advanced by a company to be organized in 
 England, to purchase the slaves in Texas, and lands were to be taken in 
 payment for the money thus advanced. Mr. Upshur, in his letter of the 
 8th of August, 1843, to Mr. Murphy, our charg6 in Texas, after having 
 made the above statement, says, " a movement of this sort can not be 
 contemplated by us in silence ;" and he states as a reason, that it was 
 not to be supposed that the design of England was limited to the eman- 
 cipation of a few thousand slaves in Texas ; but that it was a part of 
 her plan " to seek to abolish slavery throughout the entire continent 
 and islands of America." As sugar and cotton could be raised cheaper 
 by slave labor than by the labor of white men. Great Britain desired the 
 abolition of slavery in the United States, Texas, and Brazil, in order 
 to create a market for the productions of her East and West India colo- 
 nies. It was stated, also, that Texas would afford a shelter for fugitive 
 slaves. In view of these and other reasons given in his letter, he presses 
 the subject upon the attention of Mr. Murphy. 
 
 Mr. Murphy, in his answer, dated September 23 and 24, 1843, having 
 given some account of this Mr. Andrews, says he had, on his return 
 from London to Texa-s, been driven away by force. The letter says 
 also : " But the negotiation now on foot between Texas and Mexico, 
 through the medium, or rather under the control, of Great Britain, has 
 changed entirely the whole character of affairs, and demands the most 
 prompt and energetic action of the government of the United States;" 
 and he advises that immediate steps be taken for the safety of our 
 " domestic institutions." Simultaneously with the date of the above 
 letters from Mr. Murphy, September 23, Mr. Upshur writes again to 
 Mr. Murphy, expressing the deep concern of the president in regard to 
 the policy of England, and requests Mr. Murphy to communicate fully 
 and freely with Mr. Thompson, our minister in Mexico. He also 
 expresses fears that the British are endeavoring to obtain control of the 
 gulf of Mexico, and urges the most untiring vigilance of the movements 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAR 789 
 
 of that government. He had already written (Septen^bcr 21,) to Mr. 
 Everett, our minister at London, expressing the same alarm, and direct- 
 ing him to use all diligence in obtaining information on the subject 
 And on the 28th he wrote again to Mr. Everett, (confidentially,) saying 
 it was " impossible to suppose that England was actuated by a mere 
 feeling of philanthrophy ;" and he argues the necessity of slave labor in 
 the production of sugar, cotton, and rice, the physical constitution of 
 the African being much better adapted to tropical climates than that of 
 the European. Their condition also would be made worse by emanci- 
 pation. If Texas was a free state, the slaves of the South would only 
 have to cross the Sabine or the Red River, and they would find them- 
 selves freemen. 
 
 Mr. Everett, in his answer, November 3, 1843, says he was told by 
 lord Aberdeen, that " the suggestion that England had made or intended 
 to make the abolition of slavery the condition of any treaty arrange- 
 ment with Texas, was wholly without foundation." General Hamilton, 
 a commissioner from Texas, had applied for a loan to Texas to be used 
 to aid her in obtaining from Mexico the recognition of her independence, 
 but bis proposal had been declined- It however had no connection with 
 the abolition of slavery. Among the correspondence there is also a 
 letter from Mr. Pakenham, British minister at Washington, inclosing 
 a letter from Lord Aberdeen, dated December 26, 1843, disavowing any 
 design on the part of that government to interfere in the matter of 
 slavery. He says: " Much as we should wish to see the slaveholding 
 states placed on the firm and solid footing which we believe is to be 
 obtained by general freedom alone, we have never in our treatment of 
 them made any diflference between the slaveholding and free states of 
 the uuion. • * * Although we shall not desist from those open 
 and honest efforts which we have constantlj' made for procuring the aboli- 
 tion of slavery throughout the world, we shall neither openly nor 
 secretly," &c. 
 
 Delicately as the noble lord expressed the disapprobation of his govern- 
 ment of slavery, and their determination to continue open and honest 
 efforts to procure its abolition, Mr. Calhoun, in a reply to Mr. Paken- 
 ham, takes exception to this avowal, by Great Britain, that it was "her 
 settled policy arid the object of her constant exertions to abolish slavery 
 throughout the world." The president, he said, regarded with still 
 deeper concern the avowal of the desire of Great Britain to see slavery 
 abolished in Texas, And Mr. Calhoun tells Mr. Pakenham, "that the 
 consummation of her (Great Britain's) wishes in reference to Texas, 
 would be followed by hostile feelings and relations between that coun- 
 try (Texas) and the United States, which could not fail to place her 
 
790 THE AMERICAN STAIESMAN. 
 
 under the influence and control of Great Britain." This, he says, 
 " from the geographical position of Texas, would expose the weakest 
 and most vulnerable portion of our frontier to inroads, and place in the 
 power of Great Britain the most eflfectual means of effecting in the 
 neighboring states of this union what she avows to be her desire to do 
 in all the countries where slavery exists." And he informs Mr. Paken- 
 ham that the general government, acting in obedience to its obligation 
 to protect the states against danger, had already concluded a treaty with 
 Texas for her annexation to the union ! He then undertakes to con- 
 vince Mr. P. that the African race in this country are in a better coq<(* j 
 dition as slaves than they would be if free, and that it would be far fron^ 
 wise or humane — indeed it would be " the greatest calamity to the race" 
 to change their condition. But we may not pursue this sketch of the 
 correspondence on this subject. 
 
 On the 8th of June, the question was taken in the senate on the rati- 
 fication of the treaty, a majority of two-thirds being nece.ssary to ratify. 
 Only 16 senators voted in the affirmative, and 25 in the negative. Of 
 the senators from the free states who voted for the treaty, were Messrs. 
 Buchanan and Sturgeon, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Breese, of Illinois, and 
 Mr. Woodbury, of New Hampshire. Of the democrats from the free 
 states who voted agai^-t the treaty, were Mr. Fairfield, of Maine, Mr. 
 Atherton, of New Hampshire, Mr. Niles, of Connecticut, Mr. Wright, 
 of New York, Messrs. Allen and Tappan, of Ohio, and Mr. Benton, of 
 Missouri, a slave state. 
 
 The vote on the question of ratification does not, however, indicate ' 
 the' views of senators on the abstract question of annexation. One 
 objection to the treaty was, that it would involve the United States in ' 
 a war with Mexico. Another was, that Texas claimed disputed terri- 
 tory ; and to receive Texas would compel our government to defend the 
 claim against Mexico. It was also objected, that annexation was uucon- ! 
 stitutional. ^ 
 
 In the debate in secret session on the ratification, a large number of 
 senators took part ; among whom ^yere Messrs. Benton, Choate, Wright, 
 Walker and M'Duffie; the two last in favor of the treaty; the others 
 in opposition. 
 
 Mr. Benton's great speech was delivered on the 16th, 17th, and 20th ' 
 of May, and was in support of resolutions offered by him on the 13th, 
 declaring, 
 
 1st. That the ratification of the treaty would be the adoption of th»; 
 Texian war with Mexico, and would devolve its conclusion upon the *| 
 United States. 
 
 2d. That the treaty-making power does not extend to the power of 
 
ANNEXATION OP TEXAS. 791 
 
 raakiag war, and that the president and senate have no right to make 
 war, either bj declaration or adoption. 
 
 3d. That Texas ought to be reiinited to the American union, as soon 
 &ti it can be done with the consent of a majority of the people of the 
 United States and of Texas, and when Mexico shall either consent to 
 the same, or acknowledge the independence of Texas, or cease to prose- 
 cute the war against her, (the armistice having expired,) on a scale com- 
 mensurate to the conquest of the country. 
 
 Mr. Beutou contended that the treaty proposed to annex much more 
 territory than originally belonged to Texas ; and therefore the proposi- 
 tion for the " reannexation of Texas''' was a fraud in words. It was 
 not pretended, even by those who used that word, that the province of 
 Texas, when it was ceded in 1819 to Spain, extended farther than the 
 boundaries included between the Sabine and the llio del Norte, and the 
 Gulf of Mexico and the Red River, whilst the republic of Texas, as 
 defined in the treaty, included the whole extent of the Rio del Norte 
 and embraced portions of the department of New Mexico with its cap. 
 tal, being many hundreds of miles of a neighbor's dominion, with whom, 
 we had treaties of peace and friendship and commerce — a territory 
 where no Texian force had ever penetrated, and including towns and vil- 
 lages and custom-houses now in the peaceful possession of Mexico. 
 
 In a message to the senate subsequent to that accompanying the treaty, 
 the president had asserted the doctrine, that the treaty signed by him 
 was ratified from that moment ; and, consequently, that part of Mexico 
 above mentioned must be and remain " reannexed," until the acquisition 
 should be rejected by the senate. In relation to this Mr. Benton speaks 
 thus: 
 
 " The president in his special message of Wednesday last, informs us 
 that we have acquired a title to the ceded territory by his signature to 
 the treaty, wanting only the action of the senate to perfect it ; and that, 
 in the mean time, he will protect it frojn invasion, and for that purpose 
 has detached all tke disposable portions of the army and navy to ihe 
 scene of action. This is a caper about equal to the mad freaks with 
 which the unfortunate emperor Paul, of Russia, was accustomed to 
 astonish Europe about forty years ago. By this declaration, the thirty 
 thousand Mexicans in the left half of the valley of the Rio Del Norte 
 are our citizens, and standing, in the language of the president's mes- 
 sage, in a hostile attitude towards us, and subject to be repelled as in- 
 vaders. Taos, the seat of the custom-house, where our caravans enter 
 their goods, is ours ; governor Armijo is our governor, and subject to be 
 tried for treason if he does not submit to us ; twenty Mexican towns and 
 villages are ours , and their peaceful inhabitants, cultivating their fields 
 
7^2 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 and tending their flocks, are suddenly converted, by a stroke of the presi- 
 dent's pen into American citizens, or American rebels. This is too bad : 
 and, instead of making themselves party to its enormities, as the presi- 
 dent invites them to do, I think rather that it is the duty of the senate 
 to wash its hands of all this part of the transaction by a special disap 
 probation. The senate is the constitutional adviser of the president, and 
 has the right, if not the duty, to give him advice when the occasion re- 
 quires it. I therefore propose, as an additional resolution, applicable to 
 the Rio del N(jrte boundary only — the one which I will read and send 
 to the secretary's table — and on which, at the proper time, I shall ask 
 the vote of the senate. This is the resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del 
 Norte into the American union, by virtue of a treaty with Texas, com- 
 prehending as the said incorporation would do, a part of the Mexican 
 departments of New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, 
 would be an act of direct aggression on Mexico ; for all the consequences 
 of which the United States would stand responsible." 
 
 Having shown the effect of the treaty on the Rio Grande frontier, 
 Mr. B. took up the treaty itself, under all its aspects and in its whole 
 extent, and assumed four positions in relation to it; namely: 
 
 1 . That the ratification of the treaty would be, of itself, war between 
 the United States and Mexico. 
 
 2. That it would be unjust war. 
 
 3. That it would be war unconstitutionally made. 
 
 4. That it would be war upon a weak and groundless pretext." 
 
 Mr. M'DuflBe, on the 23d of May, replied to Mr. Benton. The ques- 
 tion as to boundary, he said, had been exhausted by the conclusive 
 argument of Mr. Walker, of Mississippi, and he would not discuss it. 
 It had been contended by senators, that the ratification of the treaty 
 would subject us to the charge of a violation of the public faith. In 
 answer to this objection, Mr. M'Duffie referred to the ease of France, in 
 1778. When the United States were waging an unequal war with 
 Great Britain, she came to oar aid, recognized our independence, and 
 formed with us a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive. Had any 
 historian mentioned this as a breach of national faith on the part of 
 France ? Had our government contracted such an alliance with Texas 
 when Santa Anna was marching to meet a disgraceful defeat at San 
 Jacinto, it would have violated no national faith, nor any dictate of 
 international law. He contended that she had maintained her indepen- 
 dence ; we had recognized it: so had Great Britain, France, Holland 
 and Belgium. She possessed all the attributes of national sovereignty 
 and the elements of self-government, more so than Mexico herself 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 793 
 
 Texas, he said, had a right to enter into a treaty of annexation if she 
 chose ; and who would deny her that right ? Could she not dispose of 
 herself as she pleased ? And did it not follow that the United States 
 had a corresponding and an equal right to receive her ? The right of 
 property implied the right of the proprietor to sell, and the correlative 
 right of every other person to purchase. 
 
 But it was said the ratification would involve us in a war with Mexico. 
 So he himself thought in 1836, when Texas was a " rebellious province ;" 
 but since the battle of San Jacinto, Mexico had nrt made a single mili- 
 tary movement toward recovering her lost dominions. S4ie had done 
 nothing that deserved the name of war. Appealing to the gasconading 
 proclamation of Mexico, the senator from Missouri had asked, " Is this 
 peace ?" The orders to the home squadron, and the army of observa- 
 tion sent to the Sabine, to watch the movements of Mexico, should any 
 be made, and promptly report them to head quarters, that they might 
 as promptly be reported to congress, the senator had pronounced an act 
 of war. If to employ a corps of observation was to make war, then we 
 were at war with the powers in the West Indies, on the Mediterranean, 
 and on the coast of Africa ; for we had squadrons in every sea to pro- 
 tect our commerce, and to make war on pirates. The proclamations of 
 Mexico, and the counter proclamations and defiances of Texas, he did 
 not consider war, as did the senators on the other side. 
 
 Mr. M'Dufiie referred to the proposition to Mexico made by Mr. Clay, 
 when secretary of state under Mr. Adams, in 1825, to purchase Texas, 
 when the war between Spain and Mexico was still in existence. So in 
 1829, when Mexico was invaded by a large army, and her ports were 
 blockaded, Mr. Van Buren, by order of Gen. Jackson, made to Mexico 
 a proposition to purchase Texas. 
 
 Having advocated the right to receive Texas, he proceeded to show 
 the duty of making the treaty. Great Britain should not be allowed 
 to obtain the control of Texas by a treaty of guaranty stipulating for 
 extensive commercial privileges. He had never till now realized the 
 justice of Mr. Monroe's declaration, that no European power must ever 
 be permitted to establish a colony on this continent. And he urged the 
 danger to the slave property of the south, if Great Britain should get 
 control of Texas. They had a right to demand from the government 
 proteafcn to their property. Annexation, too, would operate as a 
 Bafety-«^e to let oflf their superabundant slave population, which would 
 render wrem more happy, and the whites more secure. And with regard 
 to the time of annexation, he adopted the language of Gen. Jackson, 
 " now or never," 
 
 Immediately after '♦he treaty was rejected, Mr. Benton gave notice of 
 
794 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 a bill for the annexation of Texas, with the consent of Mexico. On the 
 lOih of April, pursuant to notice, he brought in the. bill, which autho- 
 rized and advised the president to open negotiations with Mexico and 
 Texas for adjusting boundaries, and annexing Texas to the United 
 States, on the following bases: 
 
 1st. The boundary to be in the desert prairie west of the Nueces, and 
 along the highlands and mountain heights which divide the waters of 
 the Mississippi from those of the Rio del Norte, and to latitude 42 
 degrees north. 
 
 2d. The people of Texas, by a legislative act or otherwise, to express 
 their assent to annexation. 
 
 3d. A state to be called " Texas," with boundaries fixed by herself, 
 and an extent not exceeding that of the largest state in the union, to be 
 admitted into the union by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with 
 the original states. 
 
 4th. The remainder of the territory, to be called " The South-west 
 Territory," and to be held and disposed of by the United States as one 
 of their territories. 
 
 5th. Slavery to be forever prohibited in the northern half of the 
 annexed territory. 
 
 6th, The assent of Mexico to such annexation and boundary to be 
 obtained by treaty, or to be dispensed with when congress may deem such 
 assent unnecessary. 
 
 7th. Other details to be adjusted by treaty so far as they may come 
 within the scope of the treaty-making power. 
 
 On presenting his bill, Mr. Benton spoke nearly two hours. He said 
 his was not a new burst of afifcction for the possession of the country, as 
 his writings a quarter of a century ago would testify. He disapproved 
 the course of the executive in not having first consulted congress. The 
 rejection of the treaty having wiped out all cause of ofiense to Mexico, 
 he thought it best to commence again, and at the right end — with the 
 legislative branch, by which means we should proceed regularly and con- 
 stitutionally. As to the boundary, he had followed the basis laid down 
 by Jefferson, fixing, as the limit to be adopted in settling the boundary 
 with Spain, all the territory watered by the tributaries to the Missis- 
 sippi, and had made it applicable to Mexico and Texas. He did not 
 attach so much importance to the consent of Mexico as to mal^ it an 
 indispensable condition, yet he regarded it as something to b^ffespect- 
 fully sought for. But if it were not obtained, it was left to]|B house 
 to say when that consent became unnecessary. He wished to continue 
 in amity with Mexico. Those who underrated the value of a good 
 understanding with her, knew nothing of what they spoke. Mexico 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 795 
 
 took the products of our farms, and returned the solid silver of her 
 mines. Our trade with her was constantly increasing. In 1821, the 
 year in which she became independent, we received from her $30,000 ; 
 in 1835, $8,500,000. When we began to sympathize with Texas, this 
 trade rapidly fell off, until it got down to one million and a half. As 
 the earliest and most consistent friend of Texas, he desired peace with 
 Mexico, in order to procure the ultimate annexation of Texas. If Mex- 
 ico, blind to her interests, should refuse to let Texas take her natural 
 position as a part of the valley of the Mississippi, let congress say in 
 what case the consent of Mexico might cease to be necessary. 
 
 Mr. Benton severely censured that party, who, while an armistice was 
 subsisting between Mexico and Texas, which bid fair to lead to peace, 
 rushed in with a firebrand to disturb these relations of amity. For this 
 act they must stand condemned in the eyes of Christendom. Every 
 wise man must see that Texas and Mexico were not naturally parts of 
 a common country. The settlements of Mexico had never taken the 
 direction of Texas. In a north-eastern direction, they had not extended 
 much over the Rio Grai^e ; they had come merely to the pastoral 
 regions, but had never professed strength enough to subdue the sugar and 
 cotton sections. He alluded to his own far back prophecies and writings 
 concerning Texas. Messrs. Walker and Woodbury he termed " Texas 
 neophytes," who had been so anxious to make great demonstrations of 
 love for Texas. For himself he had no such anxiet}', because his senti- 
 ments had always been known. With him it was not a question " now 
 or never," but Texas then, now, and always. 
 
 Mr. Benton said he had provided against another Missouri agitation. 
 For those who regarded slavery as a great moral evil, in which he, per- 
 haps, did not differ much from them, there was a provision which would 
 neutralize the slave influence. He would not join the fanatics on either 
 side — those who were running a muck for or against slavery. 
 
 Mr. M'Dufiie replied to Mr. Benton in a long, desultory speech, appa- 
 rently intended rather to provoke by satire or irony, and to excite laugh- 
 ter, than to convince by argument. He remarked at the conclusion of 
 his speech, that the bill of Mr. Benton was as likely as the treaty to 
 bring us mto a war with Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Benton, rising immediately, exclaimed, ♦' But with this great 
 difference ! this great difference ! that my bill refers the question of war 
 with Mexico to congress, where all questions of war belong, and the 
 negotiators of this treaty made war themselves ! They, the president 
 and his secretary of state, made the war themselves, and made it uncon- 
 stitutionally, perfidiously, clandestinely, and piratically. The secret 
 orders to our army and navy were piratical ; for they were without law, 
 
796; THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and to vaylaiy and attack a friendly power with whom we have a treaty 
 of amity; and as a member of a court martial, I would sentence to be 
 shot any ofl&cer of the army and navy who should dare to attack Mexican 
 troops, or ships, or cities, under that order. Officers are to obey lawful 
 orders, and no others; and they are not to make war by virtue of any 
 presidential orders, until congress has declared it," Mr. B. proceeded 
 at some length to contrast his bill with the treaty, from which, he said, 
 it was as different as light from darkness. It was respectful to Mexico, 
 requiring her to be consulted before, not after the treaty. It assumed 
 her consent to be necessary now, in the present state of the question 
 between her and Texas ; but if supposed a time when it would not be 
 necessary, and of which congress was to judgQ. The ratification of the 
 treaty would have been the adoption, by the senate, of the war made by 
 the president and secretary. 
 
 Mr. M'Duffie had taken exception to Mr. Benton's application of the 
 word neophyte to the new friends of Texas. Mr. B. here indulged in 
 a strain of mingled humor and satire. " The word can imply nothing 
 offensive or derogatory. It is, indeed, s^^haste and classic phrase, 
 known to the best writers, both sacred and profane. St. Paul uses it in 
 his epistles, (the Greek copies;) and, after naming him, no higher 
 authority is wanted for what is gentlemanly and scholastic, as well as 
 what is pious and Christian; but bring me a dictionary, (speaking to a 
 page of the senate;) bring me Richardson, letter N, and see what he 
 says." 
 
 The book was brought. Mr. B. read : 
 
 "Neophyte — In French, neophyte ; in Italian, neofito; in Spanish; 
 neophyto; Latin, neophytus; Greek, neophutos; from neos, new, and 
 phuton, a plant, a new plant ; figuratively, a new convert ; one newly im- 
 planted (s. c.) in the church ; and consequently, newly converted to the 
 Christian faith ; one newly initiated, newly introduced or employed." 
 
 "This (resumed Mr. B.) is Richardson's definition and etymology; 
 and nothing can be more classic or innocent. It is pure Greek, only 
 modified in sound and termination, in going through six languages ; and, 
 both literally and figuratively, has an innocent and decent signification." 
 
 After some farther play upon the meaning and application of thia 
 word, he proceeds: " But to be done with joking. The senator is cer- 
 tainly a new plant, and an exotio, in the Texan garden ; and those 
 friends of his, the defense of whom has called him from a sick bed to 
 do what he has not done, defend them — a task which would indeed re- 
 quire ' angels and ministers of grace,' these friends of his, they are also 
 new plants and exotics and strange plants in the same good garden ; and 
 of them I must say, moreover, what I cannot and will not say of him-r- 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. T 797 
 
 they are intfusive, noxious, and poisonous weeds in that fair garden ! I 
 remember the time when they flung the whole garden, as a worthless 
 incumbrance, away. And they enter it now, as the serpent did Eden, 
 with deceit in the face and death ifi the heart." 
 
 Mr. Benton then proceeds to the discussion of the treaty ; and in the 
 course of his remarks, says : " The senator undertakes to answer my 
 speech, but he avoids all the hard places. He says nothing of the two 
 thousand miles of Mexican territory, (over and above Texas, and to 
 which no Texian soldier ever went, except to be killed or captured,) and 
 which, by the treaty is annexed to the United States. He says nothing 
 about the private engagement for war against Mexico, and sending our 
 troops to join president Houston. He says nothing about this jpen 
 assumption of the purse and the sword ; nothing about the admission 
 of new states by treaty, without the consent of congress ; nothing about 
 the loss of Mexican commerce, and the alienation of all the South Ameri- 
 can states from our cause ; nothing about the breach of the armistice, 
 and breach of treaties with a friendly power ; nothing about the Dufi" 
 Green stories for making pretexts for predetermined conclusions ; no- 
 thing, in fact, to the pregnant indications which show that the treaty was 
 made, not to get Texas into the union, but to get the south out of it. 
 He defends the feelings, not the doings of his friends. The great ob- 
 jections to the treaty are in its encroachments upon New Mexico, 
 Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas ; in its adoption of the Texian 
 war ; in its adoption of that war unconstitutionally ; in its destruction 
 of our trade with Mexico; in our breach of treaties, in the alienation 
 of Mexico and all the South American states from us, our permanent 
 loss of trade and friendship with those powers • and the seeds of disunion 
 (dissolution of our union) so carefully and so thickly planted in it. 
 Above all, he says nothing to the great objection to admitting new states 
 by treaty — an act which congress only can do. These are the great ob- 
 jections to the treaty; and all these the defender of the president and 
 his secretary leaves undefended. 
 
 • • * ''The senator from South Carolina, in his zeal to defend his 
 friends, goes beyond the line of defense and attacks me; he supposes me 
 to have made anti-annexation speeches ; and certainly, if he limits the 
 supposition to my speeches against the treaty, he is right. But that 
 treaty, far from securing the annexation of Texas, only provides for tho 
 disunion of these states. The annexation of the whole country as a 
 territory, and that upon the avowed ground of laying it all out into 
 Blave states, is an open preparation for a Missouri question and a disso- 
 lution of the union. I am against that ; and for annexation in the mode 
 pointed out in my bill. I am for Texas — for Texas with peace and 
 
T98 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 honor, and with the union. Those who want annexation on these terms 
 should support my bill ; those who want it without peace, without honor, 
 and without the union, should stick to the lifeless corpse of the defunct 
 treaty." • 
 
 The president, having been foiled in his scheme of annexation by 
 treaty, appealed to the house of representatives, in a message, dated the 
 10th of June, two days after the rejection of the treaty, accompanied by 
 the rejected treaty with the correspondence and documents which had 
 been submitted to the senate. The president says in the message, that 
 ne does not perceive the force of the objections of the senate to the 
 ratification. Negotiations with Mexico, in advance of annexation, would 
 not only prove abortive, but might be regarded as offensive to Mexico 
 and insulting to Texas. We could not negotiate with Mexico for Texas, 
 without admitting that our recognition of her independence was fraudu- 
 lent, delusive, or void. Only after acquiring Texas, could the question 
 of boundary arise between the United States and Mexico, a question 
 purposely left open for negotiation with Mexico, as affording the best 
 opportunity for the most friendly and pacific arrangements. He asserted 
 that Texas no longer owed allegiance to Mexico ; she was, and bad been 
 for eight years, independent of the confederation of Mexican republics. 
 Nor could we be accused of violating treaty stipulations. Our treaty 
 with Mexico was merely commercial, intended to define the rights and 
 secure the interests of the citizens of each country. There was no bad 
 faith in negotiating with an independent power upon any subject not 
 violating the stipulations of such treaty. 
 
 In view of the importance of the subject, he invited the immediate 
 attention of the representatives of the people to it ; and for so doing he 
 found a sufficient apology in the urgency of the matter, as annexation 
 would encounter great hazard of defeat, if something were not now done 
 to prevent it. He transmitted to the house a number of private lett^ers 
 on the subject, from citizens of Texas entitled to confidence. 
 
 Much had occurred to confirm his confidence in the statements of 
 Gen. Jackson, and of his own statement in a previous message, that 
 " instructions had already been given by the Texan government to pro- 
 pose to the government of Great Britain forthwith, on the failure of the 
 treaty, to enter into a treaty of commerce, and an alliance offensiA-e and 
 defensive." He also referred the house to a letter from Mr. Everett 
 from London, which he seemed to construe into an intention to interfere 
 with the contemplated arrangement between the United States and 
 Texas. Although he regarded annexation by treaty as the most suita- 
 ble form in which it could be effected, should congress deem it proper 
 to resort to any other expedient compatible with the constitution and 
 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OP 1844. 799 
 
 likely to accomplish the object, he was prepared to yield his prompt and 
 active cooperation. He says : " The question is not as to the manner 
 in which it shall be done, but whether it shall be accomplished or not. 
 The responsibility of deciding this question is now devolved upon you." 
 
 The message was communicated at too late a day for deliberation and 
 action at this session. Congress adjourned on the 1 7th of June. 
 
 On the 28th of February of this year, (1844,) vacancies occurred in 
 the offices of secretary of state and of secretary of the navy, by the death 
 of Abel P. Upshur and Thomas W. Gilmer. Captain Stockton, com- 
 mander of the United States ship Princeton, had been occupied in pre- 
 paring a new apparatus for war, and had iuvit'>d a large number of per- 
 sons to witness its effects, and spend the day on board his ship. Among 
 the guests were the members of the government and their families. On 
 their passage down the Potomac, one of the large guns, carrying a ball 
 of 225 pounds, was fired several times. On their return up the river, 
 Captain Stockton consented to fire another shot, which burst the gun, 
 and killed a number of the persons on board, among whom were the 
 two secretaries. Mr. Upshur had been appointed in June, 1843, as 
 successor to Hugh S. Legare, who had succeeded Mr. "Webster, and 
 died about a month after his appointment. Mr. Calhoun was appointed 
 in the place of Mr. Upshur ; and John Y. Mason, of Virginia, in the 
 place of Mr. Gilmer. [Note N.] 
 
 CHAPTER LXV. 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 
 
 The annexation of Texas was becoming a party question. As such 
 it constituted a leading issue between the two great parties at the pre- 
 sidential election of this year. 
 
 The persons designated by public sentiment as candidates for the pre- 
 sidency, were Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Clay. The place appointed for 
 the holding of the nominating conventions was Baltimore. The whig 
 convention was to take place on the 1st of May; that of the democrats 
 on the 27th. Agitated as the public mind was on annexation, the posi- 
 tion of the candidates on this question naturally became the subject of 
 inquiry. Mr. Clay having received several letters since his departure, 
 in December, on a southern tour, requesting an expression of his opinion 
 upon the question of the annexation of Texas to the United States, he 
 addressed to the editors of the National Intelligencer, from Raleigb, 
 
800 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 North Carolina, a letter dated April 17, 1844, designed as an answer 
 to the various communications which he had receiyed. 
 
 Mr. Clay, expressing his views in general terms, said: " If, without 
 the loss of national character, without the hazard of foreign war, with 
 the general concurrence of the nation, without any danger to the integrity 
 of the union, and without giving an unreasonable price for Texas, the 
 question of annexation were presented, it would appear in quite a differ- 
 ent light from that in which, I apprehend, it is now to be regarded." 
 
 In relation to the acquisition and relinquishment of Texas, he says; 
 " The United States acquired a title to Texas, extending, as I believe, 
 to the Rio del Norte, by the treaty of Louisiana. They ceded and 
 relinquished that title to Spain by the treaty of 1819, by Tivhich the 
 Sabine was substituted for the Rio del Norte as our western boundary. 
 This treaty was negotiated under the administration of Mr. Monroe, 
 and with the concurrence of his cabinet, of which Messrs. Crawford, 
 Calhoun, and Wirt, being a majority, all southern gentlemen, composed 
 a part. When the treaty was laid before the house of representatives, 
 being a member of that body, I expressed the opinion, which I then 
 entertained, and still hold, that Texas was sacrificed to the acquisition 
 of Florida. We wanted Florida ; but I thought it must, from its posi- 
 tion, inevitably fall into our possession • that the point of a few years 
 sooner or later, was of no sort of consequence, and that in giving five 
 millions of dollars and Texas for it, we gave more than a just equiva- 
 lent. But if we made a great sacrifice in the surrender of Texas, we 
 ought to take care not to make too great a sacrifice in the attempt to 
 reacquire it. 
 
 " My opinions of the inexpediency of the treaty of 1819 did not pre- 
 vail. The country and congress were satisfied with it ; appropriations 
 were made to carry it into effect ; the line of the Sabine was recognized 
 by us as our boundary, in negotiations both with Spain and Mexico, 
 after Mexico became independent ; and measures have been in actual pro- 
 gress to mark the line, from the Sabine to Red river, and thence to the 
 Pacific ocean. We have thus fairly alienated our title to Texas, by 
 solemn national compacts, to the fulfillment of which we stand bound by 
 good faith and national honor. It is, therefore, perfectly idle and ridi- 
 culous, if not dishonorable, to talk of resuming our title to Texas, as if 
 we had never parted with it. We can no more do that than Spain cau 
 resume Florida, France, Louisiana, or Great Britain the thirteen ccloQ- 
 ies, now composing a part of the United States. 
 
 " During the administration of Mr. Adams, Mr. Poinsett, minister of 
 the United States at Mexico, was instructed by me, with the president's 
 authority, to propose a re-purchase of Texas ; but he forbore even to 
 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 801 
 
 make an overture for that purpose. Upon hia return to the United 
 States, he informed me, at New Orleans, that his reason for not making 
 it was, that he knew the purchase was wholly impracticable, and that 
 he was persuaded that, if he made the overture, it would have no other 
 effect than to aggravate irritations, already existing, upon matters of 
 difference between the two countries." 
 
 Mr. Clay said the revolt of Texas had been greatly aided by citizens 
 of the United States — in a manner, and to an extent which brought 
 upon us the reproach of an impartial world ; and we ought not to give 
 occasion for the imputation of having instigated and aided the revolu- 
 tion with the ultimate view of territorial aggrandizement. Our recog- 
 nition of the independence of Texas, had not affected or impaired the 
 rights of Mexico ; and she had continued to assert the right to resubja- 
 gate Texas. A temporary suspension of hostilities had been agreed on ; 
 but, he presumed, with the purpose, upon the termination of the armis- 
 tice, of renewing the war and enforcing what she considered to be her 
 rights. And if Mexico still persevered in asserting her rights by actual 
 force of arms, our government, if it acquired Texas, would also acquire 
 all her incumbrances, and among them, the war with Mexico. He 
 would not involve the country in a war for the acquisition of Texas. 
 There W5re those who regarded a war with Mexico with indifference, on 
 account of her weakness. Justice and good faith were equally due to a 
 weak as to a powerful nation, But were we certain that the contest 
 would be with Mexico alone? Had we any security that countless 
 foreign vessels, under the Mexican flag, would not prey upon our defense- 
 less commerce in the Mexican gulf, or on the Pacific and every other 
 ocean and aea ? Might Mexico obtain no allies among the great Euro- 
 pean powers ? 
 
 Assuming the annexation of Texas to be war with Mexico, was it 
 competent for the treaty-making power to plunge the country into war, 
 without even deigning to consult congress, to which alone the constitu- 
 tion entrusts the power to declare war ? 
 
 Another objection to receiving Texas as an integral part of the union 
 was, that it would be in decided opposition of the wishes of a consider- 
 able portion of the confederacy. He thought it more wise to harmonize 
 the confederacy as it existed, than to introduce into it a new element 
 of discord and distraction. Nor did he think the framers of the con- 
 stitution contemplated adding to the union foreign territory out of 
 which new states were to be formed. So Mr. Jefferson and others be- 
 lieved. The acquisition of Louisiana and Florida might be defended 
 upon the ground of their peculiar relation to the United States. No 
 such necessity existed in the present case. 
 
 51 
 
802 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Clay said there were those who favored and those who opposed 
 the annexation of Texas, from its supposed effect upon the balance of 
 political power between two great sections of the union. He discoun- 
 tenanced the motive of acquiring territory for the purpose of strengthen- 
 ing one part of the union against another. If to-day Texas should be 
 obtained to strengthen the south, to-morrow Canada might be acquired 
 to add strength to the north. In the progress of this spirit of universal 
 dominion, the part of the union now the weakest, would find itself still 
 weaker from the impossibility of securing new theaters for those peculiar 
 institutions which it is charged with being desirous to extend. But he 
 doubted whether Texas would really add strength to the south. From 
 the information which he had of that country, he thought it susceptible 
 of a division into five states of convenient size and form ; three of which 
 he thought would be unfavorable to the employment of slave labor, and 
 would be free states, while only two of them would be slave states. 
 This might serve to diminish the zeal both of those who oppose and 
 those who urge annexation. 
 
 Besides, by the annexation of Texas, the United States would become 
 responsible for her debt, which he had seen stated at thirteen millions 
 of dollars. 
 
 In the event of an attempt by any European nation to colonize or sub- 
 jugate Texas, he would regard it as the duty of the government of the 
 United States to oppose, by force of arms, if necessary, the accomplish- 
 ment of such design. 
 
 If, as was probable, there should, in the progress of events, be a 
 separation of the British North American colonies from the parent 
 country, it was his opinion that the happiness of all parties would be 
 best promoted by their being erected into a separate and independent 
 republic. The three republics, Canada, Texas, and the United States, 
 would be natural allies, ready by cooperation, to repel any foreign attack 
 upon either. 
 
 In conclusion, he thus sums up his opinions : He " considers the 
 annexation of Texas, at this time, without the assent of Mexico, as a 
 measure compromising the national character, involving us certainly in 
 war with Mexico, probably with other foreign powers, dangerous to the 
 integrity of the union, inexpedient to the present financial condition of the 
 country, and not called for by any general expression of public opinion." 
 
 This letter was satisfactory to the party generally, although it did 
 not fully express the views of the ultra slaveholding whigs, or of the 
 mass of the whig party in the northern states. To the former it was 
 not sufficiently favorable to slavery, while to the latter, the prospective 
 increase of the slave power in the general government was the grand 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 803 
 
 olijection to the proposed measure. Still, the fact of Mr. Clay's opposi- 
 tion to it, for other, though less weighty reasons, rendered him generally 
 acceptable to the party in these states. 
 
 Notwithstanding Mr. Van Buren had long been the leading demo- 
 cratic candidate, and his nomination had been considered as almost cer- 
 tain, his a,vailability began to be questioned by many prominent members 
 of the democratic party. In the southern states, especially, where the 
 deepest solicitude was felt for the annexation of Texas, the apprehension 
 prevailed, that Mr. Van Buren, being a northern man, might not 
 encourage this favorite scheme of the south As the opinions of a can- 
 didate on this question were deemed all important in that section of the 
 union, Mr. William H. Hammet, member of congress from Mississippi, 
 and recently appointed a delegate to the approaching national convention, 
 on the 27th of March, addressed Mr. Van Buren, requesting of him a 
 public expression of his " opinions as to the constitutionality and expe- 
 diency of immediately annexing Texas to the United States, or as soon 
 as the consent of Texas might be had to such annexation." 
 
 Mr. Van Buren's answer is dated April 20, three days later than the 
 letter of Mr. Clay on the same subject, but before its publication. The 
 letter is one of very great length, in which the several points involved in 
 this important question are elaborately discussed. It also contains 
 many interesting historical facts, directly and indirectly relating to the 
 subject. 
 
 As Mr. Clay had done under Mr. Adams, so Mr. Van Buren, in 1829, 
 while secretary of state, by direction of G-en. Jackson, instructed our 
 minister at Mexico to open a negotiation with the Mexican government 
 for the purchase of the greater part of the then province of Texas. " In 
 taking this step," he says, " the administration of president Jackson 
 renewed (but as was supposed, under more favorable circumstances) an 
 attempt to accomplish the same object which had been made by its 
 immediate predecessor. Instructions, similar in their general object, 
 had, in the second year of the latter administration, been sent from the 
 department of state to the same American minister at Mexico. I am 
 not aware that there were any material differences between them, other 
 than those of 1827 proposed an acquisition of territory as far west as the 
 Rio del Norte — being, I believe, the extreme western boundary of Texas — 
 whilst the cession asked for by president Jackson extended only west 
 as far as the desert or grand prairie, which lies east of the river 
 Nueces; and that for the frontier the payment of one million of dollars 
 was authorized, whilst, by the administration of president Jackson, the 
 American minister was permitted to go as high as four, and, if indis- 
 pensable, five millions. Both authorized agreements for smaller portions 
 
804 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 I 
 
 of territory ; and the payments were modified accordingly. In respect 
 to the proposed stipulations for the ultimate incorporation of the iufeahi* 
 tants into the union, both instructions were identical. 
 
 '' In August, 1837, a proposition was received at the department of 
 state, from the Texian minister at Washington, proposing a negotiation 
 for the annexation of Texas to the United States. This was the first 
 time the question of annexing a foreign independent state had ever been 
 presented to this government. In deciding upon the disposition that 
 ought to be made of it, I did not find it necessary to consider the ques- 
 tion of constitutional power, nor the manner in which the object should 
 be accomplished, if deemed expedient and proper. Both these points 
 were, therefore, in terms, passed over, in the reply of the secretary of 
 state to the Texian minister, as subjects the consideration of which had 
 not been entered upon by the executive." 
 
 He then proceeds to the discussion of the constitutional power. It 
 may be proper here to premise, that as, by the constitution, the power 
 to admit new states into the union is given to congress, Texas, it waa 
 inferred, could not be annexed, as a state, by the treaty-making power ; 
 and hence, if annexed by treaty, it could be done constitutionally only, 
 if at all, by acquiring it as a territory. But as the constitution 
 did not in terms confer upon either branch of the government the power 
 to purchase err otherwise acquire foreign territory., the annexation of 
 Texas, even as territory, was extensively questioned. As has been else- 
 where stated, Mr. Jefferson and numerous other eminent statesmen 
 admitted the purchase of Louisiana to be unauthorized by the constitu- 
 tion, and justified it only on the ground of a necessity which, it was con- 
 tended, did not in the present case exist. Congress, alone, had express 
 power to purchase territory ; only, however, so far as the objects were 
 specified, viz., " for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, 
 and other needful buildings." Thus, it is perceived, there was no way 
 of acquiring foreign territory which did not present constitutional objec- 
 tions to some minds. The acquisition by treaty, palpable as its uncon- 
 stitutionality has been deemed, had the sanction of precedent, and the 
 acquiescence of the people, and was therefore liable to the least objection. 
 This is the ground assumed by Mr. Van Buren. 
 
 " If," he says, " there be nothing in the situation or condition of the 
 territory of Texas, which would render its admission hereafter into the 
 union as a new state improper, I cannot perceive any objection, on con- 
 stitutional grounds, to its annexation as a territory. In speaking of the 
 right to admit new states, I must, of course, be understood, as referring 
 to the power of congress. The executive and senate may, as I have 
 already observed, by the exercise of the treaty-making power, acquire 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 805 
 
 territory ; but new states can only be admitted by congress." To sustain 
 these propositions, he examines at length the coustitution, the proceed- 
 ings of the convention of framers, and the articles of confederation. 
 
 In answering the inquiry as to the expediency of annexation, he refers 
 to a letter frou: secretary Forsyth to Gen. Hunt, the Texian minister, 
 while he, Mr. Van Buren, was president. This letter, which stated his 
 views and those of his cabinet, spealjs thus : " So long as Texas shall 
 remain at war, while the United States are at peace with her adversary, 
 the opposition of the Texian minister plenipotentiary necessarily involves 
 the question of war with that adversary. The United States are bound 
 to Mexico by a treaty of amity and commerce, which will be scrupu- 
 lously observed on their part so long as it can be reasonably hoped 
 that Mexico will perform her duties, and respect our rights under it. 
 The United States might justly be suspected of a disregard of the 
 friendly purposes of the compact, if the overture of General Hunt were 
 to be even reserved for future consideration, as this would imply a dis- 
 position on our part to espouse the quarrel of Texas with Mexico — a 
 disposition wholly at variance with the spirit of the treaty, with the 
 uniform policy and the obvious welfare of the United States. 
 
 " The inducements mentioned by General Hunt for the United States 
 to annex Texas to their territory, are duly appreciated ; but, powerful 
 ana weighty as certainly they are, they are light when opposed in the 
 scale of reason to treaty obligations, and respect for that integrity of 
 character by which the United States have sought to distinguish them 
 selves since the establishment of their right to claim a place in the great 
 family of nations." 
 
 " The intimation in Gen. Hunt's letter that Texas might be induced 
 to extend commercial advantages to other nations to the prejudice of 
 the United States, was thus noticed : 
 
 " ' It is presumed, however, that the motives by which Texas has been 
 governed in making this overture, will have equal force in impelling her 
 to preserve, as an independent power, the most liberal commercial relations 
 with the United States. Such a disposition will be cheerfully met, in a 
 corresponding spirit, by this government. If the answer which the un- 
 dersigned has been directed to give to the proposition of General Hunt 
 should unfortunately work such a change in the sentiments of that gov- 
 ernment as to induce an attempt to extend commercial relations else- 
 where, upon terms prejudicial to the United States, this government will 
 be consoled by the rectitude of its intentions, and a certainty that, 
 althougli the hazard of transient losses may be incurred by a rigid ad- 
 herence to just principles, no lasting prosperity can be secured when 
 they are disregarded.' " 
 
806 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 These views, said Mr. Van Buren, though not satisfactory to Gen. 
 Hunt, received the alnaost unanimous approval of the people of the 
 United States. Even a resolution offered in the senate declaring annex- 
 ation, " whenever it could ]M effected consistently with the public faith 
 and treaty stipulations of the United States, desirable," was ordered to 
 lie upon the table ; and a similar disposition was made in the house of 
 the papers upon the subject. Having taken this position when president, 
 it was now his duty to consider whether the question had so far changed 
 as to justify him now in advising a different policy. Were Texas and 
 Mexico still at war, or were they not ? Regarding a true answer to this 
 question indispensable to a correct decision as to the expediency of an- 
 nexation, we give here a copious extract from the letter : 
 
 " Mexico has been incessant in her avowal, as well to our government 
 as to others, of the continuance of the war, and of her determination to 
 prosecute it. How does Texas regard her position in respect to the war 
 with Mexico ? Three years subsequent to our recognition of her inde- 
 pendence, we find her entering into a stipulation with a foreign power to 
 accept of her mediation to bring about a cessation of hostilities between 
 her and Mexico, engaging to assume a million sterling of the debt due 
 from Mexico to the subjects of that power, if she, through her influence, 
 obtained from Mexico an unlimited truce in respect to the war then 
 raging between her and Texas within one month, and a treaty of peace 
 in six. As late as last June, we see a proclamation of the president of 
 Texas, declaring a suspension of hostilities between the two powers 
 during the pendency of negotiations to be entered upon between them, 
 issued on the supposition that a similar proclamation would be issued by 
 Mexico ; and actual hostilities are now only suspended by an armistice 
 to be continued for a specified and short period, for the sake of negotia- 
 tion. Nor are our own views upon the point less explicit. In the pub- 
 lished letter of the late secretary of state, to the Mexican minister at 
 Washington, written in December last, he says : ' Nearly eight years 
 have elapsed since Texas declared her independence. During all that 
 time Mexico has asserted her right of jurisdiction and dominion over 
 that country, and has endeavored to enforce it by arms.' In the presi- 
 dent's message to congress, it is stated that ' the war which has existed 
 for so long a time between Mexico and Texas, has, since the battle of 
 San Jacinto, consisted for the most part of predatory incursions, which, 
 while they have been attended with much of suffering to individuals, and 
 kept the borders of the two countries in a state of constant alarm, have 
 failed to afproach to any definite result.^ And after commenting 
 with much truth upon the insufficiency of the armaments wliich Mexico 
 has fitted out for the subjection of Texas — on the length of time whiGh 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 807 
 
 has elapsed since the latter declared her independence- —on the perse- 
 verance, notwithstanding^ in plans of reconquest by Mexico — -on her 
 refusal to acknowledge the independence of Texas, and on the evils of 
 border warfare, the message adds : ' The United States have an imme- 
 ate interest in seeing an end put to the state of hostilities between Mexico 
 and Texas.' 
 
 " But what, my dear sir, is the true and undisguised character of the 
 remedy for those evils, which would be applied by the ' immediate an- 
 nexation of Texas to the United States ?' Is it more or less than say- 
 ing to Mexico, ' We feel ourselves aggrieved by the continuance of this 
 war between you and Texas ; we have an interest in seeing it terminated ; 
 we will accomplish that object by taking the disputed territory to our- 
 selves; we will make Texas a part of the United States, so that those 
 plans of reconquest which we know you are maturing, to be successful, 
 must be made so against the power that we can bring into the contest ; 
 if the war is to be continued as we understand to be your design, the 
 United States are henceforth to be regarded as one of the belligerents?' " 
 
 The sentiments expressed in the following extracts are worthy of all 
 observation: "We must look to this matter as it really stands. We 
 shall act under the eye of an intelligent, observing world ; and the affair 
 cannot be made to wear a diflerent aspect from what it deserves if even 
 we had the disposition (which we have not) to throw over it disguises of 
 any kind. We should consider whether there is any way in which the 
 peace of the country can be preserved, should an immediate annexation 
 take place, save one — and that is, according to present appearances, the 
 improbable event that Mexico will be deterred from the farthest prosecu- 
 tion of the war by the apprehension of our power. # * # 
 The question then recurs, if, as sensible men, we cannot avoid the con- 
 clusion that the immediate annexation of Texas would, in all human pro- 
 bability, draw after it a war with Mexico, can it be expedient to attempt 
 it ? Of the consequences of such a war, the character it might be made 
 to assume, the entanglements with other nations which the position of a 
 belligerent almost unavoidably draws after it, and the undoubted injuries 
 which might be inflicted upon each — notwithstanding the great disparity 
 of their respective forces, I will not say a word. God forbid that an 
 American citizen should ever count the cost of any appeal to what is appro- 
 priately denominated the last resort of nations, whenever that resort be- 
 comes necessary either for the safety or to vindicate the honor of his 
 country. There is, I trust, not one so base as not to regard himself and 
 all he has to be forever and at all times subject to such a requisition. But 
 would a war with Mexico, brought on under such circumstances, be a 
 contest of that character ? Could we hope to stand justified in the eyes 
 
808 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of mantind for entering into it ; more especially if its eomnienceraent ia 
 to be preceded by the appropriation to our ofpn uses of the territory, 
 the sovereignty of which is in dispute between two nations, one of which 
 we are to join in the struggle ? This, sir, is a matter of the gravest 
 import, one in respect to which no American statesman or citizen can 
 possibly be indifferent." 
 
 An important suggestion of Mr. Yan Buren was, that we were liable 
 to be misled on this subject by the fact, that many, if not most of the 
 persons in Texas to be affected by the decision of this question were 
 once our own fellow-citizens ; and still had their relatives and friends 
 amongst us, by a respect for whose feelings we were naturally influenced. 
 Yet, he says : " Nothing is either more true or more extensively known, 
 than that Texas was wrested from Mexico, and her independence estab- 
 lished through the instrumentality of citizens of the United States." 
 He says, however, that it was done against the efforts of our government 
 to prevent our citizens from engaging in the enterprise. And he defends 
 the government against the imputation of insincerity in these efforts, 
 and of a desire to obtain in another way a portion of the territory of 
 Mexico which we had failed to obtain by fair purchase or by negotiation. 
 He said he knew from having been consulted by Gen. Jackson on the 
 subject while the latter was president, that he was sincerely desirous to 
 prevent the slightest violation of the laws. 
 
 Mr. Yan Buren replies to the argument that the acquisition of Texas 
 in the manner proposed, was liable to no greater objection now, than it 
 was in 1 827 and 1 829, when it was attempted by two successive adminis- 
 trations (xidams' and Jackson's ;) and also to the argument that, if Texas 
 is not acquired now, the opportunity may be lost forever. The substance 
 of the replies is, that, admitting what is here assumed to be true, it can 
 not justify the committing of a wrong to secure the desired object. But 
 in relation to the mode of acquisition, he did not admit the analogy 
 which was claimed to exist between the present case and those of the two 
 preceding administrations. 
 
 It was not long after this letter appeared, before it was apparent that 
 Mr. Yan Buren was to be abandoned. Movements were soon made in 
 many places to prevent his nomination. Annexation was to southern 
 democrats an object for which even Mr. Yan Buren was not deemed too 
 great a sacrifice. Meetings were held for the purpose of revoking the 
 instructions which had been given to delegates to support Mr. Yan 
 Buren ; and resolutions were passed recommending to them to cast their 
 votes for men known and pledged to be in favor of annexation. In New 
 York and other northern states, the " democracy" protested against 
 these southern inoveraenta to defeat Mr. Yan Bureu. Protests, however, 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 809 
 
 as tLe result soon proved, were unavailing ; and Mr. Van Buren himself 
 was compelled, for the harmony of the party, so far to defer to southern 
 sentiment, as to authorize the withdrawal of his name if it should be 
 found necessary. 
 
 The Whig national convention assembled at Baltimore on the Ist of 
 May. Among the delegates were an unusual number of the most able 
 and eminent men from all the states. Hon. Ambrose Spencer, of New 
 York, was chosen president of the convention. No ballot for president 
 was taken. A resolution was offered by Benjamin Watkins Leigh, of 
 Virginia, declaring Henry Clay, of Kentucky, to be unanimously nomi- 
 nated as the whig candidate for the presidency, and was carried by ac- 
 clamation. Theodore Frelinghuysen, was chosen, on tTie third ballot, as 
 a candidate for vice-president. 
 
 The democratic convention, which assembled on the 27th, manifested 
 a considerable want of unanimity. Mr. Van Buren, however, received 
 a clear majority on the first ballot. The vote was, for Mr. Van Buren, 
 146; for Lewis Cass, 83; Richard M. Johnson, 24; for Mr. Calhoun, 
 6 ; and 7 for other persons. But a rule of the convention required a 
 majority of two-thirds to nominate. On the eighth ballot, Mr. Van 
 Buren received 104; Gen. Cass, 114; James K. Polk, 44. The delega- 
 tions from New York and Virginia then retired separately for consulta- 
 tion. On their return, Mr. Boane, of Virginia, stated that the delegates 
 from that state would vote for Mr. Polk. Mr. Butler, of New York, 
 made the same announcement in behalf of the delegates from his state, 
 with the exception of one, who would vote blank; and, at the same time, 
 having authority for so doing, withdrew the name of Mr. Van Buren. 
 On the ninth ballot, the vote was unanimous for Mr. Polk. Silas 
 Wright, of New York, senator in congress, was nominated for vice-presi- 
 dent. Mr. Wright, then at Washington, having declined the nomina- 
 tion, George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, was the next day nominated. 
 
 The nomination of Mr. Polk, took the country by surprise : to the 
 friends of Mr. Van Buren, it was a painful disappointment. They ac- 
 quiesced, however, in the nomination ; and Mr. Polk probably received 
 a more unanimous support from his party, than was given to his oppo- 
 nent, there being in the northern states a considerable number of whigs 
 who regarded Mr. Clay's connection with slavery ag an insuperable ob- 
 jection to their giving him their votes, and who consequently voted for 
 Mr. Blrney, the candidate of the abolition party. The letter of Mr. 
 Van Buren on the annexation question, had doubtless contributed largely 
 to defeat his nomination. Even with a unanimous nomination, his elec- 
 tion was considered d yubtful; and without the cordial support of the 
 southern portion of the party, it was deemed almost hopeless. Mr. Polk 
 
810 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 i 
 
 being known to be true to southern interests, would be likely to conX' 
 mand even more than a party vote, (Mr. Clay being charged by his oppo- 
 nents in that section of the union with northern sympathies,) while at 
 the north he was certain of receiving at least a full party vote, as north- 
 ern democrats had hitherto, with great unanimity refused to make issue 
 ■upon the question of slavery. 
 
 The whigs were in this respect less fortunate. Suspected by the more 
 ultra portions of the whigs on both sides of the slavery question, Mr. 
 Clay was several times addi-essed for a more definite expression of his 
 views on the subject of annexation. 
 
 Being placed " between two fires," he found it not an easy matter to 
 answer letters of inquiry from either section, without affecting his stand- 
 ing in the other. In his answer to one of these letters from the south, 
 he wrote : *' I consider the union a great political partnership ; and that 
 new members ought not to be admitted into the concern at the imminent 
 hazard of its dissolution. Personally I could have no objection to the 
 annexation of Texas ; but I certainly would be unwilling to see the ex- 
 isting union dissolved or seriously jeoparded for the sake of acquiring 
 Texas. If any one desires to know the leading and paramount object of 
 my public life, the preservation of the union will furnish him the key." 
 The expression that he had " personally no objection to annexation" 
 •was pertinaciously and vigorously pressed by the abolitionists as evidence 
 that his influence, if he should be elected, would be given to that mea- 
 sure. 
 
 But there were other prominent party questions at issue in the presi- 
 dential canvass of this year. A vigorous effort had been made at the 
 preceding session of congress to modify the tariff. A bill had been re- 
 ported in the house, which proposed to substitute ad valorem for specific 
 duties on almost all articles, and to reduce them to rates little above 
 those existing at the time of the passage of the act of 1842. The bill 
 had been laid upon the table by a vote of 105 to 99. A general and 
 powerful assault was made upon the tariff during the canvass. It was a 
 regular topic of discussion in all the great political meetings during the 
 campaign. A slight gain only of anti-tariff members at this election was 
 necessary to effect the object contemplated by the above bill. This re- 
 sult was secured, a majority of low tariff members having been returned 
 to the next congress. 
 
 A new question had been introduced by the democratic national con- 
 vention, which had, as was supposed, considerable influence in determin- 
 ing the result of the election of 1844. The conflicting claims of tho 
 United States and Great Britain to a part of the Oregon country, have 
 been mentioned. It will be recollected that, by an arrangement then 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN Of 1844, 811 
 
 • 
 
 existing, the territory in dispute, which extended north to 54 degiees and 
 40 minutes north latitude, was to be occupied jointly by the parties ; 
 and that this joint occupancy might be terminated by either party giving 
 to the other twelve mouths' notice of an intention to discontinue the 
 same. A resolution was adopted by the democratic convention, declaring 
 " that our title to the whole of Oregon is clear and unquestionable ; 
 that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any other 
 power ; and the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas, 
 at the earliest practicable period, are great American measures, which 
 the convention recommends to the cordial support of the democracy of 
 the union." 
 
 Mr. Van Buren's letter on annexation had been approved by the mass 
 of the northern democracy. Hence the nomination of Mr. Polk was to 
 them at first more than a mere matter of surprise. A candidate was 
 presented to them whose views upon the most important question to be 
 decided at the ensuing election were directly opposed to their own, and 
 whom they could not support without subjecting themselves to the 
 charge of palpable inconsistency. And for a time there were indications 
 of extensive " bolting." The strength of party attachment, however, 
 soon overcame all opposition to the nomination. Many who had depre- 
 cated annexation, became the most ardent and distinguished advocates 
 of this "great American measure." But although Mr. Polk was sup- 
 ported by the democratic party at the north with great unanimity, there 
 were those who gave their support with a protest against the adoption 
 of the annexation project as a party measure. The organ of this class 
 of democrats was the New York Evening Post, then, as now, a moderate 
 and sincere opponent of slavery compromise and extension, whose editor, 
 with six other gentlemen, issued the following private circular, which 
 they sent to some of their friends in different parts of the state : 
 
 [confidential.] 
 
 " Sir : You will doubtless agree with us, that the late Baltimore 
 convention place the democratic party at the north in a position of great 
 diflBculty. We are constantly reminded that it rejected Mr. Van Buren 
 and nominated Mr. Polk, for reasons connected with the immediate 
 annexation of Texas — reasons which had no relation to the principles 
 of the party. Nor was that all. The convention went beyond the 
 authority delegated to its members, and adopted a resolution on the 
 subject of Texas, (a subject not before the country when they were 
 elected; upon which, therefore, they were not instructed,) which seeks 
 to interpolate into the party code a new doctrine, hitherto unknown 
 among us, at war with some of our established principles, and abhorrent 
 
il 
 
 812 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 • 
 
 to the opinions and feelings of a great majority of northern freemen, 
 In this position, what was the party at the north to do ? Was it to I 
 reject the nominations and abandon the contest, or should it support the 
 nominations, rejecting the untenable doctrine interpolated at the con- 
 vention, and taking care that their support should be accompanied with 
 Buch an expression of their opinion as to prevent its being misinter- f j^ 
 preted ? The latter alternative has been preferred ; and, we think, 
 wisely ; for we conceive that a proper expression of their opinions will 
 save their votes from misconstruction, and that proper efforts will 
 secure the nomination of such members of congress as will reject the 
 unwarrantable scheme now pressed upon the country. 
 
 " With these views, assuming that you feel on this subject as we do 
 we have been desired to address you, and to invite the cooperation of 
 yourself and other friends throughout the state : 
 
 " 1st. In the publication- of a joint letter, declaring our purpose to 
 piipport the nominations, rejecting the resolutions respecting Texas. 
 
 " 2d. In promoting and supporting at the next election the nomina- 
 tion for congress of such persons as concur in these opinions. 
 
 " If your views in this matter coincide with ours, please write to some 
 one of us, and a draft of the proposed letter will be forwarded for exami- 
 nation." 
 
 The paper was signed by George P. Barker, William C. Bryant, J. 
 W. Edmonds, David Dudley Field, Theodore Sedgwick, Thomas W. 
 Tucker, and Isaac Townsend. 
 
 This circular by some means got out of its destined track, and soon 
 found its way into the newspapers. It subjected its authors to the most 
 vehement denunciation. The act was pronounced by the New York 
 Plebeian, the organ of the conservative democracy, ** treason under the 
 mask of philanthropy — federalism under the guise of demociaey — false- 
 hood under the covering of truth." The signers of the circular were "a 
 clique of self-righteous politicians," engaged in a " contemptible and 
 impotent attempt to restrict the progress of republican institutions." 
 The circular meant " treason — foul, abolition treason." " It would 
 throw out the idea, that there was a diversity of sentiment among the 
 democratic masses upon this vital movement of annexing Texas. It 
 would deceive the country into the belief, that the democracy of the 
 empire state had laid aside its patriotism, its love of country, its old 
 fashioned republicanism, and, through these * seven wise men,' stood 
 ready to violate the compromise of the constitution, raise the black flag 
 of political abolition, and stand a barrier resisting the onward march 
 pf the republic. It would, moreover, by ' confidential,' secret, wily, 
 insidious organization, attempt to control our congressional nomina- 
 tions." 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1844. 813 
 
 The editor of the Post said in reply, that the letter contained only tho 
 expression of opinions frequently repeated in -that paper, and vehich 
 would be repeated thereafter. He claimed the right to correspond pri- 
 vately on political subjects when he chose, and if his letters were pil- 
 fered and published, he merely asked the community to mark those who 
 were concerned in the act as spies and thieves. He persisted in declar- 
 ing the intention not to recognize the annexation of Texas as an issue 
 between the two great political parties. 
 
 The presidential campaign of 1844 was highly animated — the more so 
 from the new questions brought into the canvass. Never were the 
 claims of candidates more closely examined or more vigorously con- 
 tested. It was evident, soon after the nominations were made, that 
 which party soever should be defeated, neither would be chargeable 
 with inactivity. Probably in no other similar contest has a greater 
 array of talent been marshaled into the field of political discussion. 
 Some of the most eminent citizens, such as had held the highest oflacial 
 stations, enlisted during the campaign as regular itinerants, performing 
 a circuit of half the union. Without undertaking to decide with which 
 party was the balance oFmerit, it will hardly be disputed that the demo- 
 crats had the advantage in the force or efficiency of argument in the 
 popular assembles. The appeals in behalf of the " lone star" seeking a 
 union with the galaxy of American confederated states, could not fail 
 to touch the republican sympathies of the nation ; while the pledge of 
 Mr. Polk to insist on " the whole of Oregon, or none" — " with or with- 
 out war," was no less effective with many who remembered the former 
 wrongs of our old enemy. 
 
 Whigs, on the other hand, held up to public view the evils of slavery, 
 and made impassioned appeals in behalf of suffering humanity ; at the 
 same time charging upon their opponents at the north an alliance with 
 the propagandists of slavery in an attempt to increase its power in the 
 government, by extending the slave territory of the union. But these 
 arguments were lost upon men belonging to a party the first article of 
 whose creed enjoined adherence to "regular nominations;" who were 
 taught to eschew the question of slavery as a party question ; and who 
 held to the popular notion that all agitation of the subject only serves 
 to aggravate the evil. 
 
 Not the least source of embarrassment to the whigs was the opposition 
 of the abolition party. This party, though confessedly without the least 
 hope of electing their candidates, were not less assiduous in their elec- 
 tioneering efforts than either of the other parties. Expecting their 
 gains from the whigs, they came into direct collision with that party 
 Their expostulations with those whom they deemed " conscience whigs,' 
 
814 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 were incessant, and not altogether without effect. Many who were 
 pledged against slavery, .and who thought they were carrying out their 
 principles by voting for the whig candidate, who, though a slaveholder, 
 was opposed to a measure which must necessarily increase the political 
 power of slavery, were dissuaded from their purpose. The inconsistency 
 of voting for a slaveholder under any circumstances ; " do right regard- 
 less of consequences ;" — these and other like arguments were plied with 
 great assiduity. Besides, Mr. Clay having written that " personally 
 ho had no objection to the annexation of Texas," it was argued that 
 his alleged objections would readily yield to his personal feelings ; and 
 therefore he could be no more safely trusted than Mr. Polk. The abo- 
 litionists being unanimously opposed to annexation, the whigs had cal- 
 culated on a large support from that party ; whereas, the result showed 
 a large increase of the abolition vote. In the state of New York, this 
 vote .was more than double its amount in 1842, the number of votes 
 gained being more than sufficient, if they had been given for Mr. Clay, 
 to have vsecured him the electoral vote of that state, and with it his 
 election. The indignation of the whigs excited by the course of the 
 abolitionists, found vent in the severest cen^n-es. This unexpected' 
 opposition, to which they ascribed the defeat of their favorite, oft-triec 
 candidate, for whose election they were deeply anxious, and who, as 
 they supposed, ought to have been deemed unexceptionable, undei 
 existing circumstances, to all opponents of slavery, was an offense whicll 
 has not to this day been entirely forgotten or forgiven. 
 
 Of the electoral votes, Messrs. Polk and Dallas received 170 ; Messrs. 
 Clay and Frelinghuysen, 105. 
 
 CHAPTER LXVI. 
 
 TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF OREGON. ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 
 
 FLORIDA AND IOWA ADMITTED. UNIFORM TIME OF CHOOSING PRESI- 
 DENTIAL ELECTORS. REDUCTION OF POSTAGE, 
 
 The 2d session of the 28th congress commenced the 2d of Decem- 
 ber, 1844, and terminated with Mr. Tyler's presidential term, on the 3d 
 of March, 1845. As was to be expected, the questions of the annexa- 
 tion of Texas, and of the occupation of the territory of Oregon, which 
 bad held so prominent a position among the issues at the late election, 
 
TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF OREGON. 815 
 
 were introduced at an early day of the session. The president, in hia 
 annual message, recommended, with a view to protect and facilitate emi- 
 gration to that territory, the establishment of military posts at suitable 
 points upon the line of travel. Laws also should be made to protect the 
 person and property of emigrants after their arrival. These measures 
 were deemed necessary whatever might be the result of the pending 
 negotiation. 
 
 A bill was introduced in the house on the 16th of December, by Mr. 
 Duncan, of Ohio, to establish a territorial government in Oregon. The 
 bill was subsequently read and referred ; and on the 27th it was taken 
 up for discussion. It embraced under the proposed government the 
 whole territory west of the summit of the Rocky Mountains and between 
 latitude 42 degrees and 54 degrees 40 minutes. In the course of the 
 debate, the question of title was fully discussed ; and our claim to the 
 whole territory was advocated by democratic members. Some, however, 
 regarded the bill as repugnant to that provision of our treaty with Great 
 Britain which allowed a joint occupancy until after either party should 
 have given the other twelve months' notice of a purpose to discontinue it. 
 
 The bill was opposed also as indiscreet and improper, as negotiations 
 were in progress, and probably near a close. The proposed measure 
 might break up the negotiation, and lead to war. It was unnecessary 
 and premature. It should be deferred until the negotiation was ended. 
 An amendment was proposed by Preston King, of New York, providing 
 for giving the notice to the British government. 
 
 Mr. Adams was in favor of passing a joint resolution, directing the 
 president to give notice to Great Britain that the joint occupancy must 
 end in twelve months. This he thought the most likely mode of brinof- 
 ing the pending negotiation to a point. After having given the notice 
 he should not object to passing the present bill with some modifications ; 
 and he hoped that in this manner we might obtain possession, if not of 
 the whole that we claimed, at least of a very large part of it, without 
 war. But to pass the bill in its present form, without notice, must lead 
 to war, if it was not itself a war measure. 
 
 Mr. A. V. Brown, of Tennessee, who, aa chairman of the committee 
 on territories, had reported the bill, contended that the bill should be 
 passed first, and notice given afterward. 
 
 Mr. "Winthrop, of Massachusetts, moved an amendment, prohiliting 
 slavery, which was adopted, 85 to 56. 
 
 An amendment was also made, providing that the act should not be so 
 construed as to interfere with the rights which British subjects might have 
 under the existing treaty, until after the twelve months' notice should 
 liave been given. The bill passed the house, February 3, 1845, 140 to 
 
816 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 59, and was sent to the senate for concurrence. A motion to take up 
 the bill was made in that body on the 3d of March, the last day of the 
 session, but it did not prevail. So the bill was lost. 
 
 Mr. Tyler had in previous messages recommended the taking posses- 
 sion of the territory, and at the session of 1842-3, a bill for that purpose 
 had passed the senate, 25 to 21 ; but the house refusing to concur, the 
 bill was lost. At the next session, (1843-44,) resolutions were intro- 
 duced into both houses, proposing to give notice to Great Britain of the 
 intended termination of the joint occupancy after twelve months ; but the 
 resolutions were not adopted. A material objection to their passage was 
 the apprehension that it might prejudice the negotiation then pending. 
 
 But the great measure of this session (1844-45,) was annexation. 
 The negotiation of the treaty with Texas, had stirred up afresh the bel- 
 ligerent spirit of Mexico, and had induced her to threaten Texas with a 
 renewal of the war. The president, in his message, expresses the opinion, 
 that the invasion of Texas would not be looked upon with indifference by 
 our citizens of the adjoining states. Mexico, he said, had no just ground 
 of displeasure. Texas was an independent power, and free to treat. No 
 boundary had been defined by the treaty ; this the executive had pro- 
 posed to do upon terms which all the world would have pronounced 
 reasonable. He believed, if the treaty had been ratified, it would have 
 been followed by a prompt and satisfactory settlement of the difficulty 
 with Mexico. An objection urged against the treaty was, that it had 
 not been submitted to the ordeal of public opinion. Although he con- 
 sidered this objection untenable, he held submitted the subject to con- 
 gress, whose action would be the best expression of popular sentiment. 
 Congress having taken no definite action upon the subject, the question 
 had refeiTed itself directly to the states and the people ; and their will 
 had been expressed at the recent election, in favor of the immediate 
 annexation of Texas. 
 
 On the 10th of December, Mr. M'Duffie introduced into the senate reso- 
 lutions declaring the rejected treaty, to be " the fundamental law of union 
 between the United States and Texas so soon as the supreme authorities 
 of the said republic of Texas shall agree to the same." Mr. Benton at 
 th-e same^ time gave notice of a bill " to provide for the annexation of 
 Texas to the United States." This bill authorized and advised the pre- 
 sident to open negotiations with Mexico and Texas for the adjustment 
 of boundaries and the atmexation of the latter to the United States, on 
 the same bases as those stated in the bill introduced by him at the pre- 
 ceding session of congress. [See page 794.] On the 12th, in the house, 
 Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, reported a joint resolution for 
 annexation, similar to that of Mr. M'Duffie, of the senate. Mr. Win- 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 817 
 
 throp, of Massachusetts, one of the minority of the committee, declared 
 their dissent from the doctrines of the accompanying report •, believing 
 the resolution to be unconstitutional in form and in substance ; incon- 
 sistent with the law of nations and the good faith of our own country ; 
 as likely to involve us in an unjust and dishonorable war ; and eminently 
 objectionable from its relation to the subject of slavery. 
 
 Resolutions of annexation were offered by several members of both 
 houses. Among these was a joint resolution submitted to the senate by 
 Mr. Foster, of Tennessee : " That congress doth consent that the terri- 
 tory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the republic 
 of Texas, may be erected into a new state, to be called the ' state of 
 Texas,' with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the 
 people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the 
 consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be 
 admitted as one of the states of this union." The resolution was followed 
 by these conditions and guaranties : 
 
 1. The adjustment of questions of boundary arising with other govern- 
 ments, to be laid before congress for its final action. 
 
 2. All mines, salt springs, public edifices, navy, fortifications, and 
 other public property, to be ceded to the United States ; but all public 
 funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, and all vacant and unappro- 
 priated lands to be retained by the state, and applied to the payment of 
 her debts, for which the general government was in no event to become 
 liable. 
 
 3. By consent of the state, four new states formed out of the territory 
 thereof, might hereafter be admitted ; those formed out of territory 
 south of the Missouri compromise line, to be admitted with or without 
 slavery, as the people of each might desire. 
 
 It will be seen that this resolution does not prescribe any form or 
 mode of annexation. In regard to this, Mr. Foster was not determined. 
 He was in favor of annexation ; and if any mode could be devised which 
 should appear to him to be in conformity to the constitution, he would 
 unite in effecting the measure on the principles contained in his reso- 
 lution. 
 
 In the house, on the 25th of January, the debate in committee of the 
 whole having terminated at two o'clock, the committee proceeded to vote 
 upon the resolution reported by Mr. Ingersoll, from the committee on 
 foreign affairs, and on the various proposed amendments. After dis- 
 posing of a number of these amendments, and amendments to amend the 
 same, Mr. Milton Brown, of Tennessee, moved to amend a pending 
 amendment, by substituting a resolution offered by himself on the 13th, 
 similar to that of Mr. Foster of the senate ; and n'hich, on motion of 
 
 52 
 
818 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, was amended by adding, that, " in such state 
 or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of the said Mis- 
 souri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for 
 crime, shall be prohibited." Mr. Brown, having accepted this amend- 
 ment, his proposition, as modified, was adopted, 109 to 99. The ques- 
 tion was then taken on Mr. Weller's amendment, as amended by the 
 substitution of that of Mr. Brown, and decided in the affirmative, 110 
 to 93. 
 
 The committee of the whole then rose, and reported to the house the 
 resolution of the committee on foreign affairs, all after the enacting 
 clause having been struck out, and Mr. Brown's resolution inserted. 
 Tlie speaker having announced the report of the committee of the whole, 
 a number of members immediately sprung to the floor, and addressed 
 "^ Mr. Speaker." Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, who was recognized 
 by the chair, observed that it was time to put an end to this exciting 
 (question, and moved the previous question, which was seconded, 107 to 
 97, and the main question ordered to be put, 1 13 to 106 : and the ques- 
 tion, shall the house concur with the committee of the whole in adopting 
 Mr. Brown's amendment, was taken, and decided in the affirmative : 
 ayes, 118; noes, 101. The resolution was then ordered to a third read- 
 ing, 119 to 97, and finally passed, 120 to 98. 
 
 From the classification of the vote as given by Niles, it appears that, 
 of the 120 members who voted for the resolution of annexation, 112 
 were democrats, 53 from free, and 59 from slave states, and 8 were 
 whigs — all from slave states* Of the 98 who voted in the negative, 28 
 were democrats, all from free states, and 70 were whigs, 52 from free, 
 and 18 from slave states. Of the members from New York, 9 demo- 
 crats voted for annexation, and 14 democrats and 10 whigs against it. 
 
 Another classification was as follows : The number of democrats 
 voting was 140 — 81 from free, and 59 from slave states. Of the 81, 
 53 were for, and 28 against the annexation. The number of whiga 
 voting was 78 — 52 from free, and 26 from slave states. Of the latter, 
 8 were for, and eighteen against. The 59 democrats from the slave 
 states all voted for, and the 52 whigs from the free states all voted 
 against annexation. 
 
 In the senate, on the 4th of February, Mr. Archer, from the com- 
 mittee on foreign relations, made a report on the joint resolution from 
 the house to annex Texas. The report was accompanied by two resolu- 
 tions — the first declaring that the resolution from the house be rejected ; j 
 the other, that the several bills, resolutions, petitions, and memorials on J 
 the subject in the senate, and referred to the committee, be laid on the^ 
 table. Mr. Buchanan, one of the committee, dissented from the report, J 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 819 
 
 and declared himself to be in favor of the joint resolution from the 
 house. The report did not discuss the propriety of annexing Texas, 
 but was confined to the consideration of the mode proposed by the reso- 
 lution. The committee concluded that if it could be effected at all con- 
 stitutionally, it must be done by the treaty-making power. 
 
 The next day Mr. Benton submitted a bill, providing, " That a state, 
 to be formed out of the present republic of Texas, with suitable extent 
 and boundaries, and with two representatives in congress until the next 
 apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the union, by 
 virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing states, as soon 
 as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the 
 remaining Texan territory to the United States, shall be agreed upon 
 by the governments of Texas and the United States. 
 
 " 2. That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be appropriated 
 to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations to agree upon the 
 terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted 
 to the senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of congress, 
 as the president may direct." 
 
 A motion by Mr. Berrien to refer tlie bill to the committee on foreign 
 relations was lost, 22 to 23. 
 
 The great debate in the senate on annexation was commenced by Mr. 
 Morehead, of Kentucky, the 13th of February, on a motion for the in- 
 definite postponement of the joint resolution from the house. Those 
 who took part in the debate in favor of the resolution of annexation, 
 were Messrs. Buchanan, Woodbury, Henderson, Colquitt, Merrick, 
 Ashley, M'Duffie, Allen, Walker, and Johnson, of Louisiana. Against 
 annexation were Messrs. Morehead, Rives, Choate, Barrow, Simmons, 
 Huntington, Dayton, Berrien, Miller, Bagby, Upham, Bates, Crittenden, 
 Archer, Foster, and Woodbridge. 
 
 Few debates have ever occurred in that body in which has been en- 
 gaged a stronger array of talent, or which have been more highly char- 
 acterized by legislative decorum, and the maintenance of senatorial 
 dignity. It was one of the most important questions — perhaps the most 
 important — ever decided by an American legislature — the incorporation 
 of an independent foreign nation into our own, by a joint resolution — 
 an act which was regarded universally as an exercise of an extremely 
 doubtful power, and by many as unauthorized by the constitution upon any 
 just principle of interpretation. Although the question had excited strong 
 party feeling, the reported speeches evince entire freedom from acrimony 
 and invective. The following account of the final proceedings of the 
 senate upon the subject, was given at the time of their occurrence • 
 
 " The most intense anxiety has pervaded the public mind for the last 
 
'320 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 three weeks, and up to the time at which we go to press with this number, 
 every moment adds fresh incident to the topic. For two weeks the 
 United States senate chamber has been the focus. Upon that body the 
 GREAT QUESTION dcvolved. Daily every avenue to the chamber was 
 crammed by persons from all parts of the union. Foreign ministers, 4 
 agents, and officers of all departments of the government were there— J 
 citizens and strangers— male and female. All seemed impressed with the 
 gravity and importance of the question. The debate, for talent and elo- 
 quence, as a whole, has seldom had its equal, certainly never has been 
 surpassed in either house of congress. The uncertainty of the result- 
 how the vote would be, up to the last moment, served to call out on each 
 side, the utmost strength of intellect and ardor. There is every reason to 
 believe that, during the struggle, the majority wavered first to one side 
 and then to the other, more than once. Notwithstanding the receipt of 
 letters from the leading partisans of Governor Wright, of i^ew York, in 
 favor of passing the resolutions, and the consequent calculation upon the 
 vote of both senators from that state, and notwithstanding the defection 
 of one of the Maryland senators, (Mr. Merrick,) from the whig ranks, 
 which for some days seemed to have turned the scale in favor of the 
 resolutions from the house, it was finally ascertained that a majority 
 could not be obtained unless the friends of those resolutions would con- 
 sent to a modification to suit Col. Benton's views. Mr. Bagby, one of 
 the senators from Alabama, though in favor of annexation, refused his ' 
 sanction to its accomplishment by mere legislative resolution. He 
 insisted upon preserving the treaty-making prerogative of the senate." 
 
 The resolution, as it came from the house, was, as has been stated, ! 
 the same as that originally offered by Mr. Foster of the senate. As the " 
 vote was about to be taken, Mr. Walker, of Mississippi, proposed an 
 amendment, by adding a resolution, " That, if the president of the 
 United States, shall, in his judgment and discretion, deem it most advia- ,| 
 able, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolutions to the |; 
 republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for l| 
 admission, to negotiate with that republic ; then 
 
 " Be it Resolved, That a state, to be formed out of the present repub- 
 lic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two repre- 
 sentatives in congress until the next apportionment of representation, 
 shall be admitted into the union, by virtue of this act, on an equal foot- 
 ing with the existing states, as soon as the terms and conditions of such 
 admission, and the cession of the remaining Texan territory to the United 
 States, shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United 
 
 States. 
 
 « 2. That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be appropriatec 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 821 
 
 to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations to agree upon the 
 terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to 
 the senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of congress, 
 as the president may direct." 
 
 After taking a recess, the senate met at 6 o'clock to determine the 
 question. Mr. Foster proposed an amendment to that of Mr. Walker, 
 which was rejected. Mr. Archer then proposed an amendment, directing 
 the president to open negotiations with Texas for its annexation to the 
 union. This was lost by a tie vote, 26 to 26. Mr. Walker's amendment 
 then came up and was adopted : ayes, 27 ; noes, 25 ; every member being 
 present. The resolution, as amended, was then ordered to a third read- 
 ing by the same vote. The bill was then read a third time amidst a 
 profound silence, and without the yeas and nays being called, and passed. 
 
 It remained for the house to pass upon the amendment. It was taken 
 up the next day, (February 28.) A number of amendments were offered 
 by the opponents of annexation, with the view, as was supposed, to 
 " stave off" the question, in order to prevent a decision at this session, 
 two days only remaining. But the friends of the measure, being bent 
 upon consummating it before adjourning on that day, voted down all 
 proposed amendments, and succeeded in bringing the house to a final 
 vote at 6 o'clock in the evening. The amendment of the senate was 
 concurred in, 132 to 76. The resolutions were the next day, (March 1,) 
 approved by the president ; and the triumph of annexation was complete. 
 For, although the amendment of Mr. Walker submitted it to the option 
 of the president to enter into negotiation for annexation, with the view 
 of satisfying the scruples of senators against annexation by mere resolu- 
 tion, it is not probable that either Mr. Tyler or Mr. Polk would jeopard 
 the measure by negotiation. It was said, however, that Messrs. Benton 
 and Bagby, without whose votes the resolutions would have been lost, 
 both voted for them from their confidence that Mr. Polk, upon whom it 
 was supposed the choice would devolve, would elect that mode. But 
 Mr. Tyler, contrary to the general expectation, seized upon the last 
 moment of his oflBcial existence, to exercise, himself, the power conferred 
 by the resolutions. 
 
 During the pendency of this important question, the opinions of many 
 of our most eminent private citizens were made public. Mr. Webster 
 January 23, 1844, in answer to a letter soliciting an expression of hie 
 opinion, referred to a speech of his»in the city of New York, delivered 
 about the time the proposition was made in 1837, during Mr. Van 
 Buren's administration, in which speech he had stated objections to the 
 measure, which remained unchanged. He objected to annexation on 
 constitutional grounds. The constitution, he thought, did not contcm- 
 
g22 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 plate the admission of new states, except from territory then belonging 
 to the United States. Louisiana had been since acquired from France 
 who had just obtained it from Spain. But the object of its acquisition 
 was not mere extension of territory. Spain had held the mouths of the 
 great rivers which rise in the western states, and flow into the gulf of 
 Mexico. She had disputed our use of these outlets io the sea, and our 
 commerce was in danger. That acquisition had necessarily brought ter- 
 ritory with it. A similar necessity, though not so urgent, had led to 
 the acquisition of Spain. But no such necessity required the annexation 
 of Texas. The acceptance by the old congress, of the cession of terri- 
 tory from individual states, by the terms of which new states might be 
 created and admitted into the union, it seemed reasonable to confine this 
 provision to states to be formed out of territory then belonging to the 
 United States. From what could be learned from the circumstances, 
 and from men's opinions and expectations at that day, no idea was enter- 
 tained of bringing into the union states formed out of the territories of 
 foreign powers. Indeed, much jealousy was felt toward the new govern- 
 ment, from fears of its overbearing weight and strength, when proposed 
 to be extended only over thirteen states. And he mentions it as an 
 " unaccountable eccentricity and apparent inconsistency of opinion, that 
 those who hold the constitution of the United States to be a compact 
 between states, should think, nevertheless, that the government created 
 by that constitution is at liberty to introduce new states formed out of 
 foreign territory, with or without the consent of those who are regarded 
 as original parties." 
 
 Mr. Webster objected to annexation, on the ground of its extending 
 slavery. He said : " By whomsoever possessed, Texas is likely to be a 
 slaveholding country ; and I frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do 
 any thing which shall extend the slavery of the African race on this 
 continent, or add slaveholding states to the union." The constitution, 
 he said, found slavery among us, and gave it solemn guaranties. To the 
 extent of these we were bound in honor and justice. ]}ut when new 
 states claimed admission, our rights and duties were both different. He 
 said : " When it is proposed to bring new members into this political 
 partnership, 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 ought not to consent to 
 bring a new, vastly extensive, and. slaveholding country large enough 
 for half a dozen or a dozen states into the union." 
 
 General Jackson, from the numerous letters written by him on the 
 subject, seems to have felt a deep interest in the subject. A letter 
 written by him as early as February, 1843, to Hon. A. V. Brown. 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 823 
 
 though not j;ublished until a year or more afterward, strongly recom- 
 mended the annexation of Texas. He urged as a reason its importance 
 in a military point of view. In support of his proposition, he supposes 
 the case of Great Britain forming an alliance with Texas, and designing 
 war against the United States, and says : '' Preparatory to such a 
 movement, she sends her 20,000 or 30,000 men to Texas, organizes 
 them on the Sabine, where her supplies and arms can be concentrated 
 before we have even notice of her intentions ; makes a lodgment on the 
 Mississippi ; excites the negroes to insurrection ; the lower country falls, 
 and with it New Orleans; and a servile war rages through the whole 
 south and west. In the meanwhile she is also moving an army along 
 our western frontier from Canada, which, in cooperation with the army 
 from Texas, spreads ruin and havoc from the lakes to the gulf of 
 Mexico." 
 
 This letter made its appearance just before the publication of Mr. 
 Van Buren's letter on annexation. Mr. Van Buren being known to 
 be the general's favorite candidate for the presidency, but differing with 
 him on this question, it became a matter of speculation whether Gen. 
 Jackson would not turn his influence against Mr. Van Buren. The 
 public curiosity was soon relieved, however, by the appearance of a 
 letter from the " Hermitage,'' in which Gen. Jackson expresses his ad- 
 herence both to annexation and to Mr. Van Buren. He accounts or 
 apologizes for such a letter by saying, that it was " evidently prepared 
 from a knowledge only of the circumstances bearing on the subject as 
 they existed at the close of his administration, without a view of the 
 disclosures since made, and which manifest a dano-erous interference 
 with the affairs of Texas by a foreign power. As to the form '.of annexa- 
 tion, I do not think it material whether it be done by treaty, or upon 
 the application of Texas, by an act or joint resolution of congress." 
 Several other letters were written during the presidential campaign, in 
 which he expressed the same apprehension as to the designs of Great 
 Britain. The question was, " whether Texas and Oregon were to be 
 considered as auxiliaries to American or to British interests." He alleged 
 that Texas was independent ; and therefore, as regarded our treaty with 
 Mexico, good faith was not involved in our decision. 
 
 The opinion of Mr. Gallatin having been requested as to the consti- 
 tutionality of Mr. M'Dufl&e's proposition for annexation, which was by a 
 resolution, declaring the rejected treaty to be the fundamental law of 
 union between the United States and Texas, he replies : " A doubt has 
 been suggested, whether the general government has the right, by its 
 sole authority, to annex a foreign state to the union. * * But 
 it is unnecessary on this occasion to discuss that question. That now 
 
824 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 at issue is simply this : In whom is the power of making treaties veste-d 
 by the constitution ? The United States have recognized the inde- 
 pendence of Texas ; and every compact between independent nations is 
 a treaty." The constitution, he said, gave the treaty-making power to 
 the president and senate. The senate had refused to give its consent 
 to the treaty, and the resolution declared that it should nevertheless be 
 made by congress a fundamental law binding on the United States. He 
 says : " It substitutes for a written constitution, which distributes and de- 
 fines powers, the supremacy, or, as it is called, the omnipotence of a 
 British parliament." He considered it " an undisguised usurpation of 
 power and violation of the constitution." 
 
 The dispute respecting boundary also was regarded by many as au 
 insuperable objection to annexation. This objection, as has been seen, 
 was strongly urged by Mr. Benton. The treaty, so far as it related 
 to the boundary of the Rio Grande, he pronounced " an act of unpar- 
 alleled outrage on Mexico — the seizure of two thousand miles of her 
 territory, without a word of explanation, and by virtue of a treaty with 
 Texas to which she was no party." 
 
 Senator Wright, of New York, made the same objection to voting 
 for the treaty. In 1844, after the close of his senatorial services, in 
 addressing a public meeting, he says : " I felt it my duty to vote 
 against the ratification of the treaty for the annexation. I believed 
 that the treaty, from the boundaries that must be implied from it, em- 
 braced a country to which Texas had no claim, over which she had 
 never asserted jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede. * * 
 It appeared to me then if Mexico should tell us, ' We do not know 
 you ; we have no treaty to make with you,' and we were left to take 
 possession by force, we must take the country as Texas has ceded it 
 to us, and in doing that, we must do injustice to Mexico, and take a 
 large portion of New Mexico, the people of which have never been under 
 the jurisdiction of Texas. This to me was an insurmountable barrier : 
 I could not place the country in that position." 
 
 From the fact that Louisiana was said to have extended to the Rio 
 Grande, the inference has been drawn by some that that river formed 
 the south-western boundary of Texas ; and that although in our treaty 
 with Spain for Florida we had relinquished that portion of Louisiana, 
 the reannexation of Texas would restore the territory to that boundary. 
 But it was maintained that Texas never extended to the westernmost 
 line of Louisiana, as was evident from the well-known fact stated by 
 Messrs. Benton, Wright, and others, that Texas had never even 
 attempted to exercise jurisdiction over the towns and villages along 
 that river ; nor had she until a very recent period claimed the Rio 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 825 
 
 Grande to be the boundary. The declarations of these senators are 
 supported by Texan authority. A map of Texas, published in 1837, 
 and prepared by Stephen F. Austin, a prominent participa*.or in the 
 revolution, gives the Nueces as the south-western boundary. 
 
 Respecting the objects of annexation, some facts have already been 
 given. Whatever other reasons may have existed, the design of extend- 
 ing and strengthening the dominion of slavery has been so often, openly 
 and officially declared, as to leave no doubt that this was at least one 
 of the leading objects of the measure. In addition to the numerous 
 avowals made before the treaty was concluded, is the acknowledgment 
 of the secretary of state after it had been signed. Writing; to our 
 charge in Mexico, he requests him, in making known to the Mexican 
 government the fact that a treaty had been signed, and was about to be 
 sent to the senate for ratification, to offer as a reason or apology for the 
 act, " that the step was forced on the government of the United States 
 in self-defense, in consequence of the policy adopted by Great Britain 
 in reference to the abolition of slavery in Texas. It was impossible for 
 the United States to witness with indifference the efforts of Great 
 Britain to abolish slavery there. They could not but see that she had 
 the means in her power, in the actual condition of Texas, to accomplish 
 the objects of her policy, unless prevented by the most efficient mea- 
 sures ; and that, if accomplished, it would lead to a state of things dan- 
 gerous in the extreme to the adjacent states and the union itself. See- 
 ing this, this government has been compelled, by the necessities of the 
 case, and a regard to its constitutional obligations, to take the step it 
 has, as the only certain and effectual means of preventing it." 
 
 But while the leading object of annexation was to give strength and 
 security to slavery, the measure was doubtless aided by subordinate 
 auxiliary influences. Mr. Benton, in a speech at Boonville, Indiana, in 
 July, 1844, declared disunion to have been a primary object of the 
 treaty ; an intrigue for the presidency a secondary object ; laud specu- 
 lation and stock-jobbing auxiliary objects. He said the quantity of 
 land claimed by the treaty correspondence was 200 millions of acres ; 
 whereas Texas proper contained only 135,000 square miles, or 84,000,000 
 acres ; the rest was to be taken from Mexico. To represent that there 
 was any considerable quantity of good lauds ungranted in Texas, was a 
 fraud. They were jiot an equivalent for the ten millions of Texas 
 debts which, by the rejected treaty, the United States were to assume. 
 
 Mr. Benton said the four objects above mentioned had brought for- 
 ward the treaty at the time and in the manner in which it came, just 
 forty days before the Baltimore convention, and at the exact moment to 
 mix with the presidential election, and to make dissension and mischief 
 
82G THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 between the north and the south. He confined this charge to the prime 
 movers and negotiators of the treaty. The land-speculators and stock- 
 jobbers had acted a conspicuous part at Washington. " The city was a 
 buzzard-roost ! The presidential mansion and the department of state 
 were buzzard-roosts ! defiled and polluted by foul and voracious birds, 
 in the shape of land-speculators and stock-jobbers, who saw their prey 
 in the treaty, and spared no efi'ort to secure it. Their own work was to 
 support the treaty and its friends — to assail its opponents — to abuse 
 senators who were against it — to vilify them, and lie upon them in 
 speech ai d in writing — to establish a committee, still sitting at Wash- 
 ington, to promote and protect their interest." 
 
 Speaking of the debt of Texas, and of the interest which those who 
 held this debt had in the treaty, Mr. B. said : " And what a debt ! 
 created upon scrip and certificates of every imaginable degree of depre- 
 ciation, and now held by jobbers, most of whom have purchased at two 
 cents, and five cents, and ten cents in the dollar, and would have sent 
 their scrip where it bore six per cent., worth upwards of one hundred 
 cents to the dollar the day the treaty was ratified ; and where it bore ten 
 per cent., as three millions of it did, would have been worth upwards of 
 two hundred cents to the dollar. All this to go to the benefit, not even 
 of Texas, but of speculators, and that while the United States refuse, 
 and justly refuse, to assume the debts of her own states. These scrip 
 holders were among the most furious treaty men at Washington." 
 
 Mr. B. then proceeded to expose the fraudulent statements in the 
 treaty correspondence, that only sixty-seven millions of acres had been 
 granted ; and he showed from documents, a large number of grants, one 
 of which contained forty-five millions of acres, nearly equal to the whole 
 of Kentucky and Ohio. Some of them covered several degrees of lati- 
 tude. The treaty was a fraud in not annulling the great grants made 
 for considerations not fulfilled. Mr. B. repeated the charge of the design 
 of disunion on the part of Mr. Calhoun and other southern men. To 
 pick a quarrel with Great Britain, and also with the non-slaveholding 
 states, was the open, undisguised object of the negotiation. The acqui- 
 sition of Texas had been presented as a southern, sectional, slaveholding 
 question ; and the admission of Texan states was to be submitted to a 
 house of representativeo, of whom a majority of forty -six were from non- 
 slaveholdiug states. This, he conceived, was to be done to have the 
 Texan states refused admission, and a pretext fuVnished the southern 
 states for secession. All this was so well known in South Carolina, that 
 the cry of " Texas or disunion," had been raised, not only before the 
 treaty was rejected, but before it was made ! 
 
 Much had appeared in southern papers to favor the suspicion of the 
 
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 827 
 
 designs imputed to southern politicians ly Mr. Benton. A Calhoun 
 paper at Columbia, South Carolina, after the appearance of Mr. Van 
 Buren's letter on annexation, announced that whigs and democrats were 
 dropping their party diflferences, and uniting like brothers upon the 
 question of annexation " as one of absolute self-preservation." Mr. 
 Van Buren was repudiated as a candidate for president, and could not 
 be elected, if he should be nominated. He and Mr. Clay were " both 
 dead, dead, dead, in the whole south." Nothing was to be expected 
 from Cass or Stewart against the tariff; and there was no hope of the 
 nomination of Tyler or Woodbury. The only hope of the south was in 
 herself. Fears were expressed, that the treaty would be rejected, and 
 that " Texas would be thrown into the arms of England." 
 
 A large meeting, attended by 600 persons, had already been held in 
 the Barnwell district, at which a resolution was adopted recommending 
 measures to be taken with a view to a southern convention of the friends 
 of annexation, to be held at Nashville, Tennessee, to further the object. 
 And a proposition from a citizen of Alabama seemed to find favor at the 
 meeting, which was, that if the union would not accept Texas, then she 
 should be annexed to the southern states. And it was proposed, that the 
 proposed convention, of the southern states should request the president 
 to call congress together immediately, when the final issue should be 
 made up, and the alternative distinctly presented to the free states, either 
 to admit Texas into the union, or to proceed peaceably and calmly to 
 arrange the terms of a dissolution of the union. 
 
 At another meeting, held in Beaufort, the tariff of 1842 was 
 denounced ; and a resolution was adopted, declaring, " that if they are 
 not permitted to bring Texas into the union peaceably, they solemnly 
 announce to the world, that they will dissolve the union sooner than 
 abandon Texas." At a meeting in Union district, it was declared: "We 
 desire no political connection with the declared enemies of our peace. 
 We neither dally nor doubt. We hold to our rights — give up the union, 
 and leave the consequences to God." Several other meetings were held, 
 at which similar resolutions were adopted, and a southern convention 
 proposed. Some of the Carolinians went so far as to counsel resistance 
 by " state action." The leading advocate of this measure was the Hon. 
 R. B. Rhett. It was, however, discountenanced by Mr. Calhoun and 
 others, who were not yet ready for that kind of action 
 
 At 4th of July celebrations, disunion was the leading theme of ora- 
 tions and toasts. On most occasions a southern convention was men- 
 tioned as the first resort ; and if that should prove unavailing, then 
 there must be a " speedy application of the ' rightful remedy.' " The 
 union was spoken of as of little consequence, in comparison with the 
 
828 THE AMER. DAN STATESMAN. 
 
 annexation of the " lone star" to " the glorious galaxy of her southern 
 sisters." One toast says : " Give us Texas or * divide the spoons.' ' 
 Another : " Speedy annexation at all and every hazard." Indeed, the 
 common sentiment, as expressed on public occasions, was, that Texas 
 must be annexed, and the tariff of 1842 must be repealed, or disunion 
 would take place. 
 
 The idea of a disunion convention at Nashville, did not find favor in 
 Tennessee. At a meeting of the citizens of Davidson county, resolu 
 tions were adopted, " protesting against the desecration of the soil of 
 Tennessee by any act of men holding within its borders a convention for 
 any such object." Richmond, Virginia, having been proposed by some 
 as a more suitable place than Nashville for the convention, an expression 
 of feeling, similar to that of the citizens of Tennessee, was given at a Clay 
 meeting in Richmond, against the holding of such a convention " in the 
 land of Washington — in the capital of the state of his birth." 
 
 The repeal of the protective tariff was scarcely less an object of desire 
 than the annexation of Texas, and the few northern democrats who had 
 cooperated in defeating M'Kay's low tariff bill at the preceding session, 
 were made the special objects of censure. The query has often suggested 
 itself, whether southern statesmen have been sincere in their protesta- 
 tions against the tariff system as imposing upon them such intolerable 
 burdens as in their view to justify resistance, or as taxing them at all. 
 What has led many to suspect their sincerity is, that the question as re- 
 gards additional taxation is not, or need not be, a matter of speculation, 
 but is susceptible of being answered by a reference to facts. Purchasers 
 can not help knowing when they are compelled to pay higher prices. Daily 
 and weekly prices current determine this question infallibly. To these the 
 advocates of protection have appealed in support of the proposition that 
 prices have not been enhanced by adequate protective duties. Since at 
 every revision of the tariff, the opponents of the system have invariably 
 predicted an oppressive increase of prices, no such permanent result hav- 
 ing followed, many have regarded the complaints of the south as intended 
 merely for effect. 
 
 Whilst efforts were making in congress, in 1844, to reduce the duties 
 imposed by the act of 1842, which was represented as peculiarly oppres- 
 sive in its operations, a number of the principal merchants in the city 
 of Richmond, Virginia, published a comparative statement of wholesale 
 prices of goods in the various branches of trade in that city, made up 
 from actual sales in the year 1841, when the tariff, under the compro- 
 mise act, ranged at the lowest rates of duty, and in 1843, the first year 
 after the act of 1842 went into operation. Of a few articles only —some 
 of the more important — the prices are here given : 
 
 41 
 
Prices 
 
 $85 
 
 in 1841. 
 
 Prices in 1843. 
 $70 to 75 
 
 70 
 
 
 57 
 
 90 
 
 
 77 
 
 90 
 
 
 81 
 
 115 
 
 
 95 
 
 18 
 
 
 14 
 
 04 
 
 
 03 to 03^ 
 
 07 
 
 
 051 to 06^ 
 
 12^ 
 
 to 16^ 
 
 09 to 14 
 
 05 
 
 to 05^ 
 
 03f to 04 
 
 1 90 
 
 to 2 25 
 
 1 60 to 1 65 
 
 WHOLESALE PRICES OF GOODS. 829 
 
 American bar iron, per ton, 
 English do do 
 
 Swedes do do 
 
 Tredegar Kichmond manufacture 
 American blistered steel, per ton 
 Collins' best axes, per dozen 
 Castings, hollow, per pound 
 Flat iron, do 
 
 Anvils, do 
 
 Nails, Richmond made, do 
 Sack salt ranged from 
 Spades and shovels, 20 per cent. less. 
 Cross cut and mill saws, 1 2i per cent. less. 
 
 Wood screws, though prohibited by duty, were 20 per cent, lower, and 
 of a much superior quality to those formerly imported. 
 
 Prices in 1841. Prices in 1843 
 
 Cotton osnaburgs per yard 8 to 10c 6^ to 7^0 
 
 3-4 brown shirtings '* 6^ to 8^ 4^ to 6^ 
 
 4-4 " " " 8ito 11 e^to 8^ 
 
 6-4 " sheetings " 11 to 14^ 8i * 10^ 
 
 Domestic prints « 12^ to 18 8^ to 12i 
 
 During the year 1840, say these merchants, large quantities of British 
 prints were imported, that cost from 22 to 28c per yard, and in 1843, 
 prints of as good quality were produced in this country as low as 15c 
 per yard, which entirely excluded British prints from our markets. 
 
 Irish linens were imported in 1841 duty free; in 1843, with a duty 
 of 25 per cent, they were 20 per cent, lower than in 1841. 
 
 English and French cloths and cassimeres, paying a duty of 38 per 
 cent, in 1841, and of 40 per cent in 1843, had fallen not less than 20 
 per cent. 
 
 From a statement made out in the treasury department, it appeared 
 that the importations of gold and silver coin and bullion for the year 
 ending September, 1843, amounted to $23,741,641. During the two 
 preceding years, they were but $9,075,649. 
 
 It was apprehended in 1842, that, by raising the duties, the importations 
 would be so diminished as to cause a serious decrease of revenue. [See 
 report of the minority of the committee on manufactures, Chapter 
 LXIII.] The result showed the apprehension to have been erroneous. 
 The average yearly amount of receipts from customs for the years 1840, 
 1841, and 1842, was about $16,000,000; for the years 1844, 1845, and 
 1846, it was upwards of $26,000,000 annually 
 
830 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 To the foregoing statements may be added the fact, that the rates of 
 exchange and interest were greatly reduced. Reports of the money 
 market in the spring of 1844, state that good paper was discounted in 
 some of the eastern cities at 4 to 5 per cent., owing, it was said, to the 
 reflux of specie from abroad, and especially to large deposits in the 
 banks, as a result of the general prosperity of the country. 
 
 In view of these facts, which southerners themselves dtd not contro- 
 vert, the question recurs, Did they believe their own representation of 
 the injury inflicted upon them by the tarifi" ? As to the cause of the 
 improved condition of the country, there might be an honest diff"erence 
 of opinion, while in respect to the improvement itself, it is not easy to 
 conceive how such difference could exist. The repeated failures of their 
 predictions of the state of things which would necessarily follow the 
 adoption of protective measures, should have induced them at least to 
 distrust their own opinions. But it was with them a fixed theory, that 
 to whatever extent, or from whatever cause, prices may have been re- 
 duced, the reduction would have been still greater had not the duties 
 been imposed ; and the supposed injury they suffered must have con- 
 sisted, not in actual enhancement of prices, but in their being prevented 
 by th^tariff from falling as low as they would otherwise have done . 
 
 The presidential term of John Tyler expired on the 3d of March, 
 1845. The crowning act of his administration was the annexation of 
 Texas. Whether the ultimate benefits of the acquisition will ever counter- 
 balance its cost, has ever been a matter of doubt. To the debtor side 
 is to be placed the war with Mexico, with its concomitant evils, the 
 least of which was the debt contracted for its prosecution. One of the 
 declared objects of the measure was " to extend the area of freedom." 
 One of its consequences must infallibly be to keep alive the exciting ques- 
 tion of slavery for an indefinite period, perhaps during the existence of the 
 republic. The time is not distant when, to preserve the equilibrium of 
 the slave states — the avowed object of annexation — applications will be 
 made for the admission of new states formed out of the present state of 
 Texas ; and each successive demand for admission will revive the un- 
 happy and distracting controversy. 
 
 Another effect has been apparently to weaken resistance to the extension 
 of slavery. Each concession to the demands of the slave-holding states 
 renders the next more easy. The fact that the constitution protects 
 slavery, and permits its extension, has been interpreted into an argu- 
 ment for placing it, in respect to political power, on an equal footing 
 with freedom. The idea is by no means confined to the south, that thig 
 claim of slavery to political equality should be conceded as a constitu- 
 tional right. This sentiment has had no slight influence in disposing 
 
INAUGURATION OF MR. POLK. 831 
 
 the north, on each admission of a free state, to allow it to be counter- 
 poised by the simultaneous admission of a slave state. 
 
 Constitutions for state governments having been presented to congress 
 by the territories of Florida and Iowa, acts were passed for their admission 
 as states into the union. 
 
 An act was passed at this session, to establish a uniform time for 
 choosing presidential electors in all the states. Previously, they were 
 required to be chosen within thirty-four days before they were to meet 
 in their respective states to cast their votes for president and vice-presi- 
 dent. By the act of 1845, the election in all the states for choosing 
 the electors is on the Tuesday next after the first Monday of November. 
 
 The first act for the great reduction of postage, was also passed at 
 this session. Postage was, by this act, reduced to five cents on single 
 letters, carried not exceeding 300 miles ; over that distance, ten cents. 
 
 CHAPTER LXVII. 
 
 INAUaURATION OF MR. POLK. DEATH OF GEN. JACKSON. WAR WITH 
 
 MEXICO. TREATY OF PEACE. 
 
 James K. Polk was inaugurated as president of the United States, on 
 the 4th of March, 1845. His inaugural address was one of unusual 
 length, and presented his views much in detail. Having descanted on 
 the excellency of our government, and the value of the union, he enjoined 
 a sacred observance of the compromises of the constitution, and depre- 
 cated interference with certain " domestic institutions," as an " attempt 
 to disturb or destroy the compromises of the constitution," which must 
 "lead to the most ruinous and disastrous consequences." He expressed 
 his " deep regret, that, in some sections of our country, misguided per- 
 sons have occasionally indulged in schemes and agitations, whose object 
 is the destruction of domestic institutions existing in other sections ;" 
 but he was " happy to believe that there existed among the great mass 
 of our people a devotion to the union of the states which would protect 
 it againsl the moral treason of any who would contemplate its destruc- 
 tion." 
 
 He declared his opposition to " national banks and other extrameoua 
 institutions, to control or strengthen the government." He regarded it 
 his duty to recommend and " to enforce the ptrictest economy in the 
 
832 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 expenditure of the public money." He congratulated the people " on 
 the entire restoration of the credit of the general government, and that 
 of many of the states." His policy in regard to the tariff is shadowed 
 forth in his adoption of the following sentence : " Justice and sound 
 policy forbid +be federal government to foster one branch of industry to 
 the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to 
 the injury of another portion of our common country." He was in favor 
 of a tariff for revenue merely, but so adjusted as to afford incidental pro- 
 tection to home industry. 
 
 He congratulated the country on the re anion of Texas to the United 
 States : it only remained to agree upon the terms. Other governments 
 had no right to interfere, or to take exceptions to their reiinion. " The 
 world," he said, " has nothing to fear from military ambition in our gov- 
 ernment. While the chief magistrate and the popular branch of congress 
 are elected for short terms by the suffrages of those millions who must, 
 in their own persons, bear all the burdens and miseries of war, our gov- 
 ernment can not be otherwise than pacific." The annexation was "not 
 to be looked on as the conquest of a nation seeking to extend her domin- 
 ions by arms and violence, but as the peaceful acquisition of a territory 
 once her own ;" an act which he regarded as " diminishing the chances 
 of war." Nor did the new president forget to reassert " our title to the 
 country of the Oregon to be ' clear and unquestionable,' " and to pledge 
 himself " to maintain, by all constitutional means, the right of the United 
 States to that portion of our territory :" and he recommended that the 
 jurisdiction of our laws should be extended over our emigrants in that 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Polk's cabinet was constituted as follows : James Buchanan, of 
 Pennsylvania, secretary of state ; Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, 
 secretary of the treasury ; William L. Marcy, of New York, secretary 
 of war ; George Bancroft, of Massachusetts, secretary of the navy ; Cave 
 Johnson, of Tennessee, postmaster-general ; John Y. Mason, of Virginia, 
 attorney-general. 
 
 In June, Louis McLane, of Maryland, (formerly of Delaware,) was 
 appointed minister to Great Britain, in the place of Edward Everett, 
 recalled. It was said that, before the selection of Mr. McLane for this 
 mission, it had been offered successively to two citizens of South Caro- 
 lina, Messrs. Pickens and Elmore ; and, it was believed, also to Mr. Cal- 
 houn, of the same state, and Mr. Woodburv, of New Hampshire ; all of 
 whom had declined. 
 
 On the 8th of June, 1845, Gen. Jackson died at bis residence, the 
 Hermitage, aged 78 years. The announcement of this event produced 
 a deep and general sensation throughout the country. Old party differ 
 
WAR WITH MEXICO. 833 
 
 ences were forgotten ; and the people of all classes and parties joined in 
 appropriate demonstrations of respect to the memory of the departed 
 hero and patriot. However public opinion may have been divided in 
 relation to his merits as a statesman, few questioned the sincerity of his 
 patriotism. 
 
 Mr. Polk, on his accession to the presidency, had upon his hands two 
 foreign questions to dispose of — the controversy with Great Britain 
 respecting her claims in Oregon, and the difficulty with Mexico arising 
 from the annexation of Texas, still claimed by the former as a part^of 
 her territory. 
 
 On the 6th of March, 1845, only six days after the date of the act of 
 annexation, the Mexican minister, Almonte, addressed to Mr. Calhoun, 
 secretary of state, a letter, in which, pursuant to the instructions of his 
 government, he protested against the act of congress dismembering the 
 province of Texas, an integral part of Mexicaii territory, and admitting 
 it into the American union. He declared the purpose of Mexico to 
 enforce her right to recover the territory of which she had been unjustly 
 despoiled ; and he gave notice of the termination of his mission, and 
 asked for his passports. Mr. Buchanan, the new secretary of state, in 
 reply, says, the president trusts that the government of Mexico will view 
 the act in a more favorable light, and declares " that his most strenuous 
 efforts shall be devoted to the amicable adjustment of every cause of com- 
 plaint between the two governments." On the arrival of the news of 
 annexation at the city of Mexico, diplomatic relations between the two 
 governments there too were abruptly terminated ; and the proceedings of 
 the Mexican congress manifested a highly belligerent spirit. 
 
 On the 4th of June, 1845, president Jones, of Texas, issued a procla 
 mation, stating that Mexico was disposed to a peaceful settlement of 
 difficulties, by acknowledging Texan independence, if Texas would main- 
 tain her separate existence, and declaring a cessation of hostilities against 
 Mexico, till the subject could be laid before the Texan congress and con- 
 vention of the people. This was regarded as evidence of the president's 
 indisposition toward annexation. The congress assembled on the 16th 
 of June, pursuant to the proclamation of president Jones; who com- 
 municated the resolutions of annexation passed by the United States 
 congress, and submitted to the senate the treaty proposed by Mexico for 
 acknowledging the independence of Texas, upon three conditions, viz. : 
 
 (1.) Texas not to annex herself or become subject to any country 
 whatever. (2.) Limits and other arrangements to be matters of agree- 
 ment in the final treaty. (3.) Texas to consent to refer the disputed 
 points with regard to territory and other matters, to the arbitration of 
 umpires. The senate, it was said, unanimously rejected the proposition 
 
 53 
 
834 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 from Mexico, and adopted resolutions accepting the terma for annexation 
 to the United States. 
 
 Mexico considered annexation on our part as an act of war, and 
 declared her intention to resent the injury, and to resort to arms. War 
 appeared for a time to be inevitable. In compliance with the request 
 both of the congress of Texas and the convention of the people, our gov- 
 ernment sent an army into that territory to defend it against the threat- 
 ened invasion. President Polk, in his message to congress of December, 
 1845, said he " deemed it proper, as a precautionary measure, to order a 
 strong squadron to the coast of Mexico, and to concentrate a sufficient 
 military force on the western frontier of Texas." The army, he said, 
 had been ordered to take position between the Nueces and the Del Norte. 
 Both the army and the navy had been instructed to commit no act of 
 hostility against Mexico, unless she declared war, or commenced aggres- 
 sions. The result had been, he said, that Mexico had made no aggres- 
 sive movement. 
 
 The president complained of the delinquency of Mexico in the pay- 
 ment of the instalments of the indemnity. Only three of the twenty 
 quarterly instalments had been paid ; and seven of the remaining seven- 
 teen were due. The claims of more than three millions which had been 
 left undecided by the commission, had since been recognized by a treaty 
 providing for their examination and settlement by a joint commission. 
 This treaty, concluded at Mexico, in November, 1843, had been ratified 
 by our government, but it had not yet received the ratification of the 
 Mexican government. 
 
 Not possessing the power, without the authority of congress, to enforce 
 adequate remedies for the injuries we had suffered, and Mexico having 
 made no hostile movement for many weeks after our army and navy had 
 been on the frontier, the president had taken measures to ascertain the 
 purposes of the Mexican government, and in November an answer had 
 been received, declaring its consent to renew diplomatic relations. A 
 minister, (Mr. Slidell, of Louisiana,) was accordingly sent, with power 
 to settle all pending difficulties. From the tone of the message, it was 
 reasonable to infer, that, if negotiation should fail, war would ensue. 
 
 Whatever hopes may have been entertained of a successful negotiation, 
 were soon disappointed. The resumption of negotiations was agreed 
 upon with the government of Mexico under the administration of presi- 
 dent Herrera. But scarcely had our minister reached his destination, 
 before the government had undergone another of those revolutions which 
 kept that country in a state little better than one of complete anarchy. 
 Gen. Paredes, who commanded the forces destined for the Texan fron- 
 tier, having been informed of the intended negotiation by which it was 
 
V/AR WITH MEXICO. 835 
 
 apprehended that a part of the Mexican territory was to be surrendeied to 
 the United States, and being determined to prevent it, returned with hia 
 army to the city of Mexico, where he was joined by the regular army, 
 and assumed the government. It appeared, however, that, before the 
 arrival of Paredes, the government had refused to receive our minister, 
 on the ground of the inadequacy of his special jvower to treat upon the 
 questions which were intended by the Mexican government to be made 
 the subject of negotiation. Mr. Slidell, not being received, retired to 
 Jalapa, where he remained until the 28th of March, 1846, when he 
 departed for home. The government of Mexico refused to recognize 
 him, except for the purpose of treating in relation to Texas and the 
 boundary. He had, in obedience to his instructions, demanded to be 
 received as a minister plenipotentiary. 
 
 The act of annexation was consummated on the 4th of July, 1845 ; 
 the people of Texas represented in a state convention, having accepted 
 terms proposed by our government. Immediately after this event, the 
 president, aware that it would be considered by Mexico as an act of war 
 on the part of the United States, and apprehending hostilities as a conse- 
 quence, ordered Gren. Taylor with his troops to some place on the gulf 
 of Mexico, from which he could, when necessary, proceed to the defense 
 of the western frontier of Texas. The place selected by Gen. Taylor, 
 was Corpus Christi, on the west side of the Nueces, the extreme western 
 settlement made by the people of Texas. Gen. Taylor was instructed 
 by the department not to disturb " the Mexican forces at the posts in 
 their possession" on the east side of the Rio Grande, " so long as the 
 relations of peace between the United States and Mexico continue." He 
 was repeatedly directed to confine his defense and protection of Texan 
 territory, so far as the same had been occupied by the people of Texas, 
 and not to interfere with any " Mexican settlements over which the 
 republic of Texas did not exercise jurisdiction at the period of annexa- 
 tion, or shortly before that event." 
 
 The army,after having been at Corpus Christi from August to January, 
 and no hostile act having been committed by the Mexicans, was ordered, 
 in January, 1 846, to take position on the left bank of the Rio Grande. 
 It left Corpus Christi early in March. Gen. Taylor, with a company 
 of dragoons commanded by Col. Twiggs, in advance of the main army, 
 arrived at Point Isabel, on the north side of the Rio Grande, on the 
 24th of March, the distance from Corpus Christi, ' being 119 miles. 
 Point Isabel is a few miles below Matamoras, which is on the opposite 
 side of the river. The fleet of transports reached the same place half an 
 hour after. When near Point Isabel, Gen. Taylor was met by a depu- 
 tation of 30 or 40 men, with a message from Gen. Mejia, a MexicaE 
 
836 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 commander, protesting against the invasion. On the approach of the 
 fleet of transports, the custom-house at Point Isabel, and several other 
 buildino-s were set on fire by the Mexican commandant, and consumed. 
 On the 28th, the army of occupation, consisting of about 3,500 men, 
 arrived and camped opposite Matamoras. About one month after the 
 arrival of our army at the Rio Grande, hostilities were commenced. 
 
 On the 1 Ith of May, congress received from the president a message, 
 announcing a state of war, which, he said, had been commenced on the 
 part of Mexico, whose government, " after a long-continued series of 
 menaces, had at last invaded our territory, and shed the blood of oui 
 fellow-citizens on our own soil." The president "invokes the prompt 
 action of congress to recognize the existence of the war, and to place at 
 the disposition of the executive the means of prosecuting the war with 
 vigor, and thus hastening the restoration of peace." 
 
 A bill providing for raising the necessary men, and money, 
 ($10,000,000,) was immediately reported in the house of representatives, 
 and passed that body 1 42 to 1 4. The senate passed it the next morn- 
 ing, after a slight modification, 40 to 2, and returned it to the house the 
 same evening. The next day {13th,) the amendments of the senate hav- 
 ing been concurred in, the bill was signed by the presiding officers of the 
 two houses and the president, who on the same day issued the war pro- 
 clamation. 
 
 The vote on the passage of the bill is not an accurate expression of the 
 sentiment of either house on the war question in general ; but only as to 
 the proper course to be pursued under existing circumstances. A large 
 number, probably most of the whigs, believed the war to be unjust on the 
 part of the United States ; its cause being the dismemberment of a part of 
 the territory of Mexico. They also considered the war to have been uncon- 
 stitutionally made by the president. His ordering the army into Mexican 
 territory was an act of war, tantamount to a declaration of war, which the 
 constitution devolved exclusively upon congress. Many who entertained 
 these views voted for the bill, believing that, war existing, from whatever 
 cause, or however unlawfully made, it was the duty of every citizen to sup- 
 port it. The mass of those even who had throughout denounced the course 
 of the government as a series of outrages upon the rights of Mexico, 
 seemed to concur in the popular sentiment : " Our country, right or 
 wrong" — " We are in a war, and, however unjust, we must fight it out." 
 Others voted for tke bill from the bare motive of expediency^ remember- 
 ing the fate of those who opposed the war of 1812. 
 
 The opponents of the administration being known to difiFer with the 
 majority respecting the origin and the justice of the war, and yet to be in 
 favor of furnishing supplies for the army, the majority took advantage 
 
WAR WITH MEXICO. 837 
 
 of tills latter fact to obtain from the minority a formal sanction of the 
 war. For this purpose, the bill was preceded by a preamble, declaring 
 the war to exist hy the act of the republic of Mexico. In the senate, 
 appeals were made to the majority to waive this declaration, and a 
 motion was made to strike out the preamble, but it was lost, 18 to 28. 
 Several of the minority voted for the bill, trusting to a future oppor- 
 tunity to justify themselves. Some voted under formal protest ; and 
 others refused to vote at all. Senators Mangum, John M. Clayton, and 
 Dayton, had their protests against the preamble entered on the journal. 
 Thomas Clayton and John Davis voted in the negative. 
 
 But for the preamble, the bill would probably have passed the senate 
 unanimously. To that, there were two objections. One was, that a state 
 of war did not exist ; and another, that, if it existed, it was not by the 
 act of Mexico. The latter, of course, involved the question of boundary ; 
 the existence of war by the act of Mexico necessarily presupposing the 
 Rio Grande to be the boundary between that country and Texas. 
 Unless this was the fact, it was not true, as the president had averred in 
 his message, that Mexico had " invaded our territory, and shed the 
 blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil." 
 
 The nienibers of the house who voted against the bill, were Messrs. 
 Adams, Ashmun, Grinnell, Hudson, and King, of Massachusetts ; 
 Severance, of Maine ; Cranston, of Rhode Island ; Culver, of New 
 York ; Strohm, of Pennsylvania ; Giddiugs, Root, Tilden, and Vance, 
 of Ohio. 
 
 Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, asked to be excused from voting on the 
 bill. No opportunity had been allowed a whig to say a word upon it. 
 There was no need of such unparalleled haste. Gen. Taylor had, in 
 the exercise of his discretionary power, vested in him by the executive, 
 called on the governors of the contiguous states for ten thousand troops, 
 and had probably ere now obtained aid, and beaten back the enemy. 
 One day might be given to the consideration of the bill. He objected 
 to the preamble of the bill, because it set forth a falsehood. It was 
 true that an informal war existed ; but that Mexico commenced it, was 
 utterly untrue. He was in favor of the provisions of the bill ; for, 
 whether on our own territory or that of Mexico, if the army was in 
 danger, he would vote for the men and money required for the rescue. 
 But he protested against defiling the measure with the unfounded state- 
 ment that Mexico had begun the war. The purpose of its anthers was 
 to make the whigs vote against the administration, or force them to aid 
 in throwing a shelter over it by voting for a bill which set forth that 
 this needless and unexpected war was commenced by Mexico. 
 
 If, said Mr. D., the bill contained any recitation on that point in 
 
&38 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 truth and in justice, it should be that this war had been begun by the 
 president. The Nueces was the boundary. The country between that 
 river and the Del Norte was in possession of, and inhabited by, Mexico. 
 The president had of his own will ordered Gen. Taylor and his army to 
 take post at Corpus Christi, on the west bank of the Nueces, and, 
 several months afterward, he had ordered him through the disputed 
 country to the Del Norte. The Mexican authorities had met him, and 
 protested against the aggression, and warned him to retire east of the 
 Nueces, or he would be deemed to be making war upon Mexico ; and they 
 would resort to force. In executiou of his orders from the executive, 
 he presses on to Matamoras, mounts a battery of cannon within three 
 hundred yards of it, whence he could, in a few hours, batter it down. 
 He then blockades the port of Matamoras, orders off English aud 
 American vessels, and directs the capture of a Spanish schooner. The 
 Mexican commander treats these acts as acts of war ; and on the 25th 
 of April, Gen. Taylor is informed by a messenger from the Mexican 
 camp, that hostilities exist, and will be prosecuted according to the 
 laws of civilized nations. That night a detachment of the Mexican 
 army crosses the Rio Gi-ande; Gen. Taylor sends out a scouting party 
 to reconnoitre, which attacks the Mexicans, and is defeated and 
 captured by the Mexicans ; and thus war is raging in bloody earnestness. 
 
 It was our own president who had begun this war. He had been 
 carrying it on for months in a series of acts. Congress, which was vested 
 with the sole power to make war, he had not deigned to consult, or to 
 ask for authority. Now, when it had unexpectedly broke forth in 
 bloody reverses, his friends sought to protect him by charging Mexico 
 with being the author of the war ; and he, in cold blood, taught others 
 to sacrifice a brave and veteran ofl&cer, whenever it might become neces- 
 sary to cover his mistakes and incompetency. He had got the nation 
 into difi&culty, from which he could not relieve it ; and he now asked 
 congress to assume his duties and responsibilities. Mr. D. repeated his 
 readiness to vote for supplies, at the same time protesting against the 
 falsehood. He would fight the Mexicans until we drove them across the 
 Rio Grande, and retrieved our renown. He would then withdraw our 
 army to the east side of the Nueces, and settle by treaty all our disputes 
 with that weak and distracted country upon the most lioeral terms. 
 
 A history of this war does not come within the design of this work. 
 It may be remarked, in general, that it was attended with a succession 
 of brilliant achievements by the two distinguished generals, Taylor and 
 Scott. The triumphant march of the latter to the Mexican capital, has 
 scarcely a parallel in modern times. But the glory acquired by the 
 success of our arms, was obtained at an immense sacrifice. The loss of 
 
WAR WITH MEXICO. 839 
 
 life on the several fields of battle, though great, was far exceeded by 
 death from sickness. Such was the mortality among our troops, that 
 almost whole companies were cut down by disease. The expenses of 
 the war, though comparatively a minor consideration, were enormous, 
 the most extravagant prices having been paid for almost every thing 
 hired or purchased. The painful rupture of the domestic relations — 
 the sorrows and sufferings of widowhood and orphanage — the demoral- 
 izing effects upon society — all of which are the inseparable concomitants 
 of war, are evils of incalculably greater magnitude, which find no equiv- 
 alent in any mere territorial acquisition. 
 
 On the fourth of August, 1846, the president sent to the senate a 
 confidential message, informing that body that he had resolved on 
 making proposals for opening a negotiation with Mexico — a letter con- 
 taining such overture being already on the way to that country — and 
 asking of congress an appropriation of money to aid him in negotiating 
 a peace. The object of the money was the purchase of Mexican terri- 
 tory, if the same should be deemed expedient. A bill for appropriating 
 two millions of dollars for this purpose, was introduced in the house of 
 representatives. In the rapid progress of this bill towards its consum- 
 mation, Mr. Wilniot, of Pennsylvania, moved a proviso, which was car- 
 ried, declaring, that, as a condition to the acquisition of any territory 
 from Mexico, by virtue of any treaty that might be negotiated, slavery 
 should never exist in any part of the said territory. This amendment 
 induced many of its friends to vote against the bill, which was passed, 
 notwithstanding, by a majority of six votes, and sent to the senate on 
 Saturday night, (August II,) but too late to be acted upon that nigh't. 
 
 Before the bill came up in the senate on Monday, the plan was said 
 to have been formed of introducing the appropriation, freed from Mr. 
 Wilmot's proviso, as an amendment to the civil appropriation bill ; but 
 the design was abandoned from an apprehension that it would cause the 
 loss of the whole mass of appropriations for the support of the govern- 
 ment. The bill, as it came from the house, was taken up about twenty 
 minutes before twelve o'clock, the hour fixed for closing the legislative 
 session. In the midst of the debate, when, as was supposed, there re- 
 mained yet ten minutes to dispose of the question, the house, whose 
 clock was ten minutes faster than that of the senate, was adjourned by 
 the speaker ; and the action of the senate was abruptly terminated. 
 Thus was lost the proposition for money to buy territory and a peace 
 from Mexico. From the introduction of the anti-slavery provision of 
 this bill, is derived the familiar title of the " Wilmot proviso," which 
 has since been so generally applied to similar provisions. It is sub- 
 stantially the game as the proviso in the celebrated ordinance of 1787, 
 prohibiting slavery in the territory north-west of the Ohio. 
 
840 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 During the interval between the adjournment of congress in August, 
 and its reassembling in December, nothing occurred to change essentially 
 the aspect of our relations with Mexico. The commerce of Great Bri- 
 tain had been materially alFected by the war between the United States 
 and Mexico. Her annual export trade to the latter country amounted 
 to $5,000,000. British capitalists also had $10,000,000 invested in the 
 mines of Mexico ; and the public debt of Mexico to Great Britain was 
 about the same amount. Deeply solicitous, therefore, for the restoration 
 of peace between the two American republics, the British government 
 had twice during the summer offered to mediate. The first of these 
 offers having been made before the settlement of the Oregon controversy, 
 and Great Britain, consequently being herself sensible that she did not 
 occupy the position of unbiased impartiality, the offer was merely to the 
 effect, that, if the United States were disposed to accept the mediation, 
 it would be tendered. Subsequently, the Oregon question having been 
 settled, an explicit offer was made, which, however, was not favorably 
 received by our government. 
 
 The 29th congress reassembled on the 7th of December, 1 846. The 
 major pact of the president's message was devoted to a detailed history 
 of our diflBculties with Mexico. He recapitulated the wrongs commit- 
 ted by Mexico, and the causes of the war ; declared its justice on the 
 part of the United States ; our disposition to peace and harmony, and 
 our right to annex Texas; and he repeated the charge against Mexico of 
 having invaded our soil. As the truth of this charge depended, of course, 
 upon the validity of the claim of Texas to all the territory east of the Bio 
 Grande, he asserted the justice of that claim, in opposition to Messrs. 
 Benton, Wright, Adams, and others. He founded this assertion upon 
 the acknowledged fact, that Louisiana^ as acquired in 1803, extended 
 to that river, and upon the assumption of what was by them denied, 
 that Texas extended to the western boundary of ancient Louisiana ; it 
 being beyond dispute, that Texas had never exercised any jurisdiction 
 whatever, over the inhabitants in the valley of the Rio Grande. He 
 also mentioned the non-acceptance of the offers of our government to 
 negotiate peace, and the continued refusal to receive a minister from the 
 United States. 
 
 As one of the evidences of the independence of Texas, the president 
 referred to the treaty made with Texan authorities by Santa Anna, in 
 1836, when prisoner of war, in which he acknowledged the independence 
 of Texas. The allegation that, in the condition of a prisoner, he was 
 incapable of making a treaty binding upon his government, and the fact 
 that the act was disavowed by that government, the president seemed to 
 think were countervailed by the facts, that he had been defeated in hia 
 
WAR WITH MEXICO. 841 
 
 attempt to conquer Texas ; that his authority had not been revoked ; 
 and that by virtue of this treaty he had obtained his release, and hostili- 
 ties had been suspended. 
 
 Santa Anna, who had been expelled from power and banished by a 
 revolution in 1844, was an exile in Cuba when the war commenced. He 
 had subsequently been permitted, by the authority of Mr. Polk, to pass 
 the blockade, and return to Mexico, where, it was apprehended, he would 
 be again found in command of the Mexican army. The president, hav- 
 ing been censured by the opposition for this act, he offered, in justifica- 
 tion, that there was no prospect of a pacific adjustment with the govern- 
 ment of Paredes ; that there were symptoms of a new revolution in 
 Mexico ; that there was a large party in favor of Santa Anna, who had 
 professed to entertain views favorable to the United States, and with 
 whom it was probable a settlement of difficulties might be effected. For 
 these reasons he had permitted his return to Mexico. 
 
 Santa Anna arrived at the city of Mexico the 15th of September. 
 The revolution had already taken place. The offer of the supreme 
 executive power was at once made to him on the part of the provisional 
 government organized by General Salas, after the fall of Paredes. 
 Santa Anna declined the offer of the civil supremacy, but assumed the 
 military command, declaring that he would " die fighting the perfidious 
 enemy, or lead the Mexicans to victory." Near the close of the year, 
 he was elected provisional president. In a correspondence with Gen. 
 Taylor, he declared that Mexico would not listen to overtures of peace, 
 unless the national territory should be first evacuated by our forces, and 
 our vessels of war withdrawn from their hostile attitude. 
 
 A bill was passed, authorizing the issue of treasury notes and the 
 negotiation of a loan or loans, to the amount of $28,000,000. A 
 bill was also introduced for an appropriation of $3,000,000, for the 
 same purpose as that of the preceding session for $2,000,000, to which 
 the Wilmot proviso had been attached, and which had been lost. Before 
 the passage of the bill, Mr. Hamlin, of Ohio, moved the " Wilmot pro- 
 viso" as an amendment. This proviso, after an unsuccessful motion of 
 Mr. Douglas to amend by prohibiting slavery in acquired territory north 
 of 36 deg. 30 min., was adopted, 110 to 89. The bill finally passed 
 the house, 115 to 110. A. similar bill was also reported in the senate, 
 in which body the " Wilmot proviso," moved by Mr. Upham, of Ver- 
 mont, was rejected, 21 to 31 ; and the bill was passed, (March 1,) 29 to 
 24. The bill was sent to the house of representatives, where it was 
 taken up the last day of the session, (March 3,) and, on motion of Mr. 
 Wilmot, amended in committee of the whole, by the adoption of the 
 anti- slavery proviso, 90 to 80, and so reported to the house. But the 
 
842 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 house disagreed to the report of the committee of the whole, 97 to 102, 
 and the bill was finally passed by the house without the proviso, 115 
 to 81. 
 
 In the senate, the debate on the three million bill was one of more 
 than ordinary interest. It was animated and protracted, and was par- 
 ticipated in by a large number of the senators. The whole war question 
 was reviewed. A somewhat sharp collision took place between Mr. Cal- 
 houn and Mr. Benton, who difi'ered in relation both to the objects of the 
 war, and the manner in which it should in future be conducted. Mr. Ben- 
 ton urged the plan of the administration, which contemplated a vigorous 
 prosecution of offensive war, and an effort, after reducing Vera Cruz, to 
 penetrate the country to the city of Mexico. Mr. Calhoun's plan, (pre- 
 viously suggested by Mr. Berrien,) was to take and hold the Mexican 
 posts, assume a line of boundary on which we would be content to settle 
 all difficulties, retire our forces to that line, and defend all within that 
 boundary, until Mexico should be willing to make peace by conceding 
 to those limits; her posts to be then relinquished. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, in relation to the objects of the war, said they appeared 
 to him, from an examination of the president's message, to be threefold: 
 (1.) To repel invasion; (2.) To establish the Bio del Norte as the west- 
 ern boundary ; (3). To obtain payment of the indemnities due our citi- 
 zens for claims against Mexico. The president had not recommended 
 that congress should declare war ; he assumed that it existed already, 
 and called upon congress to recognize its existence. That the war 
 existed, and that blood had been spilled on American soil, he had 
 assumed, on the ground that the Rio del Norte was the western bound- 
 ary of Texas. And congress, in declaring that war had been made by 
 Mexico, had recognized that river as the boundary. Hence, the crossing 
 of that river by the Mexicans was considered invasion, which was to be 
 repelled. These two, repelling invasion, and establishing boundary, 
 "were primary objects; and, being involved in the war, the object of 
 indemnity, though not a sufficient cause of war in itself, yet, being 
 involved in war, might be made one of the objects for which the war 
 should be prosecuted. 
 
 Mr. Benton defended the president from the blame of the war, and 
 charged it upon Mr. Calhoun. The causes of the war were farther back 
 than the march to the Rio Grande. They began with the cession of 
 Texas to Spain in 1819, by the Florida treaty. Mr. C. was one of the 
 majority of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, who bad given it away; the blame 
 of which had long been unjustly charged upon Mr. Adams, the negotia 
 tor of the treaty, who, it was said, desired to clip the wings of the slave- 
 holding states. Mr. B. next adverted to the direct proofs of the sen- 
 
WAR WITH MEXICO. 843 
 
 ator's authorship of the war. On the first rumors of the victory of San 
 Jacinto, he had, in the senate, proposed the immediate recognition of 
 the independence of Texas, and her admission as a state ; and urged, as 
 a reason for the admission, that it would prevent that country from 
 having the power to annoy the slaveholding states. This act would 
 have plunged us into instant war with Mexico. Mr. B. referred to the 
 correspondence of Mr. Calhoun, as secretary of state, with the British 
 ministers, in which he had avowed the determination of the government 
 to maintain the principles of slavery ; and in carrying out that determi- 
 nation, he had induced Mr. Tyler to adopt the course he did, on the last 
 day of his presidency, which measure had precipitated us into the war. 
 
 The choice which the alternative resolutions gave as to the mode of 
 annexation, properly belonged to the new president. So strong was 
 the expectation that this choice would be left to Mr. Polk, that the 
 suggestion that it might be snatched out of his hands by the expir- 
 ing administration, a senator (Mr. M'Dufiie) had declared that they 
 would not have the audacity to do it. But they did have the audacity. 
 They did do it ! or rather he did it, (looking to Mr. Calhoun;) for Mr. 
 Tyler was nothing in anything relating to the Texas question, from the 
 time of the arrival of his secretary of state. " On Sunday, the 2d of 
 March, the day which pi-eceded the last day of his authority, on that 
 day, siiCred to peace, the council sat that acted on the resolutions, and 
 in the darkness of a night howling with the storm, and battling with the 
 elements, as if heaven wai'red upon the audacious act, (for well do I 
 remember it,) the fatal messenger was sent off, who carried the selected 
 resolution to Texas. The act was done : Texas was admitted : all the 
 consequences of admission were incurred, and especially that which Mr. 
 De Bocanegra (the Mexican minister) had denounced, and which our 
 secretary had accepted — war." History, Mr. B. said, would write him 
 (Mr. 0.) down the author of that calamity just so certainly as it had 
 made Lord North the cause of the war of the revolution. 
 
 Mr. Benton said : " He now sets up for the character of pacificator ; 
 with what justice, let the further fact proclaim which I now expose." 
 He said there were, in the summer of 1844, three hundred newspapers 
 in the pay of the department of state, which spoke the sentiments of 
 that department, and denounced as traitors all who were for peaceable 
 annexation by settling, at the same time, the boundary line of Texas 
 with Mexico. Those papers acted under instruction ; in proof of which, 
 he read from a letter as follows : 
 
 "As the conductor of a public journal here, he has requested me to 
 answer it, (your letter,) which request I comply with readily. * * * 
 With regard to the course of your paper, you can take the tone of the 
 
844 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 administration from the *****, I think, however, and would 
 recommend that you would confine yourself to attacks upon Benton, 
 showing that he has allied himself with the whigs on the Texas question. 
 Quote Jackson's letter on Texas, where he denounces all those as 
 traitors to the country who oppose the treaty. Apply it to Benton. 
 Proclaim that Benton, by attacking Mr. Tyler and his friends, and 
 driving them from the party, is aiding the election of Mr. Clay ; and 
 charge him with doing this to defeat Mr. Polk, and insure himself the 
 succession in 1848; and claim that full justice be done to the acts and 
 motives of John Tyler by the leaders. Harp upon these strings. Do 
 not propose the union : ' it is the business of the democrats to do this, 
 and arrange it to our perfect satisfaction.' I qiiote here from our lead- 
 ing friend at the south. Such is the course which I recommend, and 
 which you can pursue, or not, according to your real attachment to the 
 administration. * * * Look out for my leader of to-morrow as an 
 indication, and regard this letter as of the most strict and inviolate 
 confidence of character." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun disclaimed the authorship of this letter. Mr. Benton 
 said it was the work of one of the organs of the administration, not 
 " John Jones," and the instruction had been followed by three hundred 
 newspapers in the pay of the department of state. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun defended the treaty of 1819, his course upon the ques- 
 tioa of the annexation of Texas, and his opinion that no war had been 
 necessai'y. It might have been avoided, even after the battles of May, 
 by ordering a provisional army to be raised for the protection of our 
 territory. By this means we could have secured the Rio Grande, and 
 been saved the expense of an invading war. In regard to annexation, 
 he said, among other things, that it had been his determination to 
 carry it through, and he had succeeded. It was one of the proudest 
 acts of his life, and the senator from Missouri could not deprive him of 
 the merit of being the author of that great act. If the government had 
 acted afterwards with common prudence, Mexico and ourselves would 
 have been this day good friends. Mr. C. said the settlement of the 
 Oregon question previous to the commencement of hostilities with Mex- 
 ico, was one of the most furtunate events for this country that had 
 ever occurred. Had it not been settled before the conflict took place, 
 there would probably have been no settlement of it. 
 
 Mr. Clayton, in relation to the commencement of the war, gave the 
 following testimony : During the debate on the Oregon question, in 
 February, 1846 he had learned from sources upon which he could rely, 
 that our government had ordered G-en. Taylor to break up his encampment 
 at Corpus Christi and march to the Rio Grande. The instant he heard 
 
WAR WITH MEXICO. 845 
 
 it — the public having no means of knowing tbe fact — he was alarmed at 
 the apprehension of a war with Mexico ; and it was true, as Mr. Cal- 
 houn had said, that he had, in a confidential private conversation, in 
 the senate chamber, given him the information, and had told him, he 
 believed, that, unless he, (Mr. Calhoun,) or some other influential gen- 
 tleman should interpose to arrest the tendency of things arising from 
 that order, we should be plunged into a war. At the same time there 
 was danger of a war with England, which there was great anxiety to 
 avert. Mr. Calhoun, on receiving the information, exclaimed : " It 
 cannot be so ! It is impossible !" just as the senator had related it in 
 this debate ; and asked what could be done. Mr. Clayton said that he, 
 as a whig, could effect nothing ; and unless Mr. Calhoun and his friends, 
 or some other division. of gentlemen on the other side of the chamber, 
 should move in the matter, the whigs would be powerless. " The hon- 
 orable gentleman," said Mr. Clayton, " was at that time, as he has 
 properly stated, devoted to the same great object which, I confess, ab- 
 sorbed my own mind and the minds of those around me — the prevention 
 of a war with England ; and he declined to move, lest his usefulness 
 on that great question should be in any degree contracted. In the 
 course of a short time after that — " 
 
 Mr. Calhoun : " The first communication was in January, when 
 you announced the fact ; and the second conversation was in February." 
 
 Mr. Clayton : " Yes, the senator is right. Thus, Mr. President, I 
 felt exonerated from all responsibility in the matter. * # # While 
 the houses of congress remained in ignorance, and those who knew could not 
 move, the president of the United States was ordering the army upon the 
 Rio Grande, and taking a step of which the inevitable consequence proved 
 to be war. * * * At the time war was declared, (announced,) I 
 denounced it as the act of the president. # # * I believe that the war 
 was brought on by this thing of marching the army, without any necessity, 
 from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande ; done — done, too, while con- 
 gress was in session, without one word being communicated, as to the 
 intention of the president, to either house, or to any committee or 
 member of either house of congress. Under these circumstances, Mr. 
 President, the responsibility of the war will probably rest on him who 
 ought to bear it." 
 
 The action of congress upon the subject of the Mexican war, gave rise 
 to a question in which an important principle was involved. Is it the 
 duty of the legislature to provide the means of prosecuting a war made 
 unconstitutionally, or by the exercise of usurped power ? It has been 
 seen, that, disconnected from the declaration that war existed by the act 
 cf Mexico, bills to furnish supplies of men and money had received an 
 
846 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 almost unanimous vote. The whig members, generally, while piotesting 
 that the war not only was unjust, but had been made by the executive 
 without constitutional authority, yet voted for the means to help the 
 executive carry his purposes into eflFect ; justifying their votes on the 
 general principle, that, in what manner, or for what purpose soever, a 
 war is begun, it is the duty of congress to furnish the aid to prosecute 
 it, and hold its projector and author responsible. 
 
 The question here naturally arises, Can the legislature while it fur- 
 nishes the aid, avoid the responsibility ? The legislative and executive 
 branches of the government are designed to hold checks upon each other. 
 Can either then be justified in refusing to interpose its constitutional 
 power to arrest or to prevent usurpation by the other ? The people 
 who have to bear the burdens of war, have very properly intrusted the 
 war power to their representatives. Does not then the representative 
 violate his trust when he withholds the exercise of his power for the 
 purposes for which it was conferred ? Let the doctrine prevail univer- 
 sally, that, if, by his ingenuity, an executive can only commence a war 
 without the knowledge and consent of the representatives of the people, 
 it is their duty to sustain and aid him in the measure, and what would 
 be the consequence ? Would not the practical effect of such a doctrine 
 be to defeat the purpose of the constitution, and convert the government 
 into a military despotism ? 
 
 Mr. Corwin, senator from Ohio, who stood almost alone in the senate on 
 this question, vindicated his position in a speech of acknowledged ability. 
 He said : " While the American president can command the army, thank 
 God I can command the purse. While the president, under the penalty 
 of death, can command your officers to proceed, I can tell them to come 
 back for supplies, as he may. He shall have no funds from me in the 
 prosecution of such a war. That I conceive to be the duty of a senator. 
 I am not mistaken in that. If it is my duty to grant whatever the pre- 
 sident demands, for what am I here ? Have I no will upon the subject ? 
 Is it not placed at my discretion, understanding, and judgment ? Have 
 an American senate and house of representatives nothing to do but to obey 
 the bidding of the president, as the mercenary army he commands is 
 compelled to obey under penalty of death ? No ! your senate and house 
 of representatives were never elected for such purpose as that. They 
 have been modeled on the good old plan of English liberty, and are 
 intended to represent the English house of commons, who curbed the 
 proud power of the king in olden time, by withholding supplies if they 
 did not approve the war. * * * While Charles could command the 
 army, he might control the parliament ; and because he would not give 
 up that command, our Puritan ancestors laid his head upon the block 
 How did it fare with others ? 
 
WAR WITH MEXICO. 84T 
 
 ■' It was on this very proposition of controlling the executive power 
 of England by withholding the money supplies, that the house of Orange 
 oame in ; and by their accession to the throne commenced a new epoch 
 in the history of England, distinguishing it from the old reign of the 
 Tudors and Plantagenets and those who preceded it. Then it was that 
 parliament specified the purpose of appropriation; and since 1688, it 
 has been impossible for a king of England to involve the people of Eng- 
 land in a war, which your president, under your republican institutions, 
 and with your republican constitution, has yet managed to do. Here 
 you stand powerless. He commands this army, and you must not with- 
 hold their supplies. He involves your country, in wasteful and exter- 
 minating war against a nation with whom we have no cause of complaint ; 
 but congress may say nothing !" 
 
 In a letter to a friend, he subsequently wrote : " I differed from all 
 the leading whigs of the senate, and saw plainly that they all were, to 
 some extent, bound to turn, if they could, the current of public opinion 
 against me. They all agreed with me, that the war was unjust on our 
 part; that, if properly begun, (which none of them admitted,) we had 
 already sufficiently chastised Mexico, and that the further prosecution 
 of it was wanton waste of both blood and treasure ; yet they would not 
 undertake to stop it. They said the president alone was responsible. I 
 thought we who aided him, or furnished him means, must be in the 
 judgment of reason and conscience, equally responsible, equally guilty, 
 with him." 
 
 In the discussion of the war question, a theory was advanced some- 
 what different from that of the great body of either of the political par- 
 ties in congress. Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina, pronounced the doctrine, 
 that congress has, under the constitution, the war making power, a 
 fallacy. The whiga assuming this doctrine, inferred that the president 
 had begun the war with Mexico, and had begun it unconstitutionally ; 
 and that congress had the right to prescribe, limit, and determine the 
 objects and purposes of the war. Mr. II. considered the principle, with 
 all its deductions, false. He held that congress had the power to declare 
 and begin war ; but the hostilities which had preceded the declaration of 
 war, or what was the same thing, the declaration that war existed, did not 
 constitute war. To prove this, he referred to the frequent collisions on 
 the sea between our vessels and those of England and France, and also 
 to the Caroline affair ; neither of which had been acts of war. This waa 
 evident from the fact that France had long plundered our commerce, and 
 many bloody battles had taken place on the sea, and many ships of war 
 had been captured, yet war did not exist. If the two countries had been 
 in a state of war, we could have had no lawful claims for the spoliation 
 
848 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of our commerce. These claims could rest only on the ground that there 
 was no war with France. 
 
 But he said his friends on the other side turned round, and pushed 
 the war clause of the constitution far beyond its meaning, and contended 
 that congress had not only the war declaring, but the war making 
 power. 
 
 Mr. K.. then argued, that there was a difference between declaring and 
 making war ; the one putting a country in a state of war ; the other 
 conducting it. The debates in the convention of the framers of the con- 
 stitution, he said, showed that to viake war, was understood to be to 
 vonduct it. The word " make," which had been inserted, was afterward 
 struck out, and " declare" inserted, with the intention, it was presumed, 
 of giving to congress the power only of declaring war, and leaving the 
 power to make or conduct it entirely with the president. But congress 
 had omnipotent power over the supplies, and might refuse to vote a dol- 
 lar for the support of a war. Or, it might vote for supplies, with the 
 condition, that they be used onlv to withdraw our troops from Mexico 
 to this side of the Rio Grande. Although the president was intrusted 
 with the war making power, he was not beyond responsibility. For the 
 abuse of his power, he was liable to impeachment. Let it be admitted 
 that the war making power was in congress. Those who so affirm speak 
 of it as a power independent of the president, by which he was to be con- 
 trolled. But was it so ? He had, as parties stood, an absolute veto 
 power, and could arrest any bill. Hence, that congress could do any- 
 thing concerning the war, was a delusion. But concede to congress such 
 power, and it would be made the commander-in-chief of the army and 
 navy, and be invested with the treaty making power. Mr. E,. laid down 
 this proposition : " Our fathers vested the war making power in the pre- 
 sident, the war continuing power in congress (by the supplies) and the 
 president, and the war e?idi?ig or peace making power in the president 
 and senate : although, by its power over the supplies, congress might, 
 incidentally, also, force the termination of the war." 
 
 G-en. Scott, in the progress of his invasion, reached the Mexican capi- 
 tal in August, 1847, where he concluded an armistice with Santa Anna, 
 with a view to a negotiation of peace, our minister, Nicholas P. Trist, 
 having the requisite power for that purpose. Failing to agree upon the 
 terms of a treaty, and the two generals charging each other with a viola- 
 tion of certain articles of the armistice, hostilities were recommenced early 
 in September, and were continued until the following winter, when peace 
 was restored between the two countries. A treaty was concluded in 
 February, 1848. 
 
 By the terms of this treaty, the Rio Grande was established as the 
 
THE OREGON QUESTION. 849 
 
 boundary, and New Mexico and Upper California were ceded to the 
 United States ; in consideration of which, the United States were to paij 
 to Mexico fifteen millions of dollars and to discharge the deferred claims 
 of our citizens upon Mexico 
 
 CHAPTER LXVIIT. 
 
 THE OREGON QUESTION. 
 
 Soon after u.e close of the session of congress in 1844, a negotiatiou 
 was commenced at Washington, between the secretary of state, and the 
 British minister, (Pakenham,) relative to the rights of their respective 
 nations in Oregon. The administration having repeatedly expressed the 
 determination to maintain our claim to the whole of Oregon, and to 
 have " the whole or none," which was understood to mean, that the full 
 extent of our claim would be enforced, if necessary, by a resort to arms, 
 the result of the negotiation was awaited with much anxiety. More 
 than a year passed, and the public mind was still uninfoi*med of the 
 state of the negotiation. It was rumored, indeed, that our government 
 had offered to the British minister to treat on the parallel of the 49th 
 degree as the boundary. The " Union," the ofl&cial paper, contradicted 
 the rumor, October 6, 1845, and reasserted the purpose of the adminis- 
 tration to insist on " the whole of Oregon, or none," as " the only alter- 
 native." It said : " "When that word goes forth from the constituted 
 authorities of the nation, ' Our right to Oregon is clear and unquestion- 
 able,' who doubts that it will go* the whole length and breadth of the 
 land, and that it will be hailed as it goes, by the democratic party, with 
 one unanimous amen ! And what then ? We answer this, then — the 
 democracy of this country will stand to its word. It will not flinch." 
 
 The persistence in the claim to the whole territory, which, it was 
 believed. Great Britain would never concede, excited, in many minds, 
 apprehensions of war. Some of the opposition considered it as the 
 " trump card of Mr. Polk's second candidacy." " Mr. Polk and his 
 advisers," it was said, " to gain western votes and western influence, 
 were perfectly willing to involve the country in war." It was predicted 
 that he " would recommend, in his next message, taking possession of 
 all Oregon ; and England would quietly wait the action of congress. 
 Should the recommendation be carried out, immediate war would be 
 
 54 
 
850 THE AMER.ICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 inevitable. But congress would commit no such folly. They know 
 now, which they did not last winter, that to vote for such a measure is to 
 vote for war^ and not a party vote to Buncombe.'' 
 
 The declaration of the official paper, (The Union,) and other leading 
 administration journals, in favor of taking' possession of the whole ter- 
 ritory, was enforced by quoting a sentiment ascribed to Gen. Jackson : 
 " No compromise but at the cannon's mouth !" Although public senti- 
 ment appeared to be generally in favor of the justice of our claim to 
 the whole territory, a large portion of the democratic press, as well a£ 
 many prominent men of the administration party, were not in favor of 
 insisting on the whole territory, at the hazard of war. Taking posses- 
 sion of the territory, and exercising exclusive jurisdiction over it, would 
 have been a direct violation of the treaty which required the year's 
 notice to be given in order to terminate the joint occupancy ; and a 
 law to carry into effect the proposed measure could scarcely have failed 
 to provoke a war. There were those who urged the giving of the 
 notice as a means of hastening a settlement of the controversy. Others 
 among whom was Mr. Calhoun, were in favor of a compromise. Thif 
 had been proposed by Mr. Benton, in 1828, who, in executive session 
 introduced resolutions, declaring it " not expedient to treat any longer 
 with Great Britain upon the basis of a joint occvpation of Oregon ; 
 but " expedient to treat upon the basis of a separation of interests^ and 
 the establishment of the forty-ninth degree of north latitude as a 
 permanent boundary." 
 
 The president's message, which had been awaited with much anxiety, 
 did not meet the expectations of those who had formed their opinions 
 from the declarations of the advocates of " the whole or none" policy. 
 Mr. Polk recapitulated briefly the history of the controversy. He 
 adverted to the negotiations of 1818", 1824, and 1826; the two first 
 under the administration of Mr. Monroe, and the last under that of Mr 
 Adams; that of 1818 having resulted in the convention providing for 
 the joint occupancy; that of 1824 having been productive of no result; 
 and that of 1826 having resulted in the convention of 1827, by which 
 the joint occupancy was continued for an indefinite period, and until 
 the convention should be annulled ; which could be done by either party 
 after the expiration of the ten years of joint occupation from October, 
 1818, by giving the other twelve months' previous notice to that effect. 
 
 In former attempts at adjustment, the United States had offered the 
 parallel of the forty-ninth degree, with the free navigation of the Colum- 
 bia river south of that degree. Great Britain had proposed the forty- 
 ninth degree from the Bocky mountains to its intersection with the 
 Dorth-easternmost branch of that river and thence down the channel of 
 
THE OREGON QUESTION. 851 
 
 the same to the sea, with a small detached territory north of the Colum- 
 bia. But neither j)arty had accepted the proposition of the other. In 
 October, 1843, our minister fh London was authorized to repeat tho 
 offers of 1818 and 1826; and in 1844, after the negotiation had been 
 transferred to Washington during the administration of Mr. Tyler, the 
 British minister proposed the same line as that before offered by that 
 government ; the navigation to be free to both parties ; and a detached 
 territory north of the river being also again offered, with the privilege, 
 in addition, of the free use of all the ports south of latitude forty-nine. 
 This proposition having been rejected by our government, no other was 
 made by the British plenipotentiary. 
 
 The president said, that, although he believed the British pretensions 
 to any portion of the Oregon territory could not be maintained upon 
 any principle of public law recognized by nations, he had in deference to 
 what had been done by two of his predecessors, offered to divide on the 
 forty-ninth degree, but without conceding to Great Britain the free navi- 
 gation of the Columbia. This proposition having been rejected, it had 
 been withdrawn, and our title to the whole territory asserted. It now 
 became the duty of congress to consider what measure to adopt for the 
 security and protection of our citizens in that country, and the mainte- 
 nance of our title; taking care not to violate the treaty of 1827, which 
 was' still in force. He recommended that the notice of the discontinu- 
 ance of the joint occupancy should be given ; and that the protection of 
 our laws should be extended over our citizens in Oregon, as Great Bri- 
 tain had extended her laws and jurisdiction over her subjects in that 
 territory. 
 
 Negotiation having been again abandoned, and movements being 
 on foot in England which were regarded as preparations for war, another 
 conflict with that power, more or less remote, began to be seriously 
 apprehended. The president's message was soon followed by a variety 
 of propositions in congress. In the senate, Mr. Atchison introduced 
 resolutions suggesting the organization of a government for Oregon, and 
 the arming and eq'.lpping of the militia of that territory. Mr. Casa 
 offered resolutions proposing preparations for war. Mr. Hannegan 
 introduced resolutions asserting our title to all Oregon, and declaring 
 '' the surrender of any portion of it an abandonment of the honor, 
 character, and best interests of the American people." Mr. Allen pro- 
 posed a notice to terminate the joint occupancy. Mr. Calhoun offered 
 a series of resolutions as an amendment to Hannegan's, declaring that, 
 however clear our title might be to the whole of that territory, there did 
 exist, and had long existed, conflicting claims on the part of Great Bri- 
 tain ; and that the president, in renewing the offer to compromise on tlie 
 
S52 THE ANKKICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 49th dosiTOo. did .'u>f " s»l>audou tho hoi\or, character, and beat intorefte 
 of the AuKTiortii poviplc" 
 
 Mr. Calhoun oonsidoriHi Mr. Haunogati's resolutious as njtiootiug, hj 
 iniplioatioii. upon tho provident for hHviui; otVorod to oouipr<Miiise on tht 
 lino of tho forty-nintli d«)groo. Ho objivtod to tho ro:?olutious, that it" 
 they should l)o adopted, tJie ijuos«tion could only be settled by force of 
 arms, lie wajs in tavor of a pacific course — of an adjustiueut, if pos- 
 fiblo. by nogvuiation. 
 
 Mr. llannejrau said he had no intention of casting .1 oensuro upon tho 
 president. The ai>piH}t of things had chauiiod since the proposition had 
 boon made to divide at the llHh parallel. He, too, was for peace ; but 
 when peace beeame degrading and dishonorsible, a war even of exieruii- 
 uation would l>e preferable. And for one, roprosenting tho pcviplo ho 
 did, he never would vote for any treaty yielding an inch of ground below 
 54 dogret^s and 10 minutes north. 
 
 In tbe house, Mr. Winthrop otVered resolutions, dcehvring it a dishonor 
 to tlie age, and discreditable to both nation?, to be drawn into war, and 
 that it was due to the principles of eiviliaation and Christianity, that a 
 n^sort be had to arbitration. Mr. Douglas proposini to resolve, thai the 
 subject was not open to conipromise, so as to surrender any pjirt of tho 
 territory; and that the question of title should not Ih^ left to arbitration. 
 
 About this time there appeared a singular slate of parties in congi-essL 
 Mr. Calhoun occupied the same position as in IS43. when he wsis iu 
 favor of a " masterly inactivity ;'' that is, he wjus for leaving the terri- 
 tory quietly to fiiU into the arms of the union, as it naturally would, at 
 no very distant day. Mr. Cass's resolutions were f<.rthwith unani- 
 mously adopttnl by the senate. This was regarded as an indirect appro- 
 val of the views of the president; and yet, upon authority deemed reli- 
 able, it was believed that the administration desired that the question 
 should be settled by negotiation. IJoth Hannegim's and Calhoun's 
 resolutions were considered ill-advised; virtually taking the question 
 out of the hands of the administration, who. it was said, had managed 
 it &\tisfaetorily to the people. The adoption of Mr. Uannegan's reso- 
 lutions would, it was apprehended, have the etVect of precluding all 
 future efiorts at negotiation. Jlr. Callunm's resolutions were det^>med 
 objectionable, as they would "create an impression that a portion of the 
 democratic party were about to give the whigs the coveted opportunity 
 to defeat the honorable and peaceable settlement of the controversy by 
 the present administration." 
 
 A very unespeeted course was taken by a portion of the whigs. Iu 
 the bouse, on the '.Jd of Jaiuiary, IS4G, Mr. Cunningham, of Ohio, n 
 democrat, asked leave to introduce a resolution, which, after stating in a 
 
THE OREGON QUESTION. 853 
 
 preamble, that the rejection, by Great Britian, of the liberal proposition 
 of the president had terminated all negotiatioris on the Oregon question ; 
 that her extraordinary demands had made it manifest that no satisfac- 
 tory compromise could be effected ; that our title to all the country 
 between the parallels of 42 degrees, and 54 degrees and 40 minutes north 
 latitude, and west of the llocky Mountains, was clear and unquestion- 
 able ; and that no portion of it could be honorably surrendered, 
 declared it to be " the imperative duty of congress to adopt imme- 
 diately such measures as would fully protect our citizens who now do, 
 or may hereafter inhabit that country, and eff"ectually maintain our just 
 title to the whole of the country of the Oregon." 
 
 Objection having been made to the introduction of the resolution, tho 
 question was taken on a motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of 
 the immediate reception of the resolution, when, the first name called 
 being that of Mr. Adams, a sensation was produced in the house by his 
 voting aye. Other whigs also voted in the affirmative. The motion to 
 suspend, however, was lost. 
 
 Mr. Douglas had previously reported a bill for extending the laws of 
 the United States over the territory of Oregon; and for the protection 
 of its iidia})itants; (vhich having been made the special order for a future 
 day, Mr. Haralson, from the committee on military affairs, reported a 
 bill for the organization of.two regiments of riflemen, and moved that it 
 be made a special ord(!r, assigning as a reason, that it had imrnediato 
 connection with the object of the Oregon territorial bill of Mr, Doug- 
 las. Upon this motion a debate arose, in which Mr. Adams took a 
 prominent part, and excited much surprise and a deep sensation. 
 
 Mr. Adams was against the bill as unnecessary, both because a simi- 
 lar bill for one regiment was in progress in the senate, and because ha 
 saw *' no (kmger of war at this time." If any danger of war was appre- 
 hended, the first measure to be taken ought to be to give notice to Great 
 Britain that we meant to terminate the joint occupancy. Yet it was 
 not a joint occupancv ; and he had been surprised at the language of 
 some gentlemen on the subject. The treaty acknowledged no occupa- 
 tion of the territory by either party ; it was a mere commercial conven- 
 tion for free navigation, but did not admit the occupation, by either 
 party, of an inch of territory by the other. Twelve months after such 
 notice should have been given, the right would accrue to us to occupy 
 any part of the territory. To the bill which had passed at the last 
 session, he had moved a section, requiring such notice to be given ; but 
 the bill had been lost in the senate. He had then declared, and he now 
 declared himself ready to give such notice. He hoped it would be given, 
 and followed by a real occupation of the whole territory [This declara- 
 
854 THB AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tion caused great sensation, and some demonstrations of applause, which 
 was promptly arrested by the speaker.] Mr. Douglas having said therfl 
 appeared to be a game playing there, Mr. Adams said that remark was 
 incomprehensible to him ; but he confessed he was surprised to hear 
 that the committee on foreign affairs would not report such notice to 
 the house. 
 
 Mr. lugersoU said he knew of no member of the committee who had 
 said so. Mr. Douglas said he had said so, because he had heard that 
 such was their determination. 
 
 Mr. Adams said, while they were talking about regiments of riflemen, 
 stockade forts, &c., Great Britain was arming her steam-vessels, equip- 
 ping her frigates and line-of-battle ships, and sending over her troops to 
 be ready. Said he : " / would press a resolution giving the notice this 
 PAY, if I hoped that a majority of the house could be obtained to effect 
 that measure." He said, while the convention remained in force, he 
 would vote for no increase of the army or navy. He hoped, if the bill 
 should be made the order of the day for Tuesday, that it would be 
 arranged by gentlemen who managed the business of the house, that the 
 question of giving notice should come up on the same day, and be first 
 taken up. It was mere wasting time, and whistling to the wind, to talk 
 about military force, until our conscience was clear from the obligation 
 of the convention. And he said it did not. follow that, if notice was 
 given, there must be war, nor even that we should then take possession. 
 It would only be saying to Great Britain : After negotiating twenty 
 years about this matter, we do not choose to negotiate any longer. We 
 shall take possession of what is our own, and then, if to settle the ques- 
 tion of what is our own, you wish to negotiate, we will negotiate as long 
 as you please. We may negotiate after we take possession. (Much 
 laughter.) This is the military way of doing business. (Increased 
 merriment.) 
 
 The contrast between the indifference of the Calhoun party in con- 
 gress on the Oregon question, and their zeal the year before for the ac- 
 quisition of Texas, even at the cost of war, did not escape the notice ol 
 Mr. Adams. He repeated that the notice did not necessarily draw after 
 it a war ; and if Great Britain chose to take it as an act of hostility on 
 our part, and commence a war, he hoped there might be but one party. 
 The war would then have less of those extraordinary terrors which his 
 friend from South Carolina, (Mr. Holmes,) had just now discovered, 
 notwithstanding the extreme military propensities which he manifested 
 on that floor last year. The gentleman was a most valiant man when 
 Texas was in question. "But," said Mr. A., " I shall draw no com- 
 parisons as to what we witnessed then, and what we see now ; but this I 
 
THE OREGON QUESTION. 855 
 
 will say, that I hope if war shall come — which God forb'd, and of 
 which I entertain no fears at all — the whole country will have but one 
 heart, and but one united hand. And of this I am very sure, that, io 
 that case. Great Britain will no longer occupy Oregon, nor any thing 
 elsa north of Canada line. [Great sensation, and in"jient indica- 
 tions of applause.] But if you will agree to give notice, strong as is 
 my horror of wai and of all military establishments, if there should 
 then be the breath of life in me, I hope I shall be willing to go as far 
 as any in making any sacrifice to render that war succes sful and 
 glorious." 
 
 Mr. Ingersoll, the next day, (January 3,) made some explanation in 
 regard to the giving notice. It had been proposed at the last session ; 
 and the resolution had been referred to the committee on foreign af- 
 fairs, who had reported against the proposition ; but it should be borne 
 in mind that the then president was against it, while the present in- 
 cumbent had expressed a desire that the notice should be given. Mr. 
 I. followed in the wake of Mr. Adams. He concurred in the remark 
 made by the lattei, that there was no such thing as a joint occupation 
 by the treaty. The term " joint occupation" was not to be found in the 
 convention of 1818 at all. It had, in 1828, in a protocol of Mr. Gallatin 
 with the British minister, stolen into the negotiation. The admission 
 of these words was a monstrous concession on our part to the claims of 
 the British government. 
 
 Mr. Preston King, of New York, said the chairman of the committee 
 on territories had informed the house, that a game had been playing 
 there ; and Mr. K. read from the London Times an article predicting 
 threatening language from the president, the reappearance of Mr. Cal- 
 houn in the senate, a check to be then given in that body to the war 
 spirit, and the administration thus saved from the consequences of its 
 own violence. 
 
 Mr. Douglas explained. By the " game playing in the house," he 
 had not had reference to any thing in an English paper ; but to the 
 disposition manifested to prevent a speedy action on the Oregon bill, 
 by getting up feelings of jealousy between tne standing committees as 
 to their respective jurisdictions, in order to procrastinate action. 
 
 Mr. King resumed. The administration had erred in offering to 
 fiettle by the 49th parallel. It had been said that the administration 
 must have felt sure that the offer would have been rejected, or it would 
 not have been made. The subject had been in the charge of diplomacy 
 long enough; and he now rejoiced to learn from the message that ne- 
 gotiation was at an end. 
 
 Mr. Winthrop dissented from the views of those who had preceded him. 
 
856 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The gentlemen from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had said that 
 thej had, at a former session, voted for giving the notice for termi- 
 nating the convention. He, on the other hand, had voted ctgainst it, 
 and would again. He had offered, a few days ago, a series of resolu- 
 tions, which might not soon emerge from the pile of matter under wiiich 
 they were buried on the table. Stormy debates upon peace and war 
 had an injurious influence; and his purpose in introducing his resolu* 
 tions was to express some plain and precise opinions entertained by 
 himself and many others in regard to the present critical state of our 
 foreign relations. All agreed that we had rights in Oregon ; and that, 
 if these rights were to be maintained by war, it must be done with all 
 the vigor we possessed. He spurned the notion that patriotism could 
 only be manifested by plunging the nation into war, or that the love of 
 one's country could only be measured by his hatred to any other 
 country. 
 
 Mr. W. did not expect to escape reproach from his opponents for the 
 expression of his opinions ; and there were those of his own party from 
 whom he might expect them. It had been said that it was not good 
 party policy to avow such doctrines; that it gave the friends of the 
 administration occasion to brand the whigs as a peace party ^ and that 
 the only course for the minority to pursue, was to bring about their 
 readiness for war with those that bragged loudest. Now, if an oppo- 
 nent of the administration were willing to make a mere party instru- 
 ment of this Oregon negotiation, he might retort upon the majority 
 Dy asking. Where was the heroic determination of the executive to vin- 
 dicate our title to " the whole of Oregon — the whole or none" — when a 
 deliberate offer of more than five degrees of latitude had recently been 
 made to Great Britain ? and that, too, when the president and secretary 
 of state told us that our right to the whole was clear and unquestion- 
 able ! For himself, he repudiated all idea of party obligations or party 
 views in connection with this question. He scorned the suggestion that 
 the peace of his country was to be regarded as a mere pawn on the 
 political chess-board, to be periled for mere party triumph. There had 
 been enough of the mischief of mingling such questions with party poli- 
 tics. It had been openly avowed elsewhere, and repeated in this houso 
 yesterday by the member from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas,) that Oregon 
 and Texas had been born and cradled together in the Baltimore con- 
 vention ; that they were the twin offspring of that political conclave ; 
 and in that avowal might be found the whole explanation of the diflicul- 
 ties and dangers with which the question was now attended. 
 
 Mr. W. said he honored the administration for whatever spirit of 
 conciliation, compromise and peace they had manifested. If for any 
 
THE OREGON QUESTION. 857 
 
 thing he would reproach or taunt them, it was for their abandonment 
 of that spirit. If any one desired to brand him, on this account, as a 
 member of a peace party, he bared his bosom to receive the brand, and 
 was willing to take its first and deepest impression, while the iron was 
 sharpest and hottest. If there was any shame in such a brand, he glo- 
 ried in his shame. But who was willing to bear the brand of being a 
 member of the war party ? Who would submit to have that Cain-mark 
 stamped upon his brow ? He thanked Heaven that all men, on all 
 sides, had thus far refused to wear it. All had avowed themselves in 
 favor of peace ; " only it must be an honorable peace." This was the 
 stereotyped phrase of the day. The question was, what was an honor- 
 able peace ? Peace was in its nature honorable ; war, in its proper 
 character, was disgraceful. Was there any thing in the Oregon con- 
 troversy, as it then stood, which furnished an exception to these general 
 principles ? any thing which would render a pacific policy discreditable, 
 or which would invest war with any degree of true honor ? He denied 
 it altogether. 
 
 Mr. W. then proceeded to the defense of the propositions of his reso- 
 lutions. In the course of his speech, he commented severely on a 
 remark by Mr. King, that the administration, in making the offer of the 
 49th parallel, did it with the understanding that it would be rejected. 
 [Mr. K. said he heard it, and believed it to be so.] Said Mr. Winthrop: 
 " There is an admission to which I wish to call the solemn attention of 
 the house and of the country. I trust in Heaven that the honorable 
 member is mistaken. I trust, for the honor of the country, that the 
 chairman of the committee on foreign aifairs will obtain official authority 
 to contradict this statement." [Mr. Ingersoll said he would not wait for 
 authority. He denied it unqualifiedly. Mr. King said his authority 
 was public rumor and he believed it to be correct.] Mr. Winthrop : 
 " It can not be correct. What sort of an administration are you sup- 
 porting if you can believe them to have been guilty of such gross dupli- 
 city in the face of the world, in order to furnish themselves with a pre- 
 text for war ? I would not have heard their enemy suggest such an 
 idea." 
 
 Mr. W. intimated that there was yet hope of being able to settle the 
 question by negotiation. But if no compromise which the United States 
 ought to accept can be effected, was there then no resort but war ? 
 Yes ; there was still another easy and obvious mode of averting that 
 fearful alternative. He meant arbitration ; a resort so reasonable, so 
 just, so conformable to the principle which governed us in our daily 
 domestic affairs, so conformable to the spirit of civilization and Ghris- 
 tian-.ty, that no man would venture to say any thing against it in the 
 
858 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 abstract. But it was said we could find no impartial arbiter. So then, 
 " our title," said Mr. W., " is so clear and indisputable, that we can find 
 nobody in the wide world impartial enough to give it a fair considera- 
 tion !" He said he would vote for any measures necessary for the 
 defense of the country. But he insisted that the peace of the country 
 and the honor of the country were still compatible with each other. 
 There had been omens of peace in the other end of the capitol, if none 
 in this. But if war should come, the administration must take the 
 responsibility, for all its guilt and all its disgrace. 
 
 The debate, in which several other gentlemen participated, took place 
 on Saturday, January 3, 1846. On Monday, the 5th, Mr. Ingersoll, 
 from the committee on foreign relations, reported a joint resolution, 
 requiring the president forthwith to cause notice to be given to the gov- 
 ernment of Great Britain, thai the convention of 1827 should he annul- 
 led and abrogated in twelve months. 
 
 Mr. Garret Davis, of Kentucky, in behalf of the minority of the com- 
 mitte, made a report, in which the question was raised, whether the 
 house, which is, by the constitution, invested with no executive functions, 
 could be properly united with the president and senate, in giving this 
 notice. If the notice could be given without the concurrence of the 
 house, would not such an interference be beyond the scope of its powers ? 
 The house had had no agency in the formation of this convention with 
 England : it was a treaty made properly, and that could only be made 
 by the president and the senate. The treaty making power might at 
 any time, with the consent of Great Britain, modify it, as had once been 
 done ; and the same power could put an end to it. Without expressing 
 an opinion whether the notice ought or ought not to be given, and as the 
 solution of that question was constitutionally for the president, or for 
 him acting with the senate, the house ought to be content to leave him 
 to his proper judgment, discretion, and responsibility ; and they conclude 
 with a resolution to that effect. 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Ingersoll to make his resolution the special 
 order for the first Monday of February, 
 
 Mr. Gid dings, of Ohio, who was regarded as the leader of the aboli- 
 tion party in the house, quite as unexpectedly as Mr. Adams had done, 
 declared himself in favor of terminating the convention. He had, in a 
 former congress, been opposed to the proposition ; but the aspect of 
 things had changed. The slave power of the union had gained largely 
 by the annexation of Texas. The compromises of the constitution had 
 been virtually done away , and the principle of territorial extension had 
 been grafted on the government, and, by consequence, forced upon the 
 northern states, in self-defense. He differed in opinion from the repro- 
 
THE OREGON QUESTION. 859 
 
 sentatives from Massachusetts. He believed if we took the whole of 
 Oregon, we should have war. He preferred war, with all its miseries, 
 to enduring the supremacy of the slavocratic oligarchy. Texas had been 
 admitted, and its weight must be counterbalanced. But the northern 
 democracy would now find their southern democratic brethren deserting 
 them. Their southern friends in every part of this hall, were imploring 
 whigs and democrats to save them from this dread policy, which strikes 
 a death blow to the value of slave property. A master spirit of the 
 south (Calhoun) had left his retirement, and taken his position in the 
 other end of the capitol, with the avowed purpose of defeating the very 
 policy (territorial extension) which occupied his whole intellect and 
 desires only a year ago. Mr. Gr. assured northern democrats that if the 
 measure (giving notice) should be carried out by congress, Mr. Polk 
 would save the south from their apprehensions of war ; he would sur- 
 render all of Oregon north of the 49th degree, rather than hazard the 
 dangers of a war ; and thus the north would be betrayed. 
 
 Mr. M'Dowell, of Ohio, hoped not a man who had advocated the 
 annexation of Texas, would now falter in the settlement of the Oregon 
 controversy. Both measures had been avowed by the Baltimore conven- 
 tion, and had equal claims to sujDport. The negotiation was now at an 
 end ; and he trusted that not a representative from the Mississippi 
 valley ever would consent that the offer of the 49th degree should be 
 accepted and ratified by the government. In the presence of the house, 
 and of the nation, and before God, the king of nations, he solemnly pro- 
 tested against any more offers to buy a peace. Negotiation I He would 
 rather covelRhe soil of Oregon with the corpses of our countrymen, and 
 wet it with their life-blood, than surrender an inch of it to Great Britain, 
 and thereby seal the national disgrace. 
 
 Mr. Bhett, of South Carolina, was opposed to giving notice. To 
 carry into effect our laws over the whole territory after notice given, it 
 would be necessary forcibly to eject the British from some thirty forts; 
 and war would probably result The giving of the notice would throw 
 upon us the onus of action, and the necessity of maintaining our rights by 
 force. He did not believe Oregon would be gained by war ; it would 
 rather be the means of our losing it. The prolongation of the conven- 
 tion would do us no injury. We should gain by time. To put an end 
 to it, would bring us into collision with the Hudson Bay company and 
 Great Britain. He was not afraid of a war with that power ; but he was 
 opposed to any war which bore a semblance of a war of conquest. He 
 did not think the proposed action was demanded by national honor. It 
 was not honor to take fire at negotiation, and jeopard the national peace, 
 prosperity, and happiness for shadows. 
 
860 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Besides Mr. Adams and Mr. Giddings, several whigg took an equally 
 decided stand in favor of the resolution of Mr. Ingersoll for terminating 
 the convontion of 1827. As evidence of the great weight attached to 
 the judgment aad opinions ci' Mi'. Adams, it was stated thac, iniaue- 
 diately after the publication of his speech, " the apprehensions of a war 
 were renewed ; stocks fell instantly ; markets were agitated ; and the 
 week closed under gloomy forebodings. The assurances of the venerable 
 gentleman, that he apprehended no war, seemed to weigh very little 
 when placed in the scale to balance the tenor of the course he chalked 
 out for the country." It was believed also that his speech was instru- 
 mental in hastening the report of the committee on foreign relations. 
 
 The message of the president, and the language of the official paper, 
 produced no small excitement in England. The British press spoke out 
 with spirit for maintaining their claims and the honor of the nation. 
 The mollification, by the Union, of its "whole or none," " war or no war" 
 article, the general tone of the American press, and a speech of Paniel 
 Webster at Boston, denouncing the idea of a war with England, served 
 essentially to abate the excitement abroad. 
 
 In this country, apprehensions were considerably allayed by the post- 
 ponement, in the senate, on the 12th of January, of the* consideration of 
 the "notice" resolutions, by a vote of 32 to 18, until the 10th of Feb- 
 ruary. Also resolutions by Mr. Allen against the non-interference of 
 European powers with the political affairs of the independent nations of 
 America; or against establishing new colonies upon this continent, were 
 laid upon the table, 28 to 23 ; the Calhoun senators voting with the 
 whigs. 9 
 
 On the 14th of January, Mr. Crittenden, of the senate, offered resolu- 
 tions for giving the noti.ce, but with a provision allowing an opportunity 
 for an amicable settlement ; and the notice not to be given until after 
 the close of the present session of congress. The resolutions were made 
 the order of the day for the lOth of February. 
 
 The house also manifested a disposition to deliberate upon the subject 
 rather leisurely. Numerous resolutions were successively offered, and 
 the debate was continued until the 9th of February, when it was closed 
 by the adoption of resolutions offered by Mr. Boyd, of Kentucky, 
 requiring the president to give the twelve months' notice, and permitting 
 the parties to renew or pursue negotiations for an amicable settlement 
 of the controversy. The vote on the resolutions was, ayes 163 ; noes, 
 54. Of the 74 whig votes, 37 were for, and 37 against the notice. Of 
 the democrats, 121 voted for, and 16 against. Of the native Ameri- 
 cans, 5 voted for, and 1 against the notice. 
 
 Apprehensions of war were now suddenly revived, by the publica- 
 
THE OREGON QUESTION. 861 
 
 tion of the correspondence between the two governments relating to the 
 Oregon question, from which it appeared, that two different propositions 
 had been made, on the part of Great Britain, for arbitration, both of 
 which had been rejected. The objection to the first was, that it referred 
 to a friendly power or state merely the partition or equitable division of 
 the territory between the parties ; thus assuming that the title of Great 
 "Britain to a portion was valid. The second proposition referred the 
 question of the title of either power to the whole territory, subject to 
 the condition, that, if the arbitrator should not deem the title to the 
 whole by either party complete, there should be assigned to each a por- 
 tion corresponding to the claim of each. This was rejected on the 
 ground that the condition might be construed into an intimation, if not 
 a direct invitation, to the arbitrator to divide the territory between the 
 parties. 
 
 On the 10th of February, the debate commenced on the several reso- 
 lutions which had been made the order of the day. This debate, in 
 which the most able and distinguished senators participated, continued 
 more than two months. The 16th of April had been fixed on for taking 
 the question. As the question of peace or war was considered as 
 depending, in a great measure, on the adoption or rejection of a resolu- 
 tion for giving notice of a termination of the convention of 1827, a deep 
 and pervading interest was felt in the final action of the senate. The 
 gallery and the avenues to it, were pre-occupied by a dense crowd foj 
 hours befcrre the meeting of the senate. 
 
 The great point of difference between the particular friends of the 
 administration and its opponents on the subject of giving notice, was, 
 that the former wished congress to back up the president with an unquali- 
 fied resolution requiring the notice to be given ; whereas the latter 
 wished the matter still left open for amicable adjustment, and the respon- 
 sibility thrown upon the president of choosing or refusing to negotiate ; 
 in other words, of determining the question of " peace or war." 
 
 Before taking the question, Mr. Crittenden addressed the senate for 
 about two hours, in favor of resolutions in the qualified form, as most 
 likely to preserve peace. lie was for leaving with the president the 
 responsibility as well as the power which the constitution reposes in the 
 executive for the management of negotiation. He believed the question 
 would be settled amicably. The president desired the notice to aid him. 
 It had been asked for as a means of peace, and he (Mr. C.) regarded it 
 as such. It would be a disgrace to the age if the question should not 
 be amicably settled. Before God and man, they would be responsible 
 who acted upon the negotiation. Let the president, who had the power 
 in his hands, look to the matter. His would be the responsibility. Le 
 
862 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 him act as a president of the United States — as a just man. If ha 
 plunged the country needlessly into a war, his would be a terrible respon- 
 sibility. 
 
 Mr. Allen then withdrew his own resolution ; and, on his motion, the 
 senate took up the resolutions passed by the house. For these Mr. John- 
 son, of Maryland, then moved as a substitute, the resolutions of Mr, 
 Crittenden, somewhat modified, which were adopted in committee of 
 the whole, 30 to 24, and reported to the senate. Mr. Allen denounced 
 the proceedings most severely, and accused the senate of dodging behind 
 the president, and shrinking from responsibility. He pronounced the 
 resolutions tame, timid, as manacling the president, and as producing a 
 division between the two houses, and between them and the president. 
 The president had told them he had done with negotiation, and wished 
 the law making power to take up the subject ; but they were leaving all 
 to his discretion. If he (Mr. A.) stood alone, he would vote against 
 the resolution. 
 
 Mr. Crittenden rejoined in vindication of the senate, and administered 
 a sharp rebuke to the senator for his imputations. " Upon what meat 
 does our Caesar feed that he has grown so great," thus to lecture sena- 
 tors? The senator does not know the senate; nor does he know him- 
 self, the wisest lesson any man can learn. 
 
 Mr. Allen replied with vehemence; and the discussion descending to 
 {)ersonalities, the vice-president admonished the combatants. The ques- 
 tion was then taken on the third reading of the resolutions, and decided 
 in the affirmative; ayes, 40; noes, 14. 
 
 It remained for the house to concur in the resolution as amended in 
 the senate. Concurrence was refused ; and an agreement was finally 
 effected by a committee of conference. The resolutions as reported by 
 this committee, passed by a vote of 142 to 46. All who voted in the 
 negative are supposed to have been democrats. 
 
 To show the difference between the resolutions as finally adopted, and 
 what they were as they first passed the house, the material parts of them 
 are subjoined. The resolution of Mr. Boyd, adopted by the house, 
 
 " Resolved, That the President of the United States cause notice to 
 be given to the government of Great Britain, that the convention 
 (describing the same) shall be annulled and abrogated twelve months 
 after giving said notice. 
 
 " And be it further enacted, That nothing herein contained is intended 
 to interfere with the right and discretion of the proper authorities of tho 
 two contracting parties to renew or pursue negotiations for an amicable 
 settlement of the controversy respecting the Oregon territory." 
 
 The resolutions adopted finally, after reciting the general provisionf 
 of the conventions of 1818 and 1827, proceed to say: 
 
THE OREGON QUESTION. 863 
 
 "With a view, therefore, that steps be taken for the abrogation of the 
 said convention of the 6th of August, 1827, in the mode prescribed in 
 its 2d article, and that the attention of the governments of both coun- 
 tries may be more earnestly directed to the adoption of all proper mear- 
 Bures for the speedy and amicable adjustment of the difficulties and dis- 
 putes in relation to said territory : 
 
 " Resolved, &c.. That the president of the United States be, and he 
 is hereby authorized, at his discretion, to give to the British government 
 the notice required by the said second article for the abrogation of the 
 convention of the 6th of August, 1827." • 
 
 A large portion of the debate on the Oregon question in the senate, 
 during this session, was a discussion of the question of title and 
 boundary. The title of the United States up to the line of 54° 40' was 
 supported by Messrs. Dix, Cass, Dickinson, and others; by the first of 
 these gentlemen very elaborately and ably. Mr. Benton took strong 
 ground against them, contending for 49° as the true and proper line, up 
 \o which we had a right, but not beyond. He affirmed "that every 
 A.merican statesman of twenty and forty years ago — Mr. Jeiferson and 
 Mr. Madison in 1807; Mr. Monroe and his cabinet in 1823, offered to 
 divide by 49°, leaving Frazer's river wholly to the British, and that 
 because it belonged to them." He said " the people had been misled — 
 grossly and widely misled — ignorantly at first, as we were bound to 
 6elieve ; designedly now, as we painfully see. The fifty-four-forty line, 
 never existed. The treaty proves it; yet its existence is still affirnied, 
 to mislead the uninformed, and to save the misleaders from the mortifi- 
 cation of exposure." 
 
 [Mr. Benton, it is believed, had once expressed the opinion, that the 
 just claims of the United States extended beyond the 49th degree of 
 north latitude.] 
 
 The resolutions authorizing the notice were approved by the president 
 on the 27th of April. The next day the notice was executed, and, with- 
 out delay, transmitted to Mr. M'Lane, at London, to be delivered in 
 person to Her Majesty Victoria. 
 
 In the midst of apprehension and speculation on the question of peace 
 or war, the public suspense was suddenly relieved by the announcement 
 of PEACE ! From documents subsequently published, it appeared, that, 
 on the 6th of June, a conference took place between Mr. Buchanan and 
 Mr. Pakenham, which resulted in a treaty concluded the 15th of Juno. 
 The proposition, on the part of the British government, for .the adjust- 
 ment of the question, was communicated by the president to the senate 
 for its advice, in advance of his own action upon it. His own opinions, 
 be said, remained as they had been expressed in his last annual message. 
 
864 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 A. motive to this previous consultation with the senate, probably was a 
 desire to throw upon the senate, as far as possible, the responsibility of 
 accepting a proposition for the surrender of territory south of 54 deg. 
 40 mifi., against which he and his friends had so strongly committed 
 themselves. 
 
 The dividing line established by the treaty was on the 49th degree of 
 latitude, from the Stony Mountains west to the middle of the channel 
 which separates Vancouver's island from the continent; thence southerly 
 through the middle of the channel and of Fuca's straits to the Pacific 
 ocean : the whole of the channel and straits south of that parallel to be 
 free and open to both parties; also the great northern branch of the 
 Columbia river, from that pa:-allel to the main stream, and the said 
 stream or river down to the ocean, were to be open to the Hudson's Bay 
 company and to the subjects of Great Britain trading with the same. 
 The treaty was sent to England for ratification by that government, 
 where it was ratified, and ratifications were exchanged ; and was pro- 
 claimed by the president on the 5th of August, 1846. 
 
 Notwithstanding the spirit with which a large portion of the friends 
 of the administration contended for " the whole or none" of Oregon, it 
 is believed that few, upon calm consideration, indulged regrets that Mr. 
 Polk had yielded to what was supposed to be the prevailing sentiment 
 of the nation at large, and had given his official sanction to the treaty. 
 Much credit was awarded to Messrs. Webster, Calhoun, and Benton for 
 their instrumentality in bringing about the adjustment. The emphatic 
 announcement of Mr. Webster, that the United States would never con- 
 sent to take less than the line of the 49th degree, and that upon this 
 point men of all parties in this country were agreed, probably aided 
 much in drawing from the British ministry the proposition for settle- 
 ment. The early and vigorous opposition of Mr. Calhoun to the course 
 of the radicals of his own party in the senate, was not without effect. 
 Then the great speech of Mr. Benton, at that particular juncture, when 
 both governments paused to consider what course next to pursue, remov- 
 ing all ground for persisting in the refusal to accept the line of the 49th 
 degree, doubtless contributed much to induce Mr. Polk to submit the 
 proposition to the senate. Thus, to the combined efi'orts of these three 
 distinguished senators is the country indebted, in no small degree, for 
 averting the calamity of a sanguinary war, which, there is little reason 
 to doubt, would have been the consequence of an adherence, on the part 
 of the exe.cutive, to his original purpose. 
 
 The reasons upon which Mr. Benton based his concession, to Great 
 Britain, of the territory beyond the 49th degree, will be found in the 
 following extract from a speech delivered by him in the senate, January 
 12 1843: 
 
THE TARIFF ACT OF 1846. 865 
 
 " Mr. Benton said he would not restate the American title to that 
 country : it had been well done, by others who had preceded him in 
 debate. We would only give a little more development to two points 
 — the treaties of 1803 and 1819; the former with France, by which we 
 acquired Louisiana; the latter with Spain, by which we acquired all her 
 rights on the north-west coast of America, north of 42 degrees. By 
 the first of these treaties, we became a party to the tenth article of the 
 treaty of Utrecht, between France and England ; the treaty of peace of 
 1714, which terminated the wars of Queen Anne and Louis XIV, and 
 settled all their diiferences of every kind in Europe and America, and 
 undertook to prevent the recurrence of future differences between th^m. 
 The tenth article of this treaty applied to their settlements and terri- 
 tories in North America, and directed commissaries to be appointed to 
 mark and define their possessions. These commissaries did their work. 
 They drew a line from ocean to ocean, to separate the French and Brit- 
 ish dominions, and to prevent future encroachment and collisions. This 
 line began on the coast of Labrador, and followed a course slightly 
 gouth of west to the centre of North America, leaving the British settle- 
 ments of Hudson Bay to the north, and the French Canadian posses- 
 sions to the south. This line took for a landmark the Lake of the 
 Woods, which was then believed to be due east from the head of the 
 Mississippi ; and from that point took the forty-ninth parallel of lati- 
 tude indefinitely to the west. The language of the line is ' indefinitely ;'' 
 and this established the northern boundary of Louisiana, and erected a 
 wall beyond which future French settlements could not cross to the 
 north, nor British to the south 
 
 *' As purchasers of Louisiana, the treaty of 1 803 made us party to 
 the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht, and made the forty-ninth 
 parallel the same to us and the British which it had been to the French 
 and the British ; it became a wall which neither could pass, so far as it 
 depended upon that line." 
 
 CHAPTER LXIX. 
 
 THE TARIFF ACT OF 1846. THE WAREHOUSE SYSTEM, ESTABLISHMENT 
 
 OF THE SUB-TREASURY. 
 
 For months before the meeting of congress in December, 1845, indi- 
 cations were given of an attempt against the tariff of 1842, and the 
 protective system. The president and the secretary of the treasury, 
 
 55 
 
866 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 (Mr. Walker,) were Loth opposed to those two features of that tariff SO 
 obnoxious to anti-protectionists generally — the minimum principle and 
 specific duties; and the gains known to have accrued to the anti-tariff 
 party, had given protectionists strong premonitions of a successfn) 
 attack upon their favorite policy. 
 
 As had been intimated, the message, in discussing the tariff question, 
 made a violent assault upon the act of 1842. " By the introduction of 
 minimums, or assumed false values, and by the imposition of specific 
 duties, the injustice and inequality of that act, in its practical operations 
 on different classes and pursuits, are seen and felt." Many of the 
 duties, the president said, under the operation of these principles, 
 ranged from one per cent, to more than two hundred per cent. It was 
 so framed as to throw much the greatest burden on labor and the poorer 
 classes. Articles of prime necessity, or of coarse quality and low price, 
 used by the masses of the people, were subjected to heavy duties, while 
 articles of fine quality and high prices, used by the rich, were lightly 
 taxed. He therefore recommended the abolition of specific duties and 
 minimums, and the adoption of ad valorem duties, with a general modi- 
 fication and reduction of the rates of duty. Congress might discrimi- 
 nate in arranging the duties on different articles; but the discrimination 
 should be within the revenue standard, and be made with the view to 
 raise money for the support of government. His views of a revenue 
 standard were thus given : 
 
 " It becomes important to understand distinctly what is meant by a 
 revenue standard, the maximum of which should not be exceeded in the 
 rates of duty imposed. It is conceded, and experience proves, that duties 
 may be laid so high as to diminish or prohibit altogether, the importation 
 of any given article, and thereby lessen or destroy the revenue which, 
 at lower rates, would be derived from the importation. Such duties 
 exceed the revenue rates, and are not imposed to raise money for the 
 support of government. If congress levy a duty for revenue of one per 
 cent, on a given article, it will produce a given amount of money to the 
 treasury, and will incidentally and necessarily afford protection or 
 advantage, to the amount of one per cent, to the home niapufacturer 
 of a similar or like article over the importer. If the duty be raised to 
 ten per cent., it will produce a greater amount of money, and afford 
 greater protection. If it be still raised to twenty, twenty-five, or 
 thirty per cent., and if, as it is raised, the revenue derived from it is 
 found to be increased, the protection or advantage will also be increased; 
 but if it be raised to thirty-one per cent., and it is found that the reve- 
 nue produced at that rate is less than at thirty per cent., it ceases to be 
 a revenue duty. The precise point in the ascending scale of duties at 
 
THE TARIFF OF 1846. 867 
 
 which it is ascertained from experience that the revenue is greatest, is 
 the maximum rate of duty which can be laid for the bona fide purpose 
 of collecting money for the support of government. To raise the duties 
 higher than that point, and thereby diminish the amount collected, is to 
 levy them for protection merely, and not for revenue. As long, then, 
 as congress may gradually increase the rate of duty on a given article, 
 ^d the revenue is increased by such increase of duty, they are within 
 the revenue standard. When they go beyond that point, and, as they 
 increase the duties, the revenue is diminished or destroyed, the act 
 ceases to have for its object the raising of money to support government, 
 but it is for protection merely. 
 
 " It does not follow that congress should levy the highest duty on 
 all articles of import which they will bear within the revenue standard ; 
 for such rates would probably produce a much larger amount than the 
 economical administration of the government would require. Nor does 
 it follow that the duties on articles should be at the same or a horizon- 
 tal rate. Some articles will bear a much higher revenue duty than 
 others." 
 
 The message was followed up and sustained by the report of the secre- 
 tary of the treasury. The secretary said the revenue for the first quar- 
 ter of the year was about two millions less than for the same quarter 
 last year. This decrease he ascribed to the diminution of the importa- 
 tion of some highly protected articles by the substitution of rival 
 domestic products. The average of duties upon dutiable imports had * 
 been, during the nine remaining months of the first year, under the 
 tariff" of 1842, about 37 per cent. ; for the year ending June, 1844, 33 
 per cent.; for 1845, about 30 per cent.; the diminished per centage 
 being caused by the increased importation of some goods paying lighter 
 duties, and the decreased importation of others bearing the higher duties. 
 The revenue from ad valorem duties the last year had exceeded that 
 from specific duties, although the average of the former was only about 
 23 per cent., and the average of the latter, about 41 — presenting another 
 strong proof that lower duties increase the revenue. 
 
 The secretary had adopted, in suggesting improvements in the revenue 
 laws, the following principles: 1st. No more should be collected than 
 was necessary for the actual wants of the government. 2d. No duty 
 should be imposed on any article above the lowest rate which would 
 yield the most revenue. 3d. Below such rate, discrimination might be 
 made, descending in the scale of duties ; or, for imperative reasons, the 
 article might be made free from duty. 4th. The maximum revenue 
 duty should be imposed on luxuries, 5th. Minimums and specific 
 duties should be aljolished, and ad valorem duties substituted — ^guard- 
 
OOO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ing against fraudulent invoices and undervaluation, and assesbing the 
 duty upon the actual market value. 6th. The duties should be so im- 
 posed as to operate as equally as possible throughout the union, and 
 upon the different classes. 
 
 A horizontal scale of duties — that is, a uniform rate upon all articles 
 — was not recommended, because that would be a refusal to discrimi- 
 nate for revenue, and might sink the revenue below the wants of the 
 government. Some articles would yield the largest revenue at rates 
 which would be wholly or partially prohibitory in other cases. Luxuries, 
 as a general rule, would bear the highest revenue duties ; but even 
 some very costly luxuries, easily smuggled, would bear but a light duty 
 for revenue ; whilst other articles of great bulk and weight, would bear 
 a higher duty for revenue. There must be discrimination for revenue, 
 or the burthen of taxation must be augmented, in order to bring the 
 same amount of money into the treasury. Hence it was diflBcult, 
 he said, to adopt any arbitrary maximum which would answer in all 
 cases. 
 
 The report of the secretary was immediately subjected to a severe 
 criticism, both in and out of congress. Mr. Andrew Stewart, of Penn- 
 sylvania, on the question of referring that part of the message relating 
 to the tariff, moved to instruct the committee to report, " as the sense 
 of this house, that the tariff of 1842 ought not to be disturbed." 
 
 The secretary had pronounced the tariff of 1842 unconstitutional, 
 'because it exceeded the revenue limit. A tariff bill, he said, was a 
 bill for raising revenue, which was the only proper object of such a bill. 
 " Whenever it departed from that object, in whole or in part, either by 
 total or partial prohibition, it violated the purpose of the granted 
 power." Mr. Stewart referred to the messages of "Washington, Jefferson, 
 Madison, and Monroe, all of whom had emphatically recommended tho 
 protection of domestic manufactures. He also read the following lucid 
 exposition from the second annual message of president Jackson : 
 
 " The power to impose duties upon imports originally belonged to 
 the several states. The right to adjust these duties, with a view to the 
 encouragement of domestic industry, is so completely identical with 
 that power, that it is difficult to suppose the existence of the one with- 
 out the other. The states have delegated their whole authority over 
 imports to the general government, without limitation or restriction, 
 saving the very inconsiderable reservation relating to the inspection 
 laws. This authority having thus entirely passed from the states, the 
 right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them; 
 and, consequently, if it be not possessed by the general government, it 
 must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anaraol^ 
 
THE TARIFF OF 1846. 869 
 
 of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to 
 counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be 
 adopted by foreign nations. This surely cannot be the case ; this in- 
 dispensable power, thus surrendered by the states, must be within the 
 scope of authority on the subject expressly delegated to congress. In 
 this conclusion I am confirmed, as well by the opinions of Presidents 
 Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, who have each repeatedly 
 recommended this right under the constitution, as by the uniform prac- 
 tice of congress, the continued acquiescence of the states, and the general 
 understanding of the people.'' 
 
 In answer to the question of Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, Who pays 
 the duties when the government protects manufactures? Mr. Stewart 
 said, the gentleman and his friends held that the consumer always paid 
 the duty ; and the secretary had told the nation that the poor man was 
 taxed eighty-two per cent, on cotton goods over the rich man. This 
 unhappy " poor man" was taxed one hundred and fifty per cent, on his 
 cotton shirt, because there was a specific duty on imported cotton goods 
 of nine cents a yard ! This specific duty of nine cents was just one 
 hundred and fifty per cent, on six cents, the price paid by the poor man 
 for his cotton. So the practical effect of this horrid tax was, that the 
 poor man got a good shirt at sixpence a yard. Those abominable min-. 
 imums, so obnoxious to the secretary, had been introduced by John C. 
 Calhoun and William Lowndes, since which, the price of the poor man's 
 cloth had fallen from thirty-six to six cents a yard. On that thirty-six 
 cents, the tariff laid a duty of nine cents, which was then but twenty- 
 five per cent, ad valorem, ; now it was one hundred and fifty per cent. ; 
 and why ? because the price had been reduced from thirty-six to six 
 cents a yard ! Let the manufacturer run up the price to thirty-six 
 cents again, and the duty of nine cents a yard would fall to twenty-five 
 per cent. ; and, according to the secretary, the oppression would all be 
 over : these friends of the poor man would be perfectly satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Johnson asked again, if the tariff brought down prices, why did 
 the manufacturer want it ? and what was it that reduced the price of 
 other goods in proportion ? 
 
 Mr. Stewart replied that such was not the fact. Silks, velvets, and 
 other goods not manufactured here, had not declined in the same pro- 
 portion ; nor had wages or agricultural produce ; because the protec- 
 tive tariff had increased the supply of domestic goods by increasing com- 
 petition, and had sustained wages and agricultural produce by creating 
 an increased demand for both. If the gentleman could comprehend 
 that demand and supply regulate price, it would be all plain to him. 
 
 Mr. S. resumed his illustrations. No ad valorem duties were im- 
 
870 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 posed by the tariff of 1842 above 50 per cent. ; how then did the presi- 
 dent in his message get duties of 200 per cent. ? Just by converting 
 the specific duties into ad valorem. For if the duty is 200 per cent., 
 the price must be one-half only of the duty. Thus, glass is said to pay 
 the enormous duty of 200 per cent. ; and why ? because the duty was 
 $4 per box, and the price $2. But if glass should fall to $1 per box, 
 the duty would be 400 per cent. ! Nails in 1816 were 16 cents a 
 pound ; on which a duty was laid of four cents a pound, which was 25 
 per cent, on the price ; but according to the secretary's report, the duty 
 was now 100 per cent., because the price had fallen to four cents a 
 pound ! It was upon such a principle as this that the secretary based 
 his statement, that the people paid a tax of eighty-four viillions, of 
 which but twenty-seven went to the government, and fifty -four to the 
 manufacturers. The secretary referred to a list of sixty or seventy ar- 
 ticles paying specific duties, which, by being converted into ad valorem, 
 amounted to more than 100 per cent. And what did this prove? 
 Simply that the prices of these articles had greatly fallen, as in the 
 case of cottons. The explanation of all this, said Mr. S., was plain 
 and easy. Competition, machinery, skill, and industry, had increased 
 the supply ; and the increased supply had reduced the prices of glass, 
 cotton, &c., while it had rendered the whole country prosperous by an 
 increased demand for all the productions of the farmers. 
 
 Mr. S. commented upon the president's definition of a revenue stand' 
 ard of duty, and h'vA rule for laying duties. According to that rule 
 when the American manufacturer had succeeded in supplying our own 
 market, and begun to thrive, that would prove that the duty was no 
 longer a revenue duty, but had become a protective duty, and must be 
 reduced. As the American furnished more goods to the country, less 
 foreign goods would be imported, revenue would be diminished, and the 
 duty must come down. Under such a rule, what man in his senses 
 would invest a dollar in manufactures ? When, by industry and enter- 
 prise, he was getting the better of his foreign competitor, the duty must 
 go down. If a shoemaker or a hatter had got possession of the market, 
 the eye of this free trade system was fastened on him like a vulture. 
 The secretary found he was doing too well, and the duty must be reduced 
 to let in the foreigner. The moment the American was raised to hia 
 feet in this sti-uggle with foreigners for the American market, he was to 
 be knocked down by the executive poker, and walked over by his secre- 
 tary Walker. And this was their American system. It was a British 
 system — ^just such a one as Sir Robert Peel would have recommended, 
 if he could have spoken through Mr. Polk. 
 
 The secretary had said ; " Experience proves that, as a general rule. 
 
THE TARIFF OF 184«. 871 
 
 a duty of twenty per cent, ad valorem, will yield the largest revenue." 
 Mr. Stewart asked, What was the well-known experience of the country ? 
 We had a tariff of twenty per cent, in 1841-2, and what was the revenue? 
 Not one-half its present amount. The revenue from imports was then 
 about thirteen millions ; this year twenty-seven millions. Under the 
 operation of that twenty per cent, horizontal duty, the business of the 
 country was prostrate, the government was bankrupt, and the people 
 little better. If the duties were reduced to a certain point, the 
 duties would be insufficient to meet the public expenditures. To 
 make up the revenue, the importations must be increased to such 
 an amount as to drain the country of its specie, and soon leave it 
 without the ability to buy. These facts had never been successfully 
 answered. 
 
 Mr. S. said the message and report assumed, that protective duties 
 had increased prices. This he denied. He could prove, by documents, 
 by every price current, and every merchant in the country, that the 
 prices of protected goods had been reduced by competition since the 
 introduction of minimums and specific duties in 1816, to one-half, one- 
 third, one-fourth, and even to one-sixth part of what they were at that 
 time. And while the poor man was now supplied at lower prices, the 
 prices of labor, and of the produce of the farmer, owing to the increased 
 demand produced by the increase of manufactures, had undergone little 
 or no reduction. He challenged the president and secretary to prove 
 that, in a single instance, protective duties had permanently increased 
 prices. 
 
 The president and secretary wanted a tariff just sufficient to meet the 
 public expenditures, and no more. The present tariff, then, was just the 
 thing. They tell us the expenditures have been this year ^29,968,207, 
 and the revenue, $29,769,133. Why, then, disturb or change the tariff? 
 Last year, when threatened with a large surplus, we were told that the 
 tariff must be reduced to reduce the revenue. Now we are told we must 
 reduce the tariff to increase the revenue. Mr. Stewart continued his 
 review of the message and report, commenting upon several other parts 
 of them, quoting from Mr. Jefferson, and from G-en. Jackson's letter to 
 Dr. Coleman. He also considered the effect of the tariff upon agricul- 
 ture. His argument was substantially the same on this point as in 1827, 
 and as given in a preceding chapter. 
 
 A long time was spent by the secretary of the treasury in connection 
 with the committee of ways and means, in adjusting a bill, which was at 
 length (April 14) reported to the house by Mr. M'Kay. Having given 
 liberal abstracts of former discussions on this subject, it is considered 
 unnecessary to present a sketch of the debate at this session. By a vote 
 
872 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the house, the debate was to terminate the 2d of July, at 2 o'clock 
 and voting to commence. On the 30th of June, an attack was made 
 upon it which was succeeded by sundry amendments. Niles' Register, 
 of July 4, in giving an account of the proceedings, says : 
 
 On Tuesday, a great sensation was produced in the house by a speech 
 dolivered by Mr. Brinkerhoof, a leading administration member from 
 Ohio, who announced that he was authorized to say, on behalf of the 
 administration members of that state, that they were unanimously 
 opposed to Mr. McKay's bill, and would not vote for it. He attacked 
 the course of the administration in very strong and plain language, and 
 that of the " organ" at Washington (the Union) especially. He asserted 
 that those who agreed with him in the course proposed, " could defeat the 
 bill, and would defeat it." Mr. B. was opposed to taxing tea and coffee. 
 He complained bitterly that, after declaring that Oregon was ours of right, 
 up to 54 degrees, 40 minutes, the government had come down below 49 
 degrees, and given up the navigation of the Columbia. Now we must pay 
 for a war for southern conquest, after you have given away millions upon 
 millions of aci-es of our own territory at the north. Will you now ask from 
 us to grant you a tax on tea and coffee ? And do you think we will give 
 it ? No ; we will do no such thing. I said in the beginning that I rose 
 here to have some plain talk. And now I ask you, suppose you strike 
 out tea and coffee from your bill, what then ? I have always stood up 
 for a revenue tariff; I stand for it still. I will go neither for a tariff 
 for protection, nor for a tariff for the destruction of revenue ; and there- 
 fore the next question is, will your bill raise revenue enough for the use 
 of the government without tea and coffee ? The average expenditure of 
 this government has been shown to be nearly twenty-six millions per 
 annum ; and you have brought us a bill which, without tea and coffee, 
 will not give you eighteen millions. I am under no pledge to go for a 
 tariff to destroy revenue, and especially when it is foreseen and so 
 intended, that this shall lead to a permanent tax on tea and coffee. " To 
 go with our eyes open, and with full knowledge, for the destruction 
 of a tariff which does yield sufficient revenue, to a bill which begins with 
 a deficit of three or four millions, we can not do it ; and we will not 
 do it." 
 
 This was the introduction to a violent debate, in which many members 
 participated. The debate closed at the time appointed, after the conclu- 
 eion of the seventy-third speech. Then commenced a succession of pro- 
 positions for amendment, Mr. M'Kay himself taking the lead. Among 
 the amendments adopted, was the exempting of tea and coffee from duty. 
 On this the treasurer had calculated for some three millions of revenue 
 To these articles was aided salt, which would considerably diminish it. 
 
THE WAREHOUSE SYSTEM. 873 
 
 The vote by which this article had been made free, was reconsidered and 
 reversed. The bill was passed by the house, 114 to 94. 
 
 In the senate, the bill continued in suspense about three weeks. The 
 senate being known to be nearly equally divided upon it, the final action 
 of that body was awaited with great anxiety. Senator Haywood, of 
 North Carolina, a democrat, resigned his seat before the vote was taken. 
 Mr. H. was opposed to the tarifi" of 1842, as also to the present bill ; 
 considering the former too highly protective, and the latter as insuffi- 
 cient to provide the necessary revenue. His resignation, which, it waa 
 apprehended, would effect the defeat of the bill, subjected him to severe 
 censure from his political friends. He was denounced by the " official" 
 paper as " an apostate and deserter," and as having " surrendered hia 
 post into the hands of the enemy." The governor of North Carolina 
 being a whig, it was presumed- that a tariff senator would be appointed 
 in his place. Mr. Haywood was in favor of the tariff bill of 1844, 
 reported by Mr. M'Kay. 
 
 The fate of the bill was now considered suspended upon the vote of 
 Mr. Jarnagin, a whig senator from Tennessee, who, though opposed to 
 the bill, had been instructed by the democratic legislature of his state to 
 vote for the repeal of the tariff' of 1842 ; and he considered himself 
 bound to obey the instructions. To insure his vote, however, and the 
 votes of several others, an objectionable provision of the bill was removed, 
 and the bill was then passed, 28 to 27 ; its passage having been effected 
 by the vote of Mr. Jarnagin. The house concurred in the amendment. 
 Thus was established what was denominated the " revenue tariff" of 
 1846. 
 
 A bill was also passed, establishing what is called the warehouse 
 system. By the provisions of this act, goods imported may be deposited 
 in the public stores without the payment of the duties, there to be kept 
 at the charge and risk of the owner, importer, or consignee. The goods 
 are to be redelivered at any time within a year, on the payment of the 
 duties ; or, without the payment of duties, if they are to be reshipped, 
 on security being given that they shall be landed out of the jurisdic- 
 tion of the United States. This bill, it was apprehended by the opposi- 
 tion, would materially affect the revenue. It was pronounced " an 
 adjunct to the anti-protective tariff act." It would enable foreigners to 
 send in their goods at pleasure, and to store them in our warehouses 
 without paying duties, until the market should please the owners. 
 Hence it was called " a law to provide storehouses for foreign goods at 
 a low rent." One effect of the law was, that goods being admitted 
 immediately, large quantities were imported, and deposited until the 
 1st of December following, when the new tariff went into operation; thua 
 
874 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 allowing tlie foreigner to avail himself of the advantage of the low duties. 
 At this session also was passed the act for reestablishing the sub- 
 treasury, which had been repealed in 1842. In pursuance of a recom- 
 mendation by the president in his annual message, a bill was reported 
 early in the session, by the committee of ways and means. It passed the 
 house April 2d, by a vote of 123 to 67. It passed the senate, August 
 1st, by a strict party vote, 28 to 24. 
 
 One of the principal provisions of this law, and that which, perhaps, 
 was deemed most objectionable, and which was by some considered imprac- 
 ticable, was that which required all receivers and disbursers of the public 
 revenue, including all postmasters, to collect and pay out specie only. 
 The opponents of the measure apprehended that the employment of so 
 large a portion of the specie of the country in the payment of duties and 
 other financial transactions, would have an unfavorable effect upon the 
 currency, and embarrass commercial operations generally. The expen- 
 eiveness of the system was also urged as an objection. The cost of the 
 necessary rooms, vaults, safes, &c., in the different places where the 
 revenue is collected, and the compensation of the numerous treasurers, 
 assistants, and clerks, might all be saved by the employment of banks to 
 receive, keep, and pay out the public moneys. How faithfully the pro- 
 visions of the law have been carried out, we have before us no data from 
 which the fact can be determined. So far, however, as it applies to post- 
 masters, its provisions are but little, if at all observed. 
 
 CHAPTER LXX. 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848. ELECTION OF GEN. TAYLOR. 
 
 As early as the summer of 1846, soon after the early and successful 
 battles in the Mexican war, and before the presidential question had been 
 much agitated, the name of Gen. Taylor began to be mentioned in con- 
 nection with the presidency of 1848. At an early period of the next 
 year, formal nominations of the general at public meetings had already 
 become frequent Several letters addressed him on the subject, with his 
 replies, had appeared in the papers ; and long before the close of the 
 year, he was prominently before the people as a candidate. Although he 
 was said to be a whig, he had in all his letters disclaimed party attach- 
 ments and party preferences, and had scrupulously refrained from any 
 declaration of his political opinions. 
 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAia^i OF 1848. ^1^ 
 
 Many of the old and firm friends of Mr. Clay were reluctant to aban- 
 don their long-tried candidate. Others, though they had no personal 
 objection to Mr. Clay, doubting his availability, were for dropping him 
 for " some man," to use the language of a prominent whig editor — 
 " whose name had not been for years the watch-word of party divisions ; 
 who commands, by his cn^j^ciev and his acts, the respect and admiration 
 of the whole country, and whom all men and all parties can support, 
 without giving the lie to their past conduct. If there is any such man 
 in this country at present, it is Gen. Taylor." 
 
 It soon became apparent, however, that he could not obtain the unani- 
 mous support of the whig party. He was a slaveholder, aad it was pre- 
 sumed that he was in favor of the extension of slavery, or at least that 
 his influence would not be exerted against it. The acquisition of an 
 extensive territory from Mexico was then in prospect ; and a large por- 
 tion of the whig party, being committed to the Wilmot proviso, were 
 opposed to the election of any man for president who was not known 
 to be in favor of applying that proviso to the territories of the United 
 States. Another objection to G-en. Taylor was, that he was not a pro- 
 fessed whig. Indeed he disavowed having any connection with, or afiinity 
 for any political party; and declared the purpose of being elected, if at 
 all, as a no-party candidate. In reply to a letter from a committee of a 
 democratic meeting in Tennessee, which had solicited an expression of 
 his views in relation to the principles of that party, he refused to make 
 any declaration of his sentiments, saying, that, even if disposed to do so, 
 he could not spare the time from his official duties for such an investiga- 
 tion of political subjects as would enable him to make a reply satisfactory 
 to himself or to the committee. He had been for nearly forty years in 
 the military service, most of the time in the field, in the camp, or on the 
 western frontier — situations unfavorable to investigation — and during 
 which period he had not even voted for a chief magistrate or any other 
 public officer ; having been during the greater part of the time beyond 
 the limits of the states. If elected — which would be done without any 
 agency of his own — he would serve the people honestly and faithfully, 
 and in conformity to the provisions of the constitution, according to the 
 construction and practice of the early presidents, two of whom (Wash 
 ington and Madison) had participated in creating it and putting it into 
 operation. 
 
 In a letter to Dr. Bronson, of South Carolina, he said : " If I were 
 called to the presidential cliair by the general voice of the people, with- 
 mit regard to their political diferences, I should deem it to be my duty 
 to accept the office." But he said "le could not submit to the exaction 
 of any other pledge as to the course he should pursue, than that of dia- 
 
876 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 charging the functions of the office to the best of his abililj, and in 
 accordance with the requirements of the constitution." In this letter 
 he went so far as to say, that though he had never exercised the privilege 
 of voting, had he been called upon at the last presidential election to do 
 so, he should most certainly have cast his vot^or Mr. Clay. 
 
 Probably no other candidate for the preSnency ever wrote so manj 
 letters relating to his nomination and election ; and in all his corres- 
 pondence he maintained the position first assumed, that " he would not be 
 the candidate of any party ;" that ** if he ever filled that high office, it 
 must be untrammeled with party obligations ;" that he "would be the 
 chief magistrate of the nation, and not of a party ;" that he " could not 
 in any case permit himself to be brought before the people exclusively 
 by any of the political parties, that now so unfortunately divided the 
 country." He had no objection to being nominated by meetings or con- 
 ventions, whether designated as whig, democratic, or native ; but he 
 " must insist on the condition — and his position on this point was im- 
 mutable — that he should not be brought forward as the candidate of any 
 party, or considered as the exponent of its party doctrines." Again: if 
 elected, be would " look to the constitution, and the high interests of 
 our common country, and not to the principles of a party, for his rules 
 of action ;" and " if the whig, party desired at the next presidential elec- 
 tion to cast their votes for him, they must do it on their own responsi- 
 bility, and without any pledges from him." And again, he said : "If 
 nominated by the whig national convention, I shall not refuse acceptance, 
 provided I am left free of all pledges, and permitted to maintain the 
 position of independence of all parties, in which the people and my own 
 sense of duty, have placed me : otherwise I shall refuse the nomination of 
 any convention or party." And he said farther, that he did not intend 
 to withdraw his name, though Mr. Clay should be the nominee of the 
 national convention, or whoever might be nominated by the national con- 
 vention of either party. 
 
 Tliese repeated declarations of Gen. Taylor, that he would not be tho 
 candidate of the whig party, as a party, or assume any party obligation, 
 were considered by a large portion of the whig party, as an insuperable 
 objection to his receiving a nomination. A man " who would not be the 
 exponent of whig doctrines," ought not to receive the nomination of the 
 whig convention. 
 
 The democratic national convention met at Baltimore on the 22d of 
 May, 1848. The president of the convention was Andrew Stevens(m, of 
 Virginia. The two-thirds rule, as ij} former late conventions, was adopted. 
 The harmony of the convention was much disturbed by the conflicting 
 claims of two sets of delegates from the state of New York, designated 
 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OP 1848, 877' 
 
 " Hunkers" and " Barnburners," each claiming to be the regular dele- 
 gates. Members of each delegation were allowed to advocate their 
 respective claims. On the 4th day of the session, by a vote of 133 to 
 118, both delegations were admitted to seats in the convention, with 
 power jointly to cast the vote of the state. Mr. Daniel S. Dickinson, of 
 the Hunker delegation, made a formal protest against the admission of 
 both delegations, as calculated to satisfy neither party. Mr. Cambreleng, 
 of the other party, asked leave for the Barnburner delegation to retire, 
 which was granted. The next day, the latter delegation having left, Mr. 
 James C. Smith, one of their number, presented a protest against the 
 action of the convention ; and the delegation declined taking seats with 
 the others, the former alone being entitled to them. Mr. Dickinson, in 
 behalf of the Hunkers, said they could not vote in the convention, con- 
 sistently with dignity and propriety. So neither delegation took part in 
 the nominations. 
 
 Gen. Cass, on the first ballot, received 125 votes, being just one-half 
 of the whole number cast ; on the second ballot he received 153, being a 
 large majority ; and on the 4th ballot, 1 79 ; Mr. Woodbury, 38 ; Mr. 
 Buchanan, 33 ; and Gen. Worth, 3. Having a majority of two-thirds, 
 Gen. Cass was declared nominated. For candidate for vice-president. 
 Gen. William 0. Butler, of Kentucky, received the unanimous vote of 
 the convention, except New York, which did not vote. 
 
 The whig national convention met at Philadelphia on the 7th of June 
 John C. Morehead, of North Carolina, was chosen president of the con« 
 vention. Disturbed, and even tumultuous as the democratic convention 
 was said to have been, it was probably no more so than its whig rival. 
 From the well known fact that the mass of the whig party was in favor 
 of the Wilmot proviso, and from the dissatisfaction which prevailed, at 
 the unwillingness of Gen. Taylor to commit himself to whig principles, 
 as well as from the belief that a majority of the delegates elect were in 
 favor of Mr. Clay, his nomination was regarded as almost certain. On 
 the second day, a secret session was held ; after which, the ballotinga 
 commenced. Gen. Taylor received on the first ballot 1 1 1 votes ; Mr. 
 Clay, 97; Mr. Webster, 21; Gen. Scott, 46; John M'Lean, 2. After 
 another unsuccessful attempt, farther ballotting was deferred till the 
 next day. A proposition made by the Ohio delegation, to exclude all 
 candidates for nomination who were not openly avowed whigs, was, after 
 a warm debate, ruled out of order. The Louisiana delegation stated, 
 professedly by authority of Gen. Taylor himself, that he was in the hands 
 of hia friends, who were at liberty to withdraw his name if they thought 
 proper, though he did not consider it proper to do so himself. He also con- 
 sidered it the duty of his friends to abide the decision of the convention. 
 
878 THE AMERICAN SEATESMAN. 
 
 The balloting was resumed the next day (June 9th,) Gen. Taylor re- 
 ceiving 133 votes; Mr. Clay, 74; Gen. Scott, 53; Mr. Webster, 16; 
 John M. Clayton, 1. The second ballot of that day, r^^sulted in a choice ; 
 Gen. Taylor having 171 votes; Mr. Clay, 30; Gen. Scott, 63; Mr. 
 Webster, 12. 
 
 The state of feeling which prevailed in the convention is exhibited in 
 a report of a part of the proceedings, made by tlte delegate from the 8th 
 district of New York, Isaac Piatt, who vouches for its accuracy : 
 
 After the organization, resolutions having been offered proposing to 
 commence voting for candidates, Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, moved to amend 
 the resolutions by adding, that, to entitle a candidate to a nomination, 
 he must have given " assurances that he would abide by, and support 
 the nomination ; that he would accept it ; that he would consider him- 
 self the candidate of the whigs ; and that he would use his influence to 
 bring into practical operation the principles and measures of the whig 
 party." An angry excitement, great confusion, and numerous calls to 
 order, followed ; and the president declared the resolution out of order, 
 from which decision Mr. C. appealed, and the question of appeal was 
 debated by himself and others. 
 
 Mr. Fuller, of New York, having succeeded in getting the floor, offered 
 the following resolution, which had been drawn up by Mr. Piatt : 
 
 " Resolved, That, as the first duty of the representatives of the whig 
 party is to preserve the principles and integrity of that party, the claims 
 of no candidate for nomination can be considered by this convention, 
 unless such candidate stands pledged to support, in good faith, the 
 nominees, and to be the exponent of whig principles." 
 
 This resolution was said to have been followed by a greater excite- 
 ment than the first. Several of the Taylor men, it was said, " became 
 nearly furious, while their opponents insisted that it contained nothing 
 to which any whigs should object." This resolution also was declared 
 out of order. An appeal was made, and, amidst great confusion and ex- 
 citement, laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Allen, of Massachusetts, after the nomination, expressed the 
 opinion, that, by this nomination, the whig party had been that day dis- 
 solved; still, he would make one more effort to apply the proper party 
 test, and presented a resolution, a part of which only was read, and the 
 reception of which was said to be correctly reported, as follows : 
 
 ^'■Resolved, That the whig party, through its representatives here, 
 agrees to abide by the nomination of Gen. Zachary Taylor, [cheers,] on 
 condition that he will accept the nomination of the whig party, and 
 adhere to its great fundamental principles : No extension of slave terri- 
 tory by conquest [hisses and cheers, cries of order, sit down, hoar him,] 
 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848. 879 
 
 protection to American industry, [tremendous cheers, rapping, and cries 
 of order, sit down, go on,] opposition to executive patronage, [cheers 
 and hisses.] Mr. Chairman : I — " [Such were now the rapping, the cries 
 of order, and the confusion, as to prevent Mr. Allen from proceeding ; 
 and, without being permitted to resume, the president declared him out 
 of order.] 
 
 A resolution having been moved declaring the unanimous nomination 
 of Messrs. Taylor and Fillmore, another excitement was produced by a 
 motion to divide the resolution. It having become manifest that unan- 
 imity was not to be secured, Mr. Tilden, of Ohio, presented the 
 following resolution, upon the adoption of which, he said, the vote of 
 that state would depend. 
 
 " Resolved, That, while all power is denied to congress under the 
 constitution, to control, or in any way interfere with, the institution of 
 slavery within the several states of this union, it nevertheless has the 
 power, and it is the duty of congress to prohibit the introduction or 
 existence of slavery in any territory now possessed, or which may here- 
 after be acquired by the United States." This resolution, it was said, 
 created a more angry excitement than any of those previously offered, 
 and was laid on the table. Probably to prevent the introduction of 
 more resolutions, it was agreed that the resolution of concurrence also 
 should be laid upon the table. 
 
 As a last desperate movement, Mr. Hilliard, of Alabama, introduced 
 a resolution approving the doctrines of Gen. Taylor's letter to Captain 
 Allison ; but this also being opposed, it was withdrawn, and the conven- 
 tion adjourned without passing any resolutions having reference to whig 
 principles, the issues before the country, or of concurrence in the nomi- 
 nations. 
 
 The Allison letter here referred to, contained a fuller exposition of 
 his political opinions than any other of his published letters, and ap- 
 peared to be satisfactory to the great body of the whig party. "We sub- 
 join that part of the letter which constitutes his platform of principles. 
 Being " not sufficiently familiar with all the minute details of political 
 legislation to pledge his influence to carry out this or defeat that mea- 
 sure," he refrains from committing himself to any particular measures, 
 saying : " One who cannot be trusted without pledges, can not be con- 
 fided in merely on account of them." He then proceeds to respond to 
 the inquiries of his correspondent thus : 
 
 *' First — I reiterate what I have often said — I am a whig, b it not an 
 ultra whig. If elected I would not be the mere president of a party. I 
 would endeavor to act independent of party domination. I should feel 
 pound to administer the government untrammeled by party schemes. 
 
\ 
 
 880 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 " Second — The veto power. The power giveu by the constitution to 
 the executive to interpose his veto, is a high conservative power ; but 
 in my opinion should never be exercised except in cases of clear viola- 
 tion of the constitution, or manifest haste and want of consideration by 
 congress. Indeed, I have thought that for many years past, the known 
 opinions and wishes of the executive, have exercised undue and injurious 
 influence upon the legislative department of the government ; and for 
 this cause I have thought our system was in danger of undergoing a 
 great change from its true theory. The personal opinions of the indi- 
 vidual who may happen to occupy the executive chair, ought not to con- 
 trol the action of congress upon questions of domestic policy, nor ought 
 bis objections to be interposed where questions of constitutional power 
 have been settled by the various departments of government and 
 acquiesced in by the people. 
 
 " Third — Upon the subject of the tariflf, the currency, the improve- 
 ment of our great highways, rivers, lakes, and harbors, the will of the 
 people, as expressed through their representatives in congress, ought to 
 be respected and carried out by the executive. 
 
 " Fourth — The Mexican war. I sincerely rejoice at the prospect of 
 peace. My life has been devoted to arms, yet I look upon war at all 
 times and under all circumstances as a national calamity, to be avoided 
 if compatible with national honor. The principles of our government 
 as well as its true policy, are opposed to the subjugation of other nations, 
 and the embarrassment of other countries by conquest. In the language 
 of the great Washington, " Why should we quit our own to stand on 
 foreign ground ?" In the Mexican war, our national honor has been 
 vindicated, amply vindicated, and in dictating terms of peace we may 
 well afford to be forbearing and even magnanimous to our foes." 
 
 The nomination of Gen. Taylor was immediately followed by expres- 
 sions of dissatisfaction by whigs in all parts of the north ; and a largo 
 portion of the party declared their determination not to support the 
 ticket. So extensive was the dissent to the nomination, that, but for 
 the division of their political opponents, there could have been little 
 hope of electing their candidates. Mass meetings were soon called of 
 the disaffected irrespective of party, and resolutions adopted declaring 
 uncompromising hostility to the extension of slave territory ; and a long 
 time did not elapse before there appeared to be a prevailing determina- 
 tion to form a new party, based upon the principle of the Wilmot pro- 
 viso, which purpose was soon carried into effect. 
 
 Meetings also of the disaffected of the democratic party were held, at 
 which opposition was declared against the nominees of the Baltimore 
 convention. A state convention of the Barnburners was held at Utica, 
 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848. 88 1 
 
 New Tork, on the 22d and 23d of June, the Hon. Samuel Young, pre- 
 siding. A letter had been previously addressed to Mr. Van Bureu 
 on the subject of the presidency, to which he had replied, expressing hia 
 adherence to the determination formed in 1844, not to be again a candi- 
 date for the presidency. The letter, however, was in favor of free 
 territory principles, and declared that he could not vote for Gen. Cass 
 or Gen. Taylor. The convention, notwithstanding, nominated Mr. Van 
 Buren for president, and Henry Dodge, senator in congress from Wis- 
 consin, for vice-president. The latter declined the nomination, and 
 supported Gen. Cass. 
 
 On the 9th of August was held a national mass convention of the 
 friends of free territory at Buffalo. Nearly all of the free, and three 
 of the slave states, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, were represented. 
 After the temporary organization of the convention, its sentiments were 
 indicated by the adoption, by acclamation, of three resolutions which 
 were read by the Hon. Preston King, of New York, and which were in 
 substance as follows : First, That it is the duty of the federal govern- 
 ment to abolish slavery wherever it has the constitutional power to do 
 so, and that the government is responsible for its existence in such 
 places. Second, That the states within which slavery exists, are alone 
 responsible for the continuance or existence of it within those states, and 
 that the general government has no authority over slavery within the 
 states. Third, That the true and safe means of preventing the exist- 
 ence of slavery in territory now free, is by congressional action. 
 
 Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, was chosen president of 
 the convention ; and a vice-president from each of the states. The 
 committee on nominations reported in favor of the nomination of Martin 
 Van Buren for president ; and on balloting Mr. Van Buren received 
 244 rotes, and John P. Hale 181. Mr. Hale was senator in congress 
 from New Hampshire, a democrat, who had become separated from his 
 party by his adoption of the " free soil " principle. He was at this time 
 a candidate for president, having been nominated by the anti-slavery 
 party. Charles Francis Adams was nominated by acclamation for vice- 
 president. Before the convention proceeded to the balloting, a letter 
 from Mr. Van Buren was read to the convention, approving the objects 
 of preventing the introduction of slavery in the territories, and expressing 
 the wish that another name might be substituted for his own, which had 
 already been used for this purpose. Mr. Hale having expressed his 
 willingness to submit to the action of the convention, his name was sub- 
 sequently withdrawn from the list of candidates. 
 
 The position of Gen. Cass in relation to the Wilmot proviso, was 
 defined in a letter tc a Mr. Nicholson of Tennessee. He had been in favoj 
 
 66 
 
882 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of applying tliat restrictive principle to the territory of the United 
 States ; but he had receded from that position. He said in the letter 
 alluded to : " The Wilmol proviso has been before the country some 
 time. It has been repeatedly discussed in congress, and by the public 
 press. 
 
 " I am strongly impressed with the opinion that a change has been 
 going on in the public mind upon this subject — in my own as well as 
 others ; and that doubts are resolving themselves into conviction, that 
 the principles it involves should be kept out of the legislatures, and left 
 to the people of the confederacy in their respective local governments. 
 
 " Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by 
 congress, over this matter ; and I am in favor of leaving to the people 
 of any territory which may be hereafter acquired, the right to regulate 
 it for themselves under the general principles of the constitution." 
 
 Gen. Taylor was addressed, immediately after his nomination, by the 
 president of the convention, informing him of his nomination ; but for 
 reasons unknown, the letter of acceptance was long delayed. He having 
 pertinaciously refused to be considered a party candidate, and having 
 even stated, in some of his letters, that he would as willingly receive 
 a nomination from the democratic or native American party as from the 
 whigs, the pulJlic waited impatiently to learn whether he would accept 
 as a whig. Judging, perhaps, from the representations of the Louis- 
 iana delegation in the convention, it was hoped, and some of his friends 
 confidently predicted, that he would so accept the nomination. The let- 
 ter which at lenjjth appeared, under date of July 15th, did not fully 
 meet the expectations of those who considered it his duty to accept as a 
 whig candidate. He said : 
 
 " Looking to the composition of the convention, and its numbers and 
 patriotic constituents, I feel duly grateful for the honor bestowed upon 
 me, for the distinguished confidence implied in my nomination to the 
 highest office in the gift of the American people. I cordially accept 
 that nomination, but with sincere distrust of my fitness to fulfill the 
 duties of an office which demands for its exercise the most exalted abili- 
 ties and patriotism, and which has been rendered illustrious by the great- 
 est names in our history." 
 
 Besides his answers to letters from other parties, he had also responded 
 to a letter from a meeting of all parties, or, as it may be termed, a " no- 
 party" meeting at Baltimore by which he had been nominated, in which 
 letter he said : 
 
 " The political sentiments embraced in the preamble and resolutions 
 adopted at that meeting, I rejoice to say, meet my cordial approval and 
 assent. No movements in any part of the country, having the object to 
 offer testimonials of honor and respect towards myself, or to advocate my 
 
ELECTION OF GEN. TAYLOR. 883 
 
 election to the presidency, have caused in me more lively pleasure, or 
 demand more my gratitude.'- And having made the nomination " on 
 their own responsibility, free from party action, and the exaction of 
 pledges from myself, I shall serve them strictly as a constitutional, and 
 not as a party president.'' 
 
 Gen. Taylor continued, after his nomination, to write letters of the 
 same character as those which he had written before, disclaiming that he 
 was a party candidate. To a friend in Charleston, South Carolina, he 
 wrote, that he had accepted the nomination of the Philadelphia conven- 
 tion and of many primary assemblages, irrespective of party, " and would 
 have accepted the nomination of the Baltimore convention, had it been 
 tendered on the same terms." 
 
 At Charleston, he was nominated by a meeting of the democrats, who 
 apprehended that Gen. Cass, being a northern man, was not reliable on 
 the subject of slavery, which the meeting resolved to be " paramount to 
 all questions." A copy of the proceedings of the meeting was sent 
 him, together with an address, in which it was stated : " We know 
 that, in this great paramount and leading question of the rights of the 
 south, he is of us, he is with us, and he is for us;" and also 
 a letter formally apprising him of the nomination. He acknowledged 
 the receipt of the letter " with emotions of profound gratitude," and 
 added : " Concluding that this nomination, like all others which I have 
 had the honor of receiving from assemblages of my fellow-citizens in 
 various parts of the union, has been generously offered, without pledges 
 and conditions, it is thankfully accepted ;" &c. 
 
 The appearance of these letters simultaneously with the defective 
 acceptance of the whig nomination, and the additional fact that he had 
 accepted the Charleston, nomination, knowing that his name was on the 
 same ticket with that of the democratic candidate for vice-president, 
 thus giving countenance to a part of the democratic ticket, excited 
 among the whigs feelings of chagrin and indignation. At Albany, on 
 the arrival of the news of the general's acceptance of the Charleston 
 democratic slavery nomination, a call was issued for a meeting of the 
 whigs to take the subject into consideration. A large and enthusiastic 
 meeting was held, at which the leading whigs of the city declared their 
 determination to abandon the support of Gen. Taylor. The meeting, 
 which took place on Saturday evening, was adjourned till Monday even- 
 ing, when, upon more mature consideration, the purpose expressed at the 
 previous meeting was relinquished. The murmurs of dissatisfaction 
 from the mass of the disaffected whigs soon ceased ; and before the 
 election, most of the dissenters had returned to their party allegiance. 
 
 Of the presidential electors chosen at the election in November, 163 
 gave their votes for Taylor and Fillmore; and 127 for Cass and Butler. 
 
884 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXI. 
 
 BILLS FOR CALIFORNIA AND OTHER TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS. 
 
 One of the exciting topics of the session of 1847-48, was the estab- 
 lishment of a territorial government for Oregon. A bill for this pur- 
 pose was reported early in the session, but was not disposed of until 
 just at its close. The question of slavery, including the Wilmot pro- 
 viso and the Missouri compromise, furnished the matter for this pro- 
 tracted debate. The question of the power of congress to legislate on 
 the subject of slavery in the territories, was elaborately discussed in 
 the senate, by Mr. Dix, of New York, and Mr. Calhoun ; the former 
 most ably maintaining the afi&rmative of the proposition, and the latter 
 denying it. 
 
 Mr. Dix, although he made a luminous and powerful argument in 
 favor of the power in question, stated certain positions which he thought 
 constituted a proper basis for the settlement of the question ; positions, 
 the correctness of which a majority of the friends of free territory, it is 
 believed, do not concede. They are these : 1. All external interference 
 with slavery in the states is a violation of the compromises of the con- 
 stitution, and dangerous to the harmony and perpetuity of the federal 
 union. 2. Territory acquired by the United States, should, in re- 
 spect to slavery, be received as it is found. If slavery exists therein 
 at the time of the acquisition, it should be left to remain undisturbed 
 by congress. If it does not exist therein at the time of the acquisition, 
 its introduction ought to be prohibited while the territory continues to 
 be governed as such. 3. All legislation by congress in respect to 
 slavery in the territory, ceases to be .operative when the inhabitants are 
 permitted to form a state government; and the admission of a state into 
 the union carries with it, by force of the sovereignty such admission 
 confers, the right to dispose of the whole question of slavery at its dis- 
 cretion, without external interference. 
 
 If by the " external interference " referred to in the first position, is 
 meant external legislative interference with slavery in the states, tho 
 proposition will not be disputed by any one. But if this interference is 
 intended to include all discussion and agitation of the question of 
 slavery, and all attempts, by moral means, to effect the abolition of ' 
 slavery in the states, the position will be extensively controverted. 
 Tho assertion in the second position, that congress, although it has 
 
 
CALHOUN ON SLAVERY. 885 
 
 power to remove a serious evil, ought to leave it as it is found, is equally 
 far from receiving general assent. As to the third proposition, if it 
 goes so far as to deny the power of congress to refuse the admission of 
 a state on the ground that its constitution does not prohibit slavery, 
 this doctrine also, it is believed, is not in accordance with public sen- 
 timent in the free states. The right of a state, after its admission, to 
 establish slavery, is not disputed. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun denied the existence of the power of congress to exclude 
 the south from a free admission into the territories with its slaves. He 
 denied what had been by many assumed, that congress had an absolute 
 right to govern the territories. The clause of the constitution which 
 gives " power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations 
 respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United 
 States," did not, he said, convey such a right : " it conferred no gov- 
 ernmental 2J0wer whatever ; no, not a particle." It only referred to 
 territory as public lands — as property — and gave to congress the right 
 to dispose of it as such, but not to exercise over it the power of govern- 
 ment. Mr. Calhoun thought the best method of settling the slavery 
 question was by non-action — by leaving the territories free and open to 
 the emigration of all the world, and when they became states, to permit 
 them to adopt whatever constitution they pleased. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun considered the interference on the subject dangerous to 
 the union. If the union and our system of government were ever doomed 
 to perish, the historian who should record the events ending in so calami- 
 tous a result, would devote his first chapter to the ordinance of 1787 ; 
 his next to the Missouri compromise ; and the next to the present 
 agitation. Whether there would be another beyond, he knew not. He 
 reviewed and controverted the doctrines of the declaration of independ- 
 ence. The proposition that " all men are created free and equal " he 
 called a " hypothetical truism." Literally, there was not a word of 
 truth in it. This assertion he supported with the singular argument, 
 that " men are not born free. Infants are born. They grow to be 
 men. They were not born free. While infants, they are incapable of 
 freedom ; they are subject to their parents." Nor was it less false that 
 they are born " equal." But in the declaration of independence the 
 word " free " did not occur. Still the expression was erroneous. " All 
 men are not created. Onh^ two, a man and a woman, were created, and 
 one of these was pronounced subordinate to the other. All others have 
 come into the world by being born, and in no sense, as I have shown, 
 either free or equal." This expression, Mr. C. said, had been inserted 
 in the declaration without any necessity. It made no necessary part 
 of our justification in separating ourselves from the parent country 
 
886 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Nor had it any weight in constructing the governments which were to 
 be substituted in the place of the colonial. They were formed from the 
 old materials, and on practical and well established principles, borrowed, 
 for the most part, from our own experience, and that of the country 
 from which we sprang. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun argued, that, instead of liberty and equality being born 
 with men, and instead of all men and all classes being entitled to them, 
 they were high prizes to be won; they were rewards bestowed on men- 
 tal and moral development. The error which he was combating had 
 done more to retard the cause of liberty and civilization, and was doing 
 more at present, than all other causes combined. It was the leading 
 cause which had placed Europe in its present state of anarchy, and 
 which stood in the way of reconstructing good governments. He con- 
 cluded as follows : 
 
 " Nor are we exempt from its disorganizing effects. We now begin 
 to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place 
 in the declaration of our independence. For a long time it lay dor- 
 mant; but in process of time it began to germinate, and produce its 
 poisonous fruits. It had strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson, the 
 author of that document, which caused him to take an utterly false 
 view of the subordinate relation of the black to the wjbite race in the 
 south ; and to hold, in consequence, that the former, though utterly un- 
 qualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both liberty and 
 equality as the latter ; and that to deprive them of it was unjust and 
 immoral. To this error, his proposition to exclude slavery from the 
 territory north-west of the Ohio may bo traced, and to that the ordi- 
 nance of 1787, and through it thG deep and dangerous agitation which 
 now threatens to engulph, and will certainly eugulph, if not speedily 
 settled, our political institutions, and involve the pountry in countless 
 woes." 
 
 On the 6th of July, the Oregon bill being still pending, the president 
 transmitted to congress a message, with a copy of the ratified treaty. On 
 the nth, Mr. Clayton, in the senate, moved that the Oregon bill and 
 amendment be referred to a select committee of eight, four from the 
 north, and four from the south, equally divided also as to their party 
 politics. A modification being suggested by Mr. Bright, of Indiana, 
 so as to include so much of the president's message as related to the 
 new territory of California, New Mexico, &c., recently acquired by 
 treaty with Mexico, and referred to the select committee of eight. The 
 proposition having been accepted by Mr. Clayton, it was adopted, 31 to 
 14. On the 1 8th, Mr. Clayton, from the select committee, reported a 
 bill to establish territorial governments in New Mexico and California. 
 The following is a synopsis of the report : 
 
TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT BILLS. 887 
 
 The committee recommended the passage of the Oregon bill, nearly 
 as it came from the house, and without the senate's proposed amend- 
 ments, simply amending it so as to hold the existing territorial laws of 
 Oregon in force, until after the new government had time to act, and 
 to reenact or repeal them. Oregon was to have a legislative assembly 
 of two houses, elected by the people. 
 
 New Mexico and California were to be organized into separate terri- 
 tories, with governors, judges, secretaries, district attorneys, and mar- 
 shals, appointed by the president and senate of the United States; the 
 constitution and laws of the United States to be extended over them : 
 the governors and judges in California and New Mexico to constitute a 
 legislative council, and to be authorized to pass laws, subject to the re- 
 vision or rejection of congress ; but such council not to legislate re- 
 specting slavery, the establishment of religion, the pledging of the faith 
 of the territory, nor to dispose of the soil. If any question on the sub- 
 ject of slavery should arise, it was to be left to the decision of the ju- 
 diciary of the United States. Courts were to be established, with the 
 right to appeal to the supreme court of the United States. 
 
 Here was a compromise bill, not to divide free and slave territory 
 upon a given line, but proposing equal advantages to slavery. A com- 
 promise line had been proposed and rejected in the committee of eight; 
 and the plan reported was the only one that could be devised, which 
 would secure any approach to unanimity. By the opponents of slavery, 
 the bill was considered as almost certain to secure the preoccupation of 
 the territory to slavery. The taking of the power of legislating for the 
 territory out of the hands of the two hundred and ninety representa- 
 tives of the nation, and conferring it upon some eight or ten persons 
 appointed by a slave-holding president, and forbidden to pass any law 
 respecting slavery, thus leaving the country open to slaveholders ; sub- 
 jecting questions of slavery to the decision of the local judgfc, also ap- 
 pointed by the president ; appeals from their decision to be taken to 
 the supreme court of the United States — a majority of the judges being 
 slaveholders : — all this was regarded as tantamount to the establishment 
 of slavery in those vast territories. 
 
 By the provisional government then existing in Oregon, slavery was 
 prohibited. The present bill provided, that, if the territorial legislature 
 of Oregon should not reaffirm the law of the provisional government 
 prohibiting slavery, within three months after the assembling of the 
 first territorial legislature, that law was to be null and void. By 
 another provision of the bill, all bills passed by the territorial legisla- 
 ture were required to be submitted to congress, and, if not approved, 
 were to be void. As it was not probable that both houses of congress 
 
888 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 would at any time be opposed to the introduction of slavery in tte ter- 
 ritories, this provision was considered as in effect removing the restric- 
 tion upon slavery in that territory. This bill, with some amendments, 
 one of which allowed an appeal from a decision of the state court to the 
 supreme court of the United States, in any case involving the question 
 of personal freedom, passed the senate, on the morning of the 27th of 
 July, after a continuous session of twenty-one hours. The vote was, 
 ayes, 33 ; noes, 22. In the house, the bill, was taken up the next day, 
 and, by a vote of 112 to 97, laid on the table. The house then, in 
 committee of the whole, resumed the consideration of their own bill pro- 
 viding a government for Oregon, which passed that body on the 2d of 
 August, 129 to 71. It contained a provision for extending the ordi- 
 nance of 1787 over the territory ; and another to abolish the veto power 
 of the governor. In the senate, it was amended so as to restore this 
 power to the governor. The section also prohibiting slavery, was 
 amended, by inserting, " Inasmuch as the said territory is north of the 
 parallel of 36 degrees and 30 minutes of north latitude, usually known 
 as the Missouri compromise." As the whole territory of Oregon lies 
 north of the 42d degree, the object of this amendment was to make the 
 record appear that slavery was prohibited in that territory, in accord- 
 ance with the compromise, in order to remove all ground for any future 
 pretext to carry the anti-slavery proviso south of the compromise line. 
 
 These amendments of the senate were all negatived in the house, 
 ayes, 82 ; noes, 121 ; and the bill returned to the senate, where, after a 
 protracted debate, the question on a motion to recede from the amend- 
 ment by which the Missouri compromise had been inserted, was taken, 
 and carried in the affirmative, 29 to 25. The bill was then passed by 
 the same vote, Sunday morning, the 1 3th of August. The session closing 
 the next duy, no bill was passed for the government of the new terri- 
 tories. It was supposed, and not altogether without reason, that the 
 " free soil" movement at the north contributed, in no small degree, to 
 eflfoct the passage of the Oregon bill. 
 
 At the next session (1848-49,) another unsuccessful attempt was made 
 to provide for the government of the newly acquired territory. A bill was 
 introduced into the senate, December II, 1848, by Mr. Douglass, of 
 Illinois, for the admission of California as a state, to include all the ter* 
 ritory acquired by treaty from Mexico. The state was to come into the 
 union on an equal footing with the other states. The laws of the United 
 States were to be extended over the new state, so far as they were not 
 locally inapplicable. Congress reserved the right to form and admit new 
 states from that portion of the territory lying east of the Sierra Nevada, 
 or California mountains, Tho bill also provided for the establishment 
 
TERRITORIAL GOVE-RNMENT BILLS. 889 
 
 of courts ; and gave to the state, until the next apportionment, two 
 representatives in congress. 
 
 Mr. Douglas said he was ready to support the bill of Mr. Clayton, 
 which had been defeated at the last session, and still more so to support 
 a bill carrying out the Missouri compromise as proposed by himself. 
 But if this could not be had, he was in favor of giving law to the people 
 of that country by bringing them at once into the union. Amendments 
 were proposed to this bill, one of which, (by Mr. Davis, of Mississippi,) 
 was to annex New Mexico to Texas, with the view of immediately legal- 
 izing slavery in that part of the acquired territory. This proposition 
 was prompted, probably, by the movement of the people in New Mexico. 
 A convention of the people had been held in October, 1848, and a peti- 
 tion adopted, remonstrating against being annexed to Texas, and praying 
 to be protected against the introduction of slavery into their territory. 
 This petition had been presented by Mr. Benton before the introduction 
 of the bill of Mr. Douglas. Mr. Benton moved the printing of the peti- 
 tion. Mr. Calhoun said he would not object to the printing, but he de- 
 clared the petition to be a disrespectful and an insolent one. These people 
 had been conquered by the very men whom they wished to exclude from 
 that territory ; and this they knew. He claimed it as a constitutional 
 right to go there with his property ; and he protested against being gov- 
 erned by the consideration presented under such circumstances as that 
 under which this petition had been presented. Mr. Benton said that 
 himself and Mr. Clayton had both been charged with the presentation 
 of the petition ; and he thought they were called upon to defend those 
 who had sent so respectful a petition against the charge of insolence. 
 Mr. Rusk, of Texas, claimed, as belonging to Texas, all that part of 
 New Mexico lying east of the Rio Grande : and he protested against 
 establishing over it a distinct and separate government. Mr. Benton's 
 motion to print the petition was warmly opposed ; but it was finally car- 
 ried, 33 to 14; the noes being all from southern senators. 
 
 The bill of Mr. Douglas was silent on the subject of slavery, and also 
 that of boundary, leaving an indefinite portion of New Mexico subject to 
 the claims of Texas, the validity and extent of which were to be left to 
 the decision of the supreme court. The debate was continued till near 
 the close of the session, without effecting the passage of the bill. 
 
 In the house, on the 20th of December, 1848, Mr. Smith, of Indiana, 
 reported a bill to establish the territorial government of Upper California. 
 This bill provided a territorial government of the highest class : A gov- 
 ernor, appointed by the president and senate ; a legislature, composed 
 of a council and house of representatives ; and the necessary courts of 
 justice. It embraced the anti-slavery ordinance of 1787. The bill was 
 
890 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 TUider debate till within a few days of the close of the session. Several 
 motions had been made to strike out the restrictive clause, but without 
 success. 
 
 On the 27 th of February, the question came up on a substitute pre- 
 viously offered by Mr. Preston, of Virginia, proposing to include all the 
 territory ceded by Mexico^ and to erect the same into a state. Mr. Col 
 lins moved as an amendment the anti-slavery proviso, which was adopted, 
 91 to 87. Mr. Preston being asked whether the bill embraced tho 
 country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, declined making any 
 explanations. Mr. Greeley, of New York, moved an additional section, 
 providing that the state to be formed should include the territory east 
 of the Rio Grande, and within certain described boundaries, (being the 
 territory of New Mexico.) 
 
 Mr. Kaufman, of Texas, inquired of the gentleman from New York, 
 whether he wanted to steal land enough from Texas for his Fourierito bill 
 to operate upon — [referring to a bill introduced by Mr. Greeley, proposing 
 to give, on certain conditions, limited quantities of the public lands to 
 actual settlers and cultivators.] Mr. Greeley replied, that it did not 
 become the representative from Texas to talk about laud-stealing ; and 
 proceeded to advocate his amendment. The bill, by leaving the boun- 
 dary undefined, virtually surrendered a large part of New Mexico to the 
 dominion of Texas. 
 
 The object of Mr. Greeley's proposition was to protect the people of 
 New Mexico, who had protested against being subjected to the rule of 
 Texas. If it should form a part of Texas, it would be certain to fall 
 under the dominion of slavery ; if attached to the proposed state, there 
 was at least a strong probability that it would continue free territory. 
 The amendment was rejected : ayes, 59 ; noes, 63. 
 
 Other amendments were offered and withdrawn; and the bill was 
 passed, with the proviso clause, 126 to 87. The bill was sent to the 
 senate, and immediately referred to the committee on territories. Mr. 
 Douglas, the chairman, on the last day of the session, stated that he had 
 been unable to get a meeting of the committee to consider this bill, and 
 moved that the committee be discharged from its farther consideration, 
 which was done. Mr. Douglas then endeavored to bring the house to 
 act upon the subject without a report from the committee ; there being 
 a pressing necessity for giving to the people of California some other 
 government than that to which they were now subject. He therefcro 
 made a motion to postpone prior orders to take up the California bill \ 
 but the motion was negatived. 
 
 After this, the question of territorial government came up again in 
 the shape of an amendment to the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill. 
 
DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR. 891 
 
 The proposition was to authorize the president to hold possession of tho 
 acquired territory, and to employ, for this purpose, if necessary, a part of 
 the army and navy. And, until congress should have an opportunity, at 
 the next session, of providing for the government of the territory, the 
 existing (that is, Mexican) laws should be observed, the civil and judi- 
 cial authorities heretofore exercised, to be vested in persons appointed 
 by the president. No martial law was to be declared, nor military courts 
 established, except ordinary courts martial for the trial of persons 
 belonging to the array or navy. 
 
 This amendment came to the senate from the house, being an amend- 
 ment there made to an amendment to the appropriation bill above men- 
 tioned, which had been sent to the house for concurrence. When the 
 hour of twelve arrived, several senators, considering the session as 
 having expired, declined participating farther in the proceedings. The 
 debate, however, proceeded for several hours, when fears were entertained 
 that the whole appropriation would be lost if the discussion were not 
 speedily closed. Mr. Webster, disposed to disencumber the bill from 
 this California amendment, said he was willing to withdraw his motion 
 to concur in the house amendment, if gentlemen would then move to 
 recede from the senate's own amendment, and let the bill pass as a mere 
 appropriation bill. 
 
 The question then arose, whether it was not necessary first to vote 
 upon the motion to concur — which was debated for some time. Mr. 
 Douglas contended that the motion to concur took the precedence, and 
 renewed that motion. It was decided, however, that the motion to 
 recede had precedence, and that if it prevailed, the bill would be freed 
 from all amendments. The question on receding was then taken, and 
 carried, 38 to 7. So the appropriation bill was passed ; but no govern- 
 ment was provided for California. 
 
 At this session was established a new executive department, styled 
 the "Department of the Interior," or home department, the head officer 
 of which, called secretary of the interior, is also a member of the cabi- 
 net. The increase of business of the other departments had rendered 
 the establishment of a now department necessary. To this new officer 
 were assigned the supervision of the office of commissioner of patents, 
 formerly exercised by the secretary of state; certain duties in relation 
 to the general laud-office, formerly performed by the secretary of the 
 treasury ; supervisory powers relating to the acts of the commissioner 
 of Indian affairs, previously exercised by the secretary of war ; also 
 similar powers in relation to the acts of commissioner of pensions, for- 
 merly exercised by the secretaries of war and the navy. Certain other 
 duties of the heads of the treasury and state departments were devolved 
 upon this new department. 
 
892 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXII. 
 
 INAUfiURATION OF PRESIDENT TAYLOR. CONTEST FOR THE CHOICE OF 
 
 SPEAKER. THE COMPROMISE OF 1850, 
 
 General Zacharv Taylor was inaugurated as president of the 
 United States, the 5th of March, 1849, (the 4th happening that year on 
 Sunday.) The oath of office having been administered by Chief Justice 
 Taney, the president delivered his inaugural address in the presence of 
 a dense crowd of spectators. The address was a brief one, and, as 
 regards the sentiments it expressed, considered unobjectionable. It 
 partook much of the character of the numerous letters he had written 
 previously to his election. He promised to make the constitution his 
 guide in the discharge of his duties ; looking for the interpretation of 
 that instrument to the decisions of the judicial tribunals established by 
 its authority, and following the example of the early presidents, especially 
 of him who was entitled " the Father of his country." He repeated 
 the assurance so frequently expressed before, that his administration 
 " would be devoted to the welfare of the whole country, a.nd not to the 
 support of any particular section, or merely local interest." In the 
 exercise of the appointing power, he would " make honesty, capacity, 
 and fidelity indispensable prerequisites to the disposal of office." He 
 would also favor measures " to secure encouragement and protection 
 to the great interests of agriculture, commerce and manufactures, to 
 improve our rivers and harbors, to provide for the speedy extinguish- 
 ment of the public debt, to enforce a strict accountability on the part 
 of all officers of the government, and the utmost economy in all public 
 expenditures." He also indicated a purpose not to endeavor to exert 
 any personal influence in controlling the action of congress. 
 
 President Taylor selected for his cabinet officers the following : John 
 M. Clayton, of Delaware, secretary of state ; William M. Meredith, of 
 Pennsylvania, secretary of the treasury ; Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, secre- 
 tary of the interior ; George W. Crawford, of Georgia, secretary of war ; 
 William B. Preston, of Virginia, secretary of the navy; Jacob CoUa- 
 mer, of Vermont, postmaster-general; Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, 
 attorney -general. 
 
 The 31st congress commenced its 1st session December 3d, 1849, and 
 continued the same until the 30th of September, 1850, a period of 
 nearly ten months. Much time was spent at the commencement in 
 unsuccessful balloting for speaker. The contest was chiefly between 
 
CONTEST FOR THE CHOICE OF SPEAKER. 893 
 
 Robert C. "Winthrop, whig, speakei of the late congress, and Howell 
 Cobb, of Georgia, democrat. Each received, for several days, on dif- 
 ferent ballots, a plurality of from one to ten votes. The cause of the 
 protracted balloting was the scattering of votes upon other candidates. 
 The " free soil" democrats, unwilling to vote for a speaker so thoroughly 
 pro-slavery as Mr. Cobb, cast their votes for Mr. Wilmot, as did also 
 Mr. Giddings and several other free soil whigs, who considered Mr. 
 Winthrop as having been too favorable toward the friends of slavery, 
 during his speakership, in the appointment of committees. Mr. Win- 
 throp also lost the votes of five southern whigs, Messrs. Toombs, 
 Stephens, and Owen, of Georgia, Cabell, of Florida, and Morton, of 
 Virginia, who refused to vote for Mr. Winthrop without a pledge against 
 the Wilmot proviso. 
 
 After the first three days, the vote for Mr. Winthrop ranged from 100 
 to 103, while that for Mr. Cobb rapidly diminished, being at one time 
 only five votes; the democrats having divided their votes upon other 
 candidates. On one ballot, the highest vote given for a democratic can- 
 didate was forty-eight. On the thirty-second trial, Mr. Brown, of 
 Indiana, was taken up as a democratic candidate, and received 53 votes, 
 being a large plurality of the democratic vote. Mr. Brown's vote 
 rapidly increased, until he received, on the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth 
 ballots, 109 votes; Mr. Winthrop, 100 and 101. Mr. Winthrop, desi- 
 rous of terminating the contest, requested his friends to concentrate 
 their efforts on some other candidate. On the nest ballot, Mr. Brown 
 received 112 votes; the whig vote was much scattered, the highest num- 
 ber given for any one being 26 for Mr. Duer, of New York. 
 
 Mr. Stanly, of North Carolina, moved a joint committee of three 
 from each of the two principal parties to confer relative to the choice of 
 proper officers of the house. During the discussion of this resolution, 
 the fact was elicited, that the high vote given to Mr. Brown had been 
 obtained by a private pledge, in a correspondence with Mr. Wilmot, that 
 he would, if elected speaker, "constitute the committees on the District 
 of Columbia, on territories, and on the judiciary, in such manner as 
 should be satisfactory to him (Mr. Wilmot) and his friends." Mr. 
 Brown then withdrew his name, being unwilling to occupy the chair 
 under circumstances in which his action would be liable to misrepresen- 
 tation. The fortieth ballot was scattered upon not less than thirty can- 
 didates, of whom those receiving the highest number of votes, were 
 Mr. Winthrop, (59,) and Mr. Cobb, (40.) Mr. Boyd, of Kentucky, 
 then became the leading candidate. Messrs. Cobb and Winthrop were 
 subsequently returned to their original positions, each having received, 
 on the jsixty second ballot, 97 votes. In pursuance of a previous agree- 
 
894 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ment, it was now determined to terminate the contest by a plurality 
 vote; and on the next ballot, Mr. Cobb received 102 votes, and Mr, 
 Winthrop 99 ; scattering 20 ; of which Mr. Wilmot received 8. On 
 motion of Mr. Stanly, Mr. Cobb was declared duly elected. 
 
 On Monday, the 24th, the message of President Taylor was commu- 
 nieated to both houses. The expenses of the Mexican war and treaty 
 had occasioned a deficit in the treasury ; to cover which, he recommended 
 a resort to loans. He also recommended a revision of the tariff with a 
 view to the augmentation of the revenue. He did not doubt the right 
 or duty of congress to encourage domestic industry, the source of 
 national as well as individual prosperity. He recommended the adop- 
 tion of a system of specific duties, as best adapted to this object, as well 
 as the augmentation of the revenue, and the prevention of frauds. He 
 submitted to the wisdom of congress the question of the continuance of 
 the sub-treasury system. If continued, it needed important modifica- 
 tions. 
 
 He referred to the new territories. The people of California, impelled 
 by the necessities of their political condition, were forming a constitu- 
 tion and state government, and would probably soon apply for admis- 
 sion as a state. If their constitution should be conformable to the con- 
 stitution of the United States, he recommended the admission. The 
 people of New Mexico, also, it was believed, would at an early period 
 apply for admission ; and he recommended that congress should await 
 the action of the people themselves in forming constitutions preparatory 
 to the admission of California and New Mexico. This, he believed, 
 would avoid all causes of uneasiness, and preserve confidence and kind 
 feeling. Congress should abstain from the introduction of those excit- 
 ing topics of a sectional character which had produced painful appre- 
 hensions in the public mind. Various other subjects were briefly and 
 properly noticed in the message. 
 
 This session of congress was preeminently distinguished for the char- 
 acter of its legislation. Its principal business related to the territorial 
 question, the admission of California, and other matters relating to or 
 involving the question of slavery, resulting in another and a most sin- 
 gular compromise. 
 
 Various propositions were originated in both houses, in relation to the 
 governnien.t of the acquired territory. In the senate, Mr. Foote, of 
 "Mississippi, introduced a bill for organizing territorial governments, in 
 California, Deseret, and New Mexico; and to enable the people of 
 Jacinto, Texas consenting, to form a state constitution and state govern- 
 ment, and for admitting each state into the union, on an equal footing 
 with the original states A memorial was received from the provisional 
 
CLAV S COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONa. 895 
 
 gOYernment of the people of Deseret, accompanied by a constitution and 
 form of state government, asking admission as a state, and if that 
 request should be denied, then to have a territorial government. 
 
 On the •29th of January, 1 850, Mr Clay submitted a series of reso- 
 lutions, proposing an amicable arrangement of the whole slavery contro- 
 versy. The substance of these resolutions, eight in number, was as 
 follows : 
 
 1. California, with suitable boundaries, ought to be admitted as a 
 state without restriction in respect to slavery. 
 
 2. As slavery was not likely to be introduced into any of the territory 
 acquired from Mexico, appropriate governments ought to be established 
 in all the territory not assigned to the state of California, without 
 restriction as to slavery. 
 
 3. The western boundary of Texas should be fixed so as not to include 
 any portion of New Mexico. 
 
 4. The United States proposed to pay the debt of Texas, contracted 
 prior to annexation, and for which the duties on imports were pledged, 
 not exceeding $ , on condition that the duties be thereafter pay- 
 able to the United States, and that Texas relinquish all claim to any 
 part of New Mexico. 
 
 5. It was inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, 
 whilst it exists in the state of Maryland, without consent of the people 
 of that state and of the District, and without just compensation of the 
 owners of the slaves. 
 
 6. It was expedient to prohibit the slave trade within the District. 
 
 7. More eflfectual provision ought to be made for the restitution of 
 fugitive slaves. 
 
 8. Congress had no power to prohibit the trade in slaves between the 
 elaveholding states. 
 
 Mr. Rusk, of Texas, was unwilling that half of that state should be 
 taken to make a peace-oiFering to the spirit of encroachment on the con- 
 stitutional rights of one-half of the union. 
 
 Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, brought a long array of objections against 
 the resolutions. They only declared it inexpedient to abolish slavery in 
 the district, thus implying that congress had the power, which he denied. 
 They asserted that slavery did not now exist in the acquired territory ; 
 whereas, he thought the acquisition carried with it the constitution and 
 all its guaranties to that territory, admitting into it the slaveholder with 
 bis slaves. Whether slav^ery was or was not likely to be carried thither, 
 was a proposition too uncertain to be positively affirmed. They drew 
 into question the title of Texas to a part of her territory. They assumed 
 state debts, a principle to which he was opposed. If Texan soil was to 
 
896 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 be bought, let it be paid for in money. To the abolition of the slave 
 trade in the district, he did not object, provided it was done delicately 
 and judiciously, and was not a concession to menaces or demands of fac- 
 tionists or fanatics. Provisions for restoring fugitives, and for establish- 
 ing territorial governments without restriction as to slavery, he approved. 
 If all other questions relating to slavery could be satisfactorily adjusted, 
 all California above 36 degrees and 30 minutes might be admitted into 
 the union, provided a new state, south of that line, could be laid off to 
 balance it. 
 
 The resolutions of Mr. Clay were warmly opposed by southern sena- 
 tors, as making no concession to the south — as being no compromise at 
 all. They objected to the admission of California, embracing all our 
 possessions on the Pacific coast, with a provision prohibiting slavery. 
 The declaration that slavery did not exist in New Mexico and Deseret, 
 precluded its admission there, just as eifectually as if it were positively 
 affirmed that slavery should be prohibited. Scarcely a single resolution 
 was satisfactory to southern senators. 
 
 Mr. Benton said, it had been affirmed and denied that slavery had 
 been abolished in Mexico. He affirmed its abolition, and read copious 
 extracts from the laws and constitution of Mexico, in proof of the affir- 
 mation. Slavery having been abolished by Mexican law before we 
 acquired the countries, the Wilmot proviso in relation to these countries 
 was a thing of nothing — an empty provision. He said also, that African 
 slavery never had existed in Mexico in the form in which it existed in 
 the states of this union ; and that, if the Mexican law was now in force 
 in New Mexico and California, no slaveholder from the union would 
 carry a slave thither, except to set him free. The policy of this country 
 was to discourage emancipation ; that of Mexico had been to promote it. 
 This was shown by numerous quotations of the laws of Mexico. Slavery 
 was defined by Spanish law to be " the condition of a man who is the 
 property of another against natural right." Therefore, not being 
 derived from nature, or divine law, but existing only by positive enact- 
 ment, it had no countenance from Spanish law. He affirmed these three 
 points : 1. Slavery was abolished in California and New Mexico before 
 we got them. 2. Even if not abolished, no person would carry a slave 
 to those countries to be held under such law. 3. Slavery could not 
 exist there, except by positive law yet to be passed. According to this 
 exposition, the proviso would have no more efi'ect there than a piece of 
 blank paper pasted on the statute book. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun said the union was in danger. The cause of this danger 
 was the discontent at the south. And what was the cause of this dis- 
 content ? It was found in the belief which prevailed among them that' 
 
COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS CALHOUN. 897 
 
 tHey could not, consistently witli honor and safety, remain in the Union. 
 And what had caused this belief ? One of the causes was the long-con- 
 tinued agitation of the slave question at the north, and the many aggres- 
 sions they had made on the rights of the south. But the primary cause 
 was in the fact, that the equilibrium between the two sections at the 
 time of the adoption of the constitution had been destroyed. The first 
 of the series of acts by which this had been done, was the ordinance of 
 1787, by which the south had been excluded from all the north-western 
 region. The next was the Missouri compromise, excluding them from 
 all the Louisiana territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, except the 
 state of Missouri; in all 1,238,025 square miles, leaving to the south 
 the southern portion of the original Louisiana territory, with Florida; 
 to which had since been added the territory acquired with Texas ; making 
 in all but 609,023 miles. And now the north was endeavoring to appro- 
 priate to herself the territory recently acquired from Mexico, adding 
 526,078 miles to the territory from which the south was if possible to 
 be excluded. Another cause of the destruction of this equilibrium was 
 our system of revenue, (the tariff,) the duties falling mainly upoy the 
 southern portion of the Union, as being the greatest exporting states, 
 while more than a due proportion of the revenue had been disbursed at 
 the north. 
 
 But, said Mr. Calhoun, while these measures were destroying the 
 equilibrium between the two sections, the action of the government was 
 leading to a radical change in its character. It was maintained, that 
 the government itself had the right to decide, in the last resort, as to the 
 extent of its powers, and to resort to force to maintain the power it claimed. 
 [He doubtless had in his mind the action of the general government in 
 1832, in providing for enforcing the collection of the revenue in South 
 Carolina, while the authorities of that state claimed the right to resist.] 
 The doctrines of Gen. Jackson's proclamation, subsequently asserted and 
 maintained by Mr. Madison, the leading framer and expounder of the 
 constitution, were the doctrines which, if carried out, would change the 
 character of the government, from a federal republic, as it came from the 
 hands of its framers, into a great national consolidated democracy. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun also spoke of the anti-slavery agitation, which, if not 
 arrested, would destroy the Union ; and he passed a censure upon 
 congress for receiving abolition petitions. Had congress in the begin- 
 ning adopted the course which he had advocated, which was to refuse to 
 take jurisdiction, by the united voice of all the parties, the agitation would 
 have been prevented. He charged the north with false professions of 
 devotion to the Union, and with having violated the constitution. Acts 
 had been passed in northern states to set aside and annul the clause of 
 67 
 
898 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the constitution whicli provides for delivering up fugitive slaves. The 
 agitation of the slavery question, with the avowed purpose of abolishing 
 slavery in the states, was another violation of the constitution. And 
 during the fifteen years of this agitation, in not a single instance had 
 the people of the north denounced these agitators. How then could 
 their professions of devotion to the Union be sincere ? 
 
 Mr. C. disapproved both the plan of Mr. Clay and that of president 
 Taylor, as incapable of saving the Union. He would pass by the former 
 without remark, as Mr. Clay had been replied to by several senators. 
 The executive plan could not save the Union, because it could not satisfy 
 the south that it could safely or honorably remain in the Union. It was 
 a modification of the Wilmot proviso, proposing to effect the same 
 object, the exclusion of the south from the new territory. The executive 
 proviso was more objectionable than the Wilmot. Both infiicted a 
 dangerous wound upon the constitution, by depriving the southern states 
 of equal rights, as joint partners, in these territories ; but the former 
 inflicted others equally great. It claimed for the inhabitants the right 
 to legislate for the territories, which belonged to congress. The 
 assumption of this right was utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, and 
 without example. Under this assumed right, the people of California 
 had formed a constitution and a state government, and appointed sena- 
 tors and representatives. If the people, as adventurers, had conquered 
 the territory and established their independence, the sovereignty of the 
 country would have been vested in them. In that case, they would have 
 had the right to form a state government ; and afterward they might 
 have applied to congress for admission into the Union. ,But the United 
 States had conquered and acquired California; therefore to them 
 belonged the sovereignty, and the powers of government over the terri- 
 tory, Michigan was the first case of departure from the uniform rule 
 of acting. Hers, however, was a slight departure from established 
 usage. The ordinance of 1787 secured to her the right of becoming a 
 state when she should have 60,000 inhabitants. Congress delayed 
 taking the census.. The people became impatient ; and after her popu- 
 lation had increased to twice that number, they formed a constitution 
 without waiting for the taking of the census ; and congress waived the 
 omission, as there was no doubt of the requisite number of inhabitants. 
 In other cases there had existed territorial governments. 
 
 It will be readily inferred from these views of Mr. Calhoun, that he 
 was in favor of placing California and other parts of the territory in the 
 territorial condition, under a government established by congress, 
 Jbefore their admission as states. 
 
 Having shown how the Union could not be saved, he then proceeded 
 
COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS WEBSTER. bUy 
 
 to answer the question how it could be saved. There was but one way 
 certain. Justice must be done to the south, by a full and final settle- 
 ment of all the questions at issue. The north must concede to the south 
 an equal right to the acquired territory, and fulfill the stipulations re- 
 specting fugitive slaves; must cease to agitate the slave question, and 
 join in an amendment of the constitution, restoring to the south the 
 power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between 
 the two sections had been destroyed by the action of the government. 
 
 Mr. Webster, on the 7th of March, spoke at length on the resolu- 
 tions of Mr. Clay, and in reply to Mr. Calhoun, In the course of his 
 history of the slave question in this country, he remarked that a change 
 had taken place since the time of the adoption of the constitution. 
 Both sections then held slavery to be equally an evil, moral and politi- 
 cal. It was inhuman and cruel ; it weakened the social fabric, and ren- 
 dered labor less productive. The eminent men of the south then held 
 it to be an evil, a blight, a scourge, and a curse. The framers of the 
 constitution, in considering how to deal with it, concluded that it could 
 not be continued if the importation of slaves should cease. The prohi- 
 bition of the importation after twenty years was proposed ; a term which 
 some southern gentlemen;, Mr. Madison, for one, thought too long. 
 The word " slaves " was not allowed in the constitution ; Mr. Madison 
 was opposed to it ; he did not wish to see it recognized in that instru- 
 ment, that there could be property in men. The ordinance of 1*787 also 
 received the unanimous support of the south ; a measure which Mr. 
 Calhoun had said was the first in a series of measures which had enfee- 
 bled that section. 
 
 Soon after this the age of cotton came. The south wanted land for 
 its cultivation. Mr. Calhoun had observed that there had always been 
 a majority in favor of the north. If so, the north had acted very libe- 
 rally or very weakly ; for they had seldom exercised their power. The 
 truth was, the general lead in politics for three-fourths of the time had been 
 southern lead. In 1802, a great cotton region, now embracing all Ala- 
 bama, had been obtained from Georgia by the general government. In 
 1803, Louisiana was purchased, out of which several large slaveholding 
 states had been formed. In 1819, Florida was ceded, which also had 
 come in as slave territory. And lastly, Texas — great, vast, illimitable 
 Texas, had been admitted as a slave state. In this, the senator himself, 
 as secretary of state, and the late secretary of the treasury, then sena- 
 tor, had taken the lead. They had done their work thoroughly ; having 
 procured a stipulation for four new states to be formed out of that state ; 
 and all south of the line of 36" 30' might be admitted with slavery. 
 Even New England had aided in this measure. Three-fourths of liberty- 
 
900 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 loving Coimecticut in the other house, and one-half in this, had sup- 
 ported it. And it had one vote from each of the states of Massachusetts 
 and Maine. 
 
 A part of the remainder of Mr. Webster's speech has been highly dis- 
 approved by some of his former friends at the north, as pro-slavery, and 
 inconsistent with his sentiments as previously expressed on the subject. 
 Mr. Webster attributed any supposed discrepancy between his present 
 and former sentiments to a change in the state of the question. He had 
 in 1836 and 1837 publicly expressed himself warmly against the admis- 
 sion of Texas and the extension of slavery. He had nothing to add to, 
 or take back from those sentiments. In 1847, he made a speech at 
 a whig state convention at Springfield, Massachusetts, in which he said : 
 
 " We hear much just now of a panacea for the dangers and evils of 
 slavery and slave annexation, which they call the ' Wilmot proviso.' 
 This 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 this hall who holds to it more firmly than 
 I do, "nor one who adheres to it more than another. 
 
 " I feel some little interest in this matter, sir. Did not I commit 
 myself in 1838 to the whole doctrine, fully, entirely? And I must be 
 permitted to say, that I cannot quite consent that more recent discov- 
 erers should 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 last, and every occasion which offers, to 
 oppose the extension of the slave power." 
 
 Mr. Webster said he had repeatedly expressed the determination to 
 vote for no acquisition, or cession, or annexation, believing we had ter- 
 ritory enough. But Texas was now in with all her territories, as a slave 
 state, with a pledge that, if divided into many states, those south of 
 36° 30' might come in as slave states ; and he, for one, meant to fulfill 
 the obligation. As to California and New Mexico, he held that slavery 
 ■s^as effectually excluded from those territories by a law even superior to 
 that which admits and sanctions it in Texas — he meant the law of 
 nature. The physical geography of the country would forever exclude 
 African slavery there ; and it needed not the application of a proviso. 
 If the question was now before the senate, he would not vote to add a 
 prohibition — to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor reenact the will of 
 God. If they were making a government for New Mexico, and a Wil- 
 mot proviso were proposed, he. would treat it as Mr. Polk had treated it 
 in the Oregon bill. Mr. Polk was opposed to it ; but some government 
 was necessary, and he signed the bill, knowing that the proviso was 
 entirely nugatory. 
 
COMPROMISE EESOLUTIONS WEBSTER. 901 
 
 Both the north and the south had grievances. The south justly com- 
 plained that individuals and legislatures of the north refused to perform 
 their constitutional duties in regard to returning fugitive slaves. Mem- 
 bers of northern legislatures were bound by oath to support the consti- 
 tution of the United States ; and the clause requiring the delivery of 
 fugitive slaves was as binding as any other. Complaints had also been 
 made against certain resolutions emanating from legislatures at the north 
 on the subject of slavery in the district, and sometimes even in regard 
 to its abolition in the states. Abolition societies were another subject 
 of complaint. These societies had done nothing useful ; but they had 
 produced mischief by their interference with the south. He referred to 
 the debate in the Virginia legislature in 1832, when the subject of 
 gradual abolition was freely discussed. But since the agitation of this 
 question, the bonds of the slave had been more firmly riveted. Again, 
 the violence of the press was complained of. But wherever the freedom 
 of the press existed, there always would be foolish and violent para- 
 graphs, as there were foolish and violent speeches in both houses of con- 
 gress. He thought, however, the north had cause for the same com- 
 plaint of the south. But of these grievances of the south, one only 
 was within the redress of the government ; that was the want of proper 
 regard to the constitutional injunction for the delivery of fugitive slaves. 
 
 The north complained of the south, that, when the former, in adopt- 
 ing the constitution, recognized the right of representation of the 
 slaves, it was under a state of sentiment different from that which now 
 existed. It was generally hoped and believed, that the institution would 
 be gradually extinguished ; instead of which, it was now to be cherished, 
 and preserved, and extended ; and for this purpose, the south was con- 
 stantly demanding new territory. A southern senator had said, that the 
 condition of the slaves was preferable to that of the laboring population 
 of the north. Said Mr. Webster : " Who are the north ? Five-sixths 
 of the whole property of the north is in the hands of laborers, who cul- 
 tivate their own farms, educate their children, and provide the means 
 of independence. Those who were not freeholders, earned wages, which, 
 as they accumulated, were turned into capital. ♦ 
 
 Another grievance at the north was, that their free colored citizens 
 employed on vessels arriving at southern ports, were taken on shore by 
 the municipal authority, and imprisoned till the vessel was ready to sail. 
 This was inconvenient in practice ; and was deemed unjustifiable, oppres- 
 sive, and unconstitutional. It was a great grievance. So far as these 
 grievances had their foundation in matters of law, they could and ought 
 to be redressed ; and so far as they rested in matters of opinion, in 
 mutual crimination and recrimination, we could only endeavor to allay 
 
902 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the agitation, and cultivate a better feeling between the south and the 
 north. 
 
 Mr. Webster expressed great pain at hearing secession spoken of as 
 a possible event. Said he : " Secession ! Peaceable secession ! Sir, 
 your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. Who is so 
 foolish — I beg every body's pardon — as to expect to see any such thing ? 
 There could be no such thing as peaceable secession — a concurrent agree- 
 ment of the members of this gi-eat republic to separate ! Where is the 
 line to be drawn ? What states are to secede ? W^here is the flag of 
 the republic to remain ? What is to become of the army ? — of the 
 navy ? — of the public lands ? How is each of the states to defend 
 itself? * * * To break up this great government! to dismember 
 this great country ! to astonish Europe with an act of folly, such as 
 Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any government ! No, 
 sir ! no, sir ! There will be no secession. Gentlemen are not serious 
 when they talk of secession." 
 
 In regard to Texas, he said, if she should please to cede to the United 
 States any portion of her territory adjacent to New Mexico, north of 
 34 degrees, to be formed into a free state, for a fair equivalent in money, 
 or in the payment of her debt, he would concur in the measure. He 
 was willing also to appropriate the proceeds of the public lauds to defray 
 the expense of promoting the colonization of free colored persons in any 
 part of the world, if the south W(5uld propose such a scheme. 
 
 On the 13th of February, 1850, the president transmitted to con- 
 gress, by message, a copy of the constitution of California. Mr. Doug- 
 las moved that the message and accompanying documents be referred to 
 the committee on territories. Mr. Foote moved their reference to a 
 special committee of thirteen, " whose duty it should be to consider 
 them, together with the various other propositions before the senate on 
 the same subject, in connection with the question of domestic slavery, 
 and to report a plan for the definitive settlement of the present unhappy 
 controversy, and rescue from impending perils the sacred union itself." 
 
 Mr. Clay thought it improper to throw all these subjects before one 
 committee to be acted on together. He wished the question of the ad- 
 mission of Cjilifornia kept separate and distinct. Three or four mem- 
 bers of congress had come all the way from the Pacific, with a constitu- 
 tion of a state asking admission into the union ; and it was not right 
 to subject them to the delay which would result from the combination 
 of all these subjects. After some discussion, Mr. Benton, on the 14th, 
 moved to amend Mr. Douglas' motion, by adding, " with instructions 
 to report a biil for the admission of the state of California, unconnected 
 with any other subject." 
 
BELL S COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS. ^08 
 
 Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, was opposed to the admission of 
 California as a state, organized, as she had been, without the previous 
 authority of congress. Other new states had first been organized as terri- 
 tories.* A few other territories, he admitted, had moved in the matter 
 of their admission, and formed state constitutions, without authority 
 from congress ; but the cases were different. He was inclined io adhere 
 to established precedents. 
 
 Mr. Hale said, as regarded one step in the progress of this question, 
 the senate was not without precedents. It might produce a smile to 
 mention them : they were " Texas " and " Oregon." They went to 
 gether through the presidential election like the Siamese twins. When 
 these questions came into congress to be settled, the two loving sisters 
 had to be separated ; and Oregon had to wait in the cold latitude of 
 54" 40', until Texas had been disposed of. He was for first taking 
 care of California by herself, and giving her the entertainment to which 
 she was entitled ; then they could turn their attention to New Mexico, 
 and dispose of her ; then to Deseret ; and then to San Jacinto, because 
 this came next in order. 
 
 Mr. Seward was in favor of the admission of California, disconnected 
 from all other questions; and, in a speech of great length, expressed 
 his views upon the several topics embraced in the debate, as well as 
 upon the question of slavery itself. Copious extracts from the speech 
 will constitute a material part of the next chapter. 
 
 Among the numerous propositions to dispose of the territorial and 
 slavery questions, in both houses, most of which we can not notice, was 
 a series of resolutions, nine in number, offered in the senate, on the 
 28th of February, by Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, providing for the future 
 division of Texas, and the admission of the different portions as states. 
 Also, by consent of Texas, that portion of lands claimed by Texas, lying 
 west of the Colorado, and north of the 42d degree of latitude, was to 
 
 be ceded to the United States for a sum not exceeding millions 
 
 of dollars. California was to be admitted as a state ; but in future, the 
 formation of state constitutions by the inhabitants of the territories 
 was to be regulated by law ; and the inhabitants were to have power to 
 settle and adjust all questions of internal state policy, (including, of 
 course, the question of slavery.) The committee on territories to be 
 instructed to bring in a bill in conformity with the spirit of the reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 On the 1 Yth of April, pursuant to a proposition of Mr. Foote, pre- 
 viously made, a select committee of thirteen, (Mr. Clay chairman,) was 
 elected by the senate, to whom were to be referred the compromise reso- 
 lutions of Mr. Bell, in regard to the slave, California, and territorial 
 
904 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 questions. Seven of the committee were from slave states. On the 
 8th of May, the committee brought in a report. The views and recom- 
 mendations which it contained, were recapitulated as follows : 
 
 1. The admission of any new state or states formed out of Texas, to 
 be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be re- 
 ceived into the Union, when it will be the duty of congress fairly and 
 faithfully to execute the compact with Texas, by admitting such new 
 state or states. 
 
 2. Tlic admission, forthwith, of California into the Union, with the 
 boundaries which she has proposed. 
 
 3. The establishment of territorial governments, without the Wilmot 
 proviso, for New Mexico and Utah, embracing all the territory re- 
 cently acquired by the United States from Mexico not contained in the 
 boundaries of Califoniia. 
 
 4. The combination of these two last mentioned measures in the same 
 bill. 
 
 5. The establishment of the western and northern boundary of Texas, 
 and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with a grant 
 to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent ; and the section for that purpose to 
 be incorporated in the bill admitting California, and establishing territo- 
 rial governments for Utah and New Mexico. 
 
 6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the prompt delivery of 
 fugitive slaves escaping into the free states. 
 
 7. Slavery not to be abolished in the District of Columbia, but the 
 slave trade therein to be prohibited under a heavy penalty. 
 
 The object of grouping together so many different subjects in the 
 same report, and the embracing of three — the first three above men- 
 tioned — in one bill, was avowedly intended to compel those in favor of 
 admitting California as a free state, to vote for the establishment of the 
 territorial government without the proviso. To make the adinission 
 of a state — a measure to which, of itself, there was no objection — depend 
 upon the adoption of others whose success, upon their own merits, is 
 doubtful, is a proposition which, in the abstract, would find few ad- 
 vocates. 
 
 The debate on the compromise bill continued in the senate until the 
 last day of July, having been, in the mean time, trimmed down by 
 amendments, until only a small portion of it remained. From the at- 
 tempt to carry through so many measures in one bill, the bill had ob- 
 tained the name of " the omnibus." The other parts of the bill hav- 
 ing been successively di'oppcd, it passed the senate only as " a bill to 
 provide for the territoral government of Utah." It was ordered to a 
 third reading, by a vote of 32 to 18, and subsequently passed. It was 
 
TEXAS BOUNDARY BENTON. 905 
 
 sent the next day to the house, where its announcement was received 
 with much merriment ; insomuch that the interposition of the speaker 
 became necessary to restore order. The dismemberment of the bill 
 was humorously called " upsetting the omnibus." 
 
 Subsequently, however, the other portions of the bill were passed 
 in separate bills. California was admitted; a territorial government 
 bill for New Mexico was passed ; and a bill establishing the boundary 
 of Texas. By the oflEer of $10,000,000, Texas was induced to relinquish 
 her claims to New Mexico. The bill also to abolish the slave trade in 
 the District of Columbia, and' the fugitive slave law, were passed, and 
 became laws. 
 
 Senators Benton and Seward were supposed to have contributed much 
 to the defeat of the committee's bill. Mr. Benton exposed the injustice 
 not to say fraud, of the committee, which seems to have been covered 
 in that part of the bill which proposed to settle the boundary of Texas. 
 On the 1 5th of July, he moved an amendment to that part of the bill, 
 greatly reducing the territory assigned to Texas by the committee. 
 He contended that the committee gave Texas some 70,000 square miles 
 of the territory of New Mexico. He charged upon the committee a 
 design to cede apart of New Mexico to Texas, instead of ascertaining 
 the true line between them ; and he reviewed their report to sustain 
 the charge. He also referred to a new map of the state, the accuracy 
 of which had been certified by both the senators of that state. Rusk and 
 Houston, and the two representatives, Kaufman and Pilsbury, besides 
 several state officers, one of whom was the secretary of state. The 
 map was compiled in 1848, the very date of the treaty with Mexico. 
 Holding up the map, he said : " Look at it — it is large enough to be 
 seen across the chamber, and shows objects with sufficient distinctness 
 to be observed by all. Its western limit is the longitude of 102 ! the 
 very limit I propose, as if I had made the map myself to suit my bill. 
 * * * Behold it! There is 102 cutting the long blank 
 space marked El Llano Estacado, the staked plain ; and here are all 
 the breaks in the eastern declivity of that long, broad, and sterile table 
 land, from which issue the thousand little streams which, taking their 
 course toward the rising sun, and gathering themselves into large chan- 
 nels, give birth to all the beautiful rivers of Texas — the Colorado, the 
 Brazos, the Nueces, and the southern forks of the Red river. There 
 they all are ! Everything that is Texan by nature or by law ! Rivers, 
 towns, counties, all to the east of 102, and all separated from New 
 Mexico by the high desert plain which marks the structure of the 
 country and divides the systems of rivers and of lands from each 
 other." 
 
906 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ' Mr. B. denounced, in strong terms, the report of the committee, 
 because in it they express no opinion at all. Adopting neither the opin- 
 ion of those who think the state bounded by the Nueces, nor that of those 
 who think it extends to the Rio Grande, without any regard to what is 
 true or legitimate, they cut New Mexico in two, and give one-half of it 
 to Texas. " Cutting instead of untying the Gordian knot, they take a 
 new course across the Puercos, beginning half way up the Del Norte, cut 
 New Mexico in two just below the hips, giving the lower half to Texas, 
 leaving New Mexico to stump it about as best she can without feet or 
 legs. * * * They give 70,000 square miles to Texas, and offer her 
 $10,000,000 to accept it ! " 
 
 According to the committee's report, 70,000 square miles were to be 
 taken from New Mexico, and added to Texas; and 75,000 were to be 
 ceded by Texas to the United States. The territory given to Texas 
 was said to be far more valuable than that which the United States were 
 to receive. Mr. Benton objected to giving two equivalents — an equiva- 
 lent in land and another in money — for what we received of Texas. He 
 objected to accepting, a cession of New Mexico from Texas, first, because 
 the United States herself had a claim to it, and had actual possession ; 
 and secondly, because the acceptance of such a cession would admit the 
 title of Texas to all New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, and so raise 
 questions to disturb both New Mexico and the United States ; and thirdly, 
 because we offered more valuable territory than we were to receive, and 
 then were to pay the value of what we received, into the bargain, and 
 which was ours before. 
 
 Mr. Rusk, in reply to Mr. Benton, admitted the map to be correct, 
 but denied that it limited Texas to the boundaries stated by Mr. B. 
 He said he was willing to settle the controversy, by an act declaring the 
 boundaries of Texas as to be laid down on this map, certified by himself 
 and Gen. Houston, and others : and he proceeded to advocate the right 
 of Texas to all she claimed. 
 
 Mr. Clay concurred with Mr. Rusk in relation to the true boundary, 
 and referred to authorities in support of the claims of Texas, and of the 
 bill reported by the committee. He read from Mr. Benton's speech the 
 following remai'k, to which he took strong exceptions : " The bill is 
 caught, Jlagrante delicto — taken in the fact — seized by the throat and 
 held up to public view — [and here Mr. B. is represented by the reporter 
 as grappling the bill and holding it up] — in the very act of perpetrating 
 its crime, in the very act of auctioneering for votes to pass itself.^'' Mr. 
 Clay thought such language inadmissible upon the floor of the senate. 
 *' Auctioneering for votes to carry the bill ! " Who auctioneered ? the 
 bill, or the senate, or the committee ? If the senator meant that it was 
 
TEXAS BOUNDARY BENTON. 90Y 
 
 the intention of tlie bill to auctioneer for votes to carry it, he (Mr. C.) 
 repelled the charge as a groundless imputation. It might be said of 
 every appropriation of money that the object was to bribe, to auctioneer 
 for votes, or to purchase votes to carry the appropriation. 
 
 Mr. Clay then requested the secretary to read a bill introduced by Mr. 
 Benton himself in January, at the same session, proposing to Texas the 
 reduction of her boundaries, and the cession of her extensive territory, 
 for a consideration to be paid her by the United States. In this bill, 
 said Mr. C, was the very same language employed by the committee : 
 "A cession," "a ceding;" for which it was proposed to give Texas 
 $15,000,000. The proposition made by the senator from Missouri, was 
 therefore liable to the same imputation of being intended to auctioneer 
 for votes. He considered it a degi-adation to the body to suppose that 
 members could be influenced by an offer of money in the shape of an 
 appropriation for a legitimate purpose. 
 
 Mr. Benton, in reply, said Mr. Clay was mistaken in his geography. 
 The United States had not acquired New Mexico by the name of New 
 Mexico. Our acquisitions were not limited to New Mexico, but embraced 
 all the territory belonging to Mexico on this side of the Rio Grande. 
 "VVe took the whole ; and this part of Chihuahua was included in the state 
 of Chihuahua as ceded to the United States, as a cession of a part of 
 what was the state of Chihuahua and not a cession of what was a part of 
 the state of Texas. And what was it, he asked, that lay between New 
 Mexico and Texas ? It was Tamaulipas and Coahuila. He said, Mr. 
 C. had occupied himself with the southern line, and had shown the 
 northern boundary, and the southern boundary of Chihuahua down to 
 Durango ; but he had said not a word about the eastern boundary, which, 
 after all, was the only line in controversy. He denied that his bill and 
 that of the committee were identical, as Mr. Clay had stated. The latter 
 provided for a mutual cession of territory. The United States ceded to 
 Texas all south of the committee's line, and Texas ceded all north of it 
 to the United States. But his (Mr. B.'s) bill made no cession to Texas 
 at aU — not an inch of anything. And in his bill, Texas ceded only such 
 territory as belonged to her, exterior to her boundaries, and nothing 
 more. It neither made a cession of any part of New Mexico to Texas, 
 nor accepted a cession of any part of New Mexico from Texas. 
 
 Mr. Benton charged Mr. Clay with unfairness in his quotation from 
 his (Mr. B.'s) remarks in relation to " auctioneering for votes " to pass 
 the compromise bill. He had omitted both what preceded and what fol- 
 lowed the words quoted, in respect to which Mr. B. said, if it had been 
 read, it would not have inculpated senators, but would have shown that 
 the imputation was against the bill and not against the senators. And 
 he challenged Mr. Clay to call him to order. 
 
908 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Clay put in writing the offensive words, and sent them to the 
 chair. Mr. Benton demanded that the previous and concluding parts 
 of the paragraph also be read. He said : 
 
 " The words are expressly confined to the bill and its effect ; and I 
 have a right to speak of a measure in whatever terms I please. I have 
 nothing to do with the committee. And if it is to be a question between 
 gentlemen of a committee and a member who is speaking every time 
 that a senator characterizes a measure by its effects, and attributes to it 
 injurious or injudicious effects, if that is to be made a question among 
 men, then there is an end of all freedom of debate upon any measure. I 
 knew perfectly well what I said. I knew that I had nothing to do with 
 the committee, but I knew that I had a right to speak of the effect of 
 this bill, and I took this bill, sir, not as it concerned Texas, but as it 
 concerned other measures which were bound up in the same bill with 
 Texas, and whose fate was to depend upon the fate of Texas, and which 
 itself was to depend upon money. I saw a shocking enormity resulting 
 from the committee's omnibus bill, and was determined to expose it — 
 and have done it. 
 
 " The senator from Kentucky has read the bill which I introduced, 
 proposing fifteen millions of dollars to Texas. Sir, is that bill mixed up 
 with any other measure ? Was anything tacked to that bill ? And was 
 any consequence to result to any measure in the world, except to Texas 
 herself, from the votes which would be given upon that bill ? Sir, we 
 know that in voting upon that bill by itself, senators from Texas would 
 vote, and ought to vote according to what was the interest of their state, 
 and would hurt no other measure. Senators from Texas would vote, and 
 ought to vote, for what they might think would be right and proper and 
 necessary to give to Texas, and in so doing it would not affect California, 
 New Mexico, or Utah. Mine was a bill by itself, involving no other 
 measures ; but here is a conglomerate bill, in which the life of California 
 is concerned, on which her admission as a state into this Union is made 
 dependent on what happens to Texas. * * * 
 
 " Hence, Mr. President — and here is the point of all — I say that, in 
 a measure so large as one admitting a state into the Union, and giving a 
 government to territories, these great questions are to be left out 
 of view, and made merely subordinate to another question, and that 
 question is to be the sum of money which is to be voted at the last mo- 
 ment to another and a different state. There lies the pinch ; there is 
 the point of my remarks yesterday- — the nerves into which my knife 
 entered yesterday, and which the senator from Kentucky so carefully 
 abstains from touching to-day. Do we not all know, sir, that on this 
 bUl, called compromise, the senate is about balanced ? Do we not all 
 
TEXAS BOUNDARY BKNTOBT. 909 
 
 know that two votes, and they count four — ^two off and two on — ^^will turn 
 the scale, and that they will make decisive the fate of this conglomerated 
 bill, and that without the least regard to what is to happen to New 
 Mexico or California ? They are all tied together, and the whole bill is 
 to pass, or not to pass, precisely according to the amount of money paid 
 to Texas. Don't we know this ? Don't we see it ? Does not every 
 body see it ? And does it not present one of the most flagrant instances 
 of the enormity of joining incongruous matters that the history of all 
 legislation has ever presented to the world ? 
 
 " The senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) is deeply penetrated with a 
 sense of injury to himself, the committee of thirteen, and the senate, 
 from what I said yesterday. He characterizes it as an aspersion upon 
 them. In that he turns off the contest from the true point. I made no 
 allusion to him, or the committee. I spoke of their bill — their omnibus 
 bill — and its effect — its shocking, revolting effect. I struck there, and 
 I challenge a contest there. * * * 
 
 " I said that those who were anxious for the passage of the whole con- 
 glomerated measure, must, upon every principle of human action, vote 
 the sum necessary to command the Texas vote — vote the millions so 
 carefully concealed here, and so well known elsewhere. It can not be a 
 question with them how much it was right and proper to pay to Texas, 
 but how much will command the vote of Texas ? To secure the vote 
 of Texas on this floor is what they are obliged to do on every principle 
 of human action. This is certainly voting on a vicious principle. * * * 
 I admit that, by voting to put nothing there, I am voting viciously. 
 But where lies the blame ? It lies in the position that 1 am forced to 
 take, in the 'false position in which I am placed, where I must vote 
 money to a third party in order to carry a measure for three other par- 
 ties ; I must either sanction a great parliamentary enormity, or rebuke 
 it. I will not bring in California by money to Texas. I will not vote 
 the money. I will not bid. I shall vote not a farthing to Texas, as 
 well because she gets land enough without money, as because of the bill 
 itself, and because I believe purity of legislation requires such a bill to 
 receive the condemnation of the senate and the country. I shall vote 
 nothing. And then what a scene we shall have in the American senate. 
 Some voting a high amount to carry the vote of Texas ; some voting a 
 low amount in order to prevent it. That is the position, and that is the 
 scene which the senate will exhibit ; real jockey voting, to command two 
 votes, and without the least regard to the amount that ought really to 
 be voted; no party having any regard to what in justice and right 
 should be paid to Texas. And why all this ? Because of unparliamen- 
 tary tacking ; because of putting incongruous measures together." 
 
910 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 In the midst of the discussion of this question, the death of President 
 Taylor took place. This event occurred on the 9th of July, 1850, a 
 year and four months after his inauguration. The shock upon the pub- 
 lic mind produced by this sudden calamity, was similar to that experi- 
 enced in 1841, on the occasion of the death of President Harrison. 
 Expressions of sincere and deep regi'et from all parts of the union, bore 
 testimony to the high estimation in which Gen. Taylor was held by all 
 parties and all classes of the people. On the 10th, Mr. Fillmore, in a mes- 
 sage to both houses of congress, and in appropriate terms, announced the 
 death of the president, and proposed to take the oath of office as presi- 
 dent that day at 12 o'clock, in the presence of both houses of congress. 
 Brief eulogies on the late president were pronounced in the senate by 
 Messrs. Downs, of Louisiana, Webster, Cass, Pearcc, of Maryland, King, 
 of Alabama, and Berrien, of Georgia. In the house, the same office was 
 performed by Messrs. Conrad, of Louisiana, Winthrop, Baker, of Illi- 
 nois, Bayly, of Virginia, Hilliard, of Alabama, John A. King, of New 
 York, McLane, of Maryland, and Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky. 
 
 The remains of Gen. Taylor were interred in the congressional burial 
 ground at Washington. They were subsequently taken up and conveyed 
 to Louisville, Kentucky ; and thence to the place of their final inter- 
 ment, seven miles from the city, which had been selected by himself as a 
 family burial place. It is upon a faiTa formerly owned by his father, 
 and still owned by the heirs of his deceased brother, Hancock Tay- 
 lor, Esq. 
 
 Mr. Fillmore ha\'ing become president, Mr. King, of Alabama, was 
 chosen president of the senate, pro tern., July 11th. 
 
 A few days afterward, Mr. Fillmore reconstructed the cabinet. Daniel 
 Webster was appointed secretary of state ; Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, 
 secretary of the treasury ; Charles M. Conrad, of Louisiana, secretary 
 of war ; William A. Graham, secretary of the navy ; Alexander H. H. 
 Stuart, of Pennsylvania, secretary of the interior; Nathan K. Hall, of 
 New York, postmaster-general ; John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, 
 attorney-general. 
 
 The passage of the Texan boundary bill was accelerated by a mes- 
 sage from the president, (August 6th,) transmitting to the senate a copy 
 of a letter from Governor Bell, of Texas, addressed to the late president, 
 complaining that the state commissioner, in attempting to extend civil 
 jurisdiction over the unorganized counties, had encountered opposition 
 from the military officers employed in the service of the United States, 
 stationed at Santa Fe. And he wished to be informed Avhether the issu- 
 ing of a proclamation by Col. John Monroe, the c\\\\ and military com- 
 mander of the territory, had been done under the orders of the govern- 
 
PASSAGE OF COMPROMISE BILLS. 911 
 
 ment, or with the approval of the president. Gov. Bell was informed 
 that, in November, orders had been given not to thwart any manifesta- 
 tions of the people of New Mexico in favor of forming a state constitu- 
 tion. Such action was a mere nullity until sanctioned by congress, and 
 whether approved by congress or not, it could not prejudice the territo- 
 rial claims of Texas. The late president, it was believed, had desired 
 to manifest no unfriendly attitude or aspect towards Texas or her claims ; 
 and the present executive certainly did not wish to interfere with that 
 question, as a question of title. 
 
 In his message of the 6th of August, the president declares his deter- 
 mination to maintain the existing order of things in New Mexico. He 
 would protect the inhabitants in the enjoyment of their liberty and 
 property, within the territory possessed and occupied by them as New 
 Mexico at the date of the treaty, until a definite boundary should be 
 established. And he recommended to congress a speedy settlement of 
 the question of boundary. 
 
 On the 13th of August, the governor, in his message to the legisla- 
 ture, which he had convened in extra session, expressed his repugnance 
 to any compromise of the boundary of Texas on the part of congress, 
 without her consent, and evinced a disposition to resist by force any 
 infringement of her territorial rights. The people of the state appear- 
 ing determined to stand by their executive, a collision between the two 
 powers, state and federal, was for a short time apprehended. 
 
 A few days after the passage of the Utah territorial bill, Mr. Pearce, 
 on the 5th of August, introduced into the senate a bill defining the 
 boundaries of the state, ceding to the United States all her claim to ter- 
 ritory exterior to these boundaries, and relinquishing all claims upon the 
 United States for liability for the debts of Texas, and for compensation 
 or indemnity for the surrender of her ships, forts, custom-houses, reve- 
 nue, and other public property ; in consideration of all of which the 
 United States agreed to pay $10,000,000. The existing crisis demanded 
 prompt action ; and the bill was passed by the two houses on the days 
 and in the manner already stated. 
 
 The passage of the Utah territorial bill — all that remained of the 
 " omnibus " bill — on the last day of July, and the subsequent passage, 
 separately, of its other parts, have been mentioned. The Texas bound- 
 ary bill passed the senate the 10th of August, by a vote of 30 to 20; 
 and on the 14th, the bill to organize the territory of New Mexico passed 
 the same body, 2 V to 10. In the house these two bills were united, and 
 passed September 6th, 107 to 97 ; and in this action of the house, the 
 senate concurred. Before the passage of the bill, however, a proviso 
 was added, that nothing in the bill should impair the joint resolution of 
 
912 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 1845 for annexing Texas " either as regards the numbering of states that 
 might be formed out of the state of Texas, or otherwise." 
 
 The bill to admit California as a state, passed the senate, August 13th, 
 34 to 18; the house, September l7th, 150 to 56. 
 
 The fugitive slave bill passed the senate August 23 d, by a vote of 27 
 to 12. In the house, the bill was passed under the action of the pre- 
 vious question, without debate, 109 to 75. 
 
 The remaining bill was that for abolishing the slave trade in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia ; for which Mr. Seward proposed a substitute abolish- 
 ing slavery itself in the district. The proposition, after a speech in its 
 favor, was rejected; ayes, 5; noes, 46. On the 14th of September, the 
 bill passed the senate, 33 to 19 ; and on the l7th it passed the house, 
 124 to 59. 
 
 The debates upon these bills, especially the fugitive slave bill, in both 
 houses, were animated and of great interest ; but the appropriation of 
 the liberal space already assigned to this discussion, forbids its farther 
 extension. 
 
 The compromise acts were the principal measures adopted at this very 
 long session. At the next session, also, (1850-51,) although several 
 important measures in both houses made considerable progress, few 
 of them became laws. Perhaps the act of the most general interest was 
 the existing postage law, reducing the rates of postage to three cents on 
 prepaid single letters, for a distance of 3,000 miles, and five cents if not 
 prepaid ; and double these rates for any greater distance. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIII. 
 
 THE COMPROMISE OF 1850, CONTINUED. SPEECHES OF MESSRS. SEWARD 
 
 AND CASS. 
 
 In the senate, on the 11th of March, 1850, the president's message 
 transmitting the constitution of the state of California being under con- 
 sideration, Mr. Seward addressed the senate in a speech of about three 
 hours. As Mr. S. touched upon all the principal topics embraced in 
 the general question of slavery as presented at this session, and as the 
 subject is one of immense and lasting importance to the Union, it is 
 thought proper to transfer to our pages a large portion of the speech, as 
 follows : — 
 
ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 913 
 
 Shall California be received ? For myself, upon my individual 
 judgment and conscience, I answer. Yes. For myself, as an instructed 
 representative of one of the states, of that one even of the states which 
 is soonest and longest to be pressed in commercial and political rivalry 
 by the new commonwealth, I answer. Yes. Let California come in. 
 Every new state, whether she come from the east or from the west, 
 every new state, coming from whatever part of the continent she may, is 
 always welcome. But California, that comes from the clime where the 
 west dies away into the rising east ; California, that bounds at once the 
 empire and the continent ; California, the youthful queen of the Pacific, 
 in her robes of freedom gorgeously inlaid with gold — is doubly welcome. 
 
 And now I inquire, first, Why should California be rejected ? All 
 the objections are founded only in the circumstances of her coming, and 
 in the organic law which she presents for our confirmation. 
 
 1st. California comes unceremoniously without a preliminary con- 
 sent of congress, and therefore by usurpation. This allegation, I think, 
 is not quite true ; at least, not quite true in spirit. California is here 
 not of her own pure volition. We tore California and New Mexico 
 violently from their places in the confederation of Mexican states, and 
 stipulated, by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that the territories thus 
 acquired should be admitted as states into the American Union as 
 speedily as possible. But the letter of the objection still holds. Cali- 
 fornia does come without having obtained a preliminary consent of con- 
 gress to form a constitution. But Michigan and other states presented 
 themselves in the same unauthorized way, and congress waived the 
 irregularity, and sanctioned the usurpation. California pleads these 
 precedents. Is not the plea sufficient ? 
 
 But it has been said by the honorable senator from South Carolina, 
 (Mr, Calhoun,) that the ordinance of 1787 secured to Michigan the 
 right to become a state, when she should have sixty thousand in- 
 habitants, and that, owing to some neglect, congress delayed taking the 
 census. This is said in palliation of the irregularity of Michigan. But 
 California, as has been seen, had a treaty, and congress, instead of 
 gi-vdng previous consent, and instead of giving her the customary terri- 
 torial government, as they did to Michigan, failed to do either, and thus 
 practically refused both, and so abandoned the new community, under 
 most unpropitious circumstances, to anarchy. California then made a 
 constitution for herself, but not unnecessarily and presumptuously, as 
 Michigan did. She made a constitution for herself, and she comes 
 here under the law, the paramount law, of self-preservation. 
 
 In that she stands justified. Indeed, California is more than justified. 
 She was a colony, a military colony. All colonies^ especially military 
 68 
 
§14 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 I 
 
 colonies are incongruous witli our political system, and they are equally 
 open to corruption and exposed to oppression. They are, therefore, not 
 more unfortunate in their own proper condition than fruitful of dangers 
 to the parent democracy. California, then, acted wisely and well in 
 establishing self-government. She deserves not rebuke, but praise and 
 approbation. Nor does this objection come with a good grace from those 
 who offer it. If California were now content to receive only a territorial 
 charter, we could not agree to grant it without an inhibition of slavery, 
 which, in that case, being a federal act, would render the attitude of 
 California, as a territory, even more offensive to those who now repel her 
 than she is as a state, with the same inhibition in the constitution of her 
 own voluntary choice. 
 
 A second objection is, that California has assigned her own bounda- 
 ries without the previous authority of congress. But she was left to 
 organize herself without any boundaries fixed by previous law or by pre- 
 scription. She was obliged, therefore, to assume boundaries, since with- 
 out boundaries she must have remained unorganized. 
 
 A third objection is, that California is too large. I answer, first, 
 there is no common standard of states. California, although gi'eater 
 than many, is less than one of the states. Secondly. California, if too 
 large, may be divided with her own consent, and a similar provision is 
 all the security we have for reducing the magnitude and averting the 
 preponderance of Texas. Thirdly. The boundaries of California seem 
 not at all unnatural. The territory circumscribed is altogether con- 
 tiguous and compact. Fourthly. The boundaries are convenient. They 
 embrace only inhabited portions of the country, commercially connected 
 with the port of San Francisco. No one has pretended to offer boun- 
 daries more in harmony with the physical outlines of the region con- 
 cerned, or more convenient for civil administration. 
 
 But to draw closer to the question. What shall be the boundaries of 
 a new state ? concerns — 
 
 First. The st..te herself ; and California, of course, is content. 
 
 Secondly. Adjacent communities ; Oregon does not complain of en- 
 croachment, and there is no other adjacent community to complain. 
 
 Thirdly, The other states of the Union ; the larger the Pacific states, 
 the smaller Avill be their relative power in the senate. All the states 
 now here are either Atlantic states or inland states, and surely they may 
 well indulge California in the largest liberty of boundaries. 
 
 The fourth objection to the admission of California is, that no census 
 had been taken, and no laws prescribing the qualifications of suffrage and 
 the apportionment of representatives in convention, existed before her 
 convention was held. I answer, California was left to act ah irdtio. 
 
ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 915 
 
 She must begin somewhere, without a census, and without such laws. 
 The pilgrim fathers began in the same way on board the Mayflower ; 
 and, since it has been objected that some of the electors in California 
 may have been aliens, I add, that all of the pilgrim fathers were aliens 
 and strangers to the commonwealth of Plymouth. 
 
 Again, the objection may well be waived, if the constitution of Cali- 
 fornia is satisfactory, first to herself, secondly to the United States. 
 
 Not a murmur of discontent has followed California to this place. 
 
 As to ourselves, we confine our inquiries about the constitution of a 
 new state to four things — 
 
 1st. The boundaries assumed; and I have considered that point in 
 this case already. 
 
 2d. That the domain within the state is secured to us ; and it is ad- 
 mitted that this has been properly done. 
 
 3d. That the constitution shall be republican, and not aristocratic and 
 monarchical. In this case, the only objection is, that the constitution, 
 inasmuch as it inhibits slavery, is altogether too republican. 
 
 4th. That the representation claimed shall be just and equal. No 
 one denies that the population of California is sufficient to demand two 
 representatives on the federal basis ; and, secondly, a new census is at 
 hand, and the error, if there is one, will be immediately corrected. 
 
 The fifth objection is, that California comes under executive influ- 
 ence. 1st. In her coming as a free state. 2d. In her coming at all. 
 
 The first charge rests oi> suspicion only, and is peremptorily denied, 
 and the denial is not controverted by proofs. I dismiss it altogether. 
 The second is true, to the extent that the president advised the people 
 of California, that, having been left without any civil government, under 
 the military supervision of the executive, without any authority of law 
 whatever, their adoption of a constitution, subject to the approval of 
 congress, would be regarded favorably by the president. Only a year 
 ago, it was complained that the exercise of the military power to main- 
 tain law and order in California, was a fearful innovation. But now the 
 wind has changed, and blows even stronger from the opposite quarter. 
 May this republic never have a president commit a more serious or more 
 dangerous usurpation of power than the act of the present eminent chief 
 magistrate, in endeavoring to induce legislative authority to relieve him 
 from the exercise of military power, by establishing civil institutions 
 regulated by law in distant provinces ! Rome would have been stand- 
 ing this day, if she had had only such generals and such consuls. 
 
 But the objection, whether true in part, or even in the whole, is im- 
 material. The question is, not what moved California to impress any 
 particular feature on her constitution, nor even what induced her to 
 
916' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 I 
 
 adopt a constitution at all ; but it is whether^ since slie has adopted a 
 constitution, she shall be admitted into the Union. 
 
 I have now reviewed all the objections raised against the admission 
 of California. It is seen that they have no foundation in the law of 
 nature and of nations. Nor are they founded in the constitution, for 
 the constitution prescribes no form or manner of proceeding in the ad- 
 mission of new states, but leaves the whole to the discretion of congress, 
 " Congress may admit new states." The objections are all merely 
 formal and technical. They rest on precedents which have not always, 
 nor even generally, been observed. But it is said that we ought now 
 to establish a safe precedent for the future. 
 
 I answer, Ist : It is too late to seize this occasion for that purpose. 
 Their irregularities complained of being unavoidable, the caution should 
 have been exercised when, 1st, Texas was annexed; 2d, when we waged 
 war against Mexico ; or, 3d, when we ratified the treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo. 
 
 I answer, 2d : We may establish precedents at pleasure. Our suc- 
 cessors will exercise thdr pleasure about following them, just as we have 
 done in such cases. 
 
 I answer, 3d : States, nations, and empires, are apt to be peculiarly 
 capricious, not only as to the time, but even as to the manner, of their 
 being born, and as to their subsequent political changes. They are not 
 accustomed to conform to precedents. California sprang from -the head 
 of the nation, not only complete in proportions and full armed, but ripe 
 for affiliation with its members. * * * 
 
 But it is insisted that the admission of California shall be attended 
 by a compromise of questions which have arisen out of slavery ! 
 
 I am opposed to any such compromise in any and in all the forms in 
 which it has been proposed ; because, while admitting the purity and 
 the patriotism of all from whom it is my misfortune to differ, I think 
 all legislative compromises, which are not absolutely necessary, radi- 
 cally wrong and essentially vicious. They involve the surrender of the 
 exercise of judgment and conscience on distinct and separate questions, 
 at distinct and separate times, with the indispensable advantages it 
 affords for ascertaining truth. They involve a relinquishment of the 
 right to reconsider in future the decisions of the present, on questions 
 prematurely anticipated. And they are acts of usurpation as to future 
 questions of the province of future legislators. 
 
 Sir, it seems to me as if slavery had laid its paralyzing hand upon 
 myself, and the blood were coursing less freely than its wont through 
 my veins, when I endeavor to suppose that such a compromise has been 
 effected, and that my utterance for ever is arrested upon all the great 
 
ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 917 
 
 questions — social, moral, and political — arising out of a subject so im- 
 portant, and as yet so incomprehensible. 
 
 What am I to receive in this compromise ? Freedom in California. 
 It is well ; it is a noble acquisition ; it is worth a sacrifice. But what 
 am I to give as an equivalent ? A recognition of the claim to perpet- 
 uate slavery in the District of' Columbia ; forbearance toward more 
 stringent laws concerning the arrest of persons suspected of being slaves 
 found in the free states ; forbearance from the proviso of freedom in the 
 charters of new territories. None of the plans of compromise offered 
 demand less than two, and most of them insist on all of these conditions. 
 The equivalent, then, is, some portion of liberty, some portion of human 
 rights in one region for liberty in another region. But California brings 
 gold and commerce as well as freedom, I am, then, to surrender some 
 portion of human freedom in the District of Columbia, and in East 
 California and New Mexico, for the mixed consideration of liberty, gold, 
 and power, on the Pacific coast. * * * 
 
 But, sir, if I could overcome my repugnance to compromises in general, 
 I should object to this one, on the ground of the inequality and incon- 
 gruity of the interests to be compromised. Why, sir, according to the 
 views I have submitted, California ought to come in, and must come in, 
 whether slavery stand or fall in the District of Columbia; whether 
 slavery stand or fall in New Mexico and Eastern California ; and even 
 whether slavery stand or fall in the slave states. California ought to 
 come in, being a free state ; and, under the circumstances of her con- 
 quest, her compact, her abandonment, her justifiable and necessary 
 establishment of a constitution, and the inevitable dismemberment of the 
 empire consequent upon her rejection, I should have voted for her ad- 
 mission even if she had come as a slave state. California ought to come 
 in, and must come in at all events. It is, then, an independent, a para- 
 mount question. What, then, are these questions arising out of slavery, 
 thus interposed, but collateral questions ? They are unnecessary and 
 incongruous, and therefore false issues, not introduced designedly, indeed, 
 to defeat that great policy, yet unavoidably tending to that end. 
 
 Mr. FooTE. Will the honorable senator allow me to ask him, if the 
 senate is to understand him as saying that he would vote for the admis- 
 sion of California if she came here seeking admission as a slave state ? 
 
 Mr. Seward. I reply, as I said before, that even if California had 
 come as a slave state, yet coming under the extraordinary circumstances 
 I have described, and in view of the consequences of a dismemberment 
 of the empire, consequent upon her rejection, I should have voted for 
 her admission, even though she had come as a slave state. But I should 
 not have voted for her admission otherwise. 
 
918 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 I remark in the next place, that consent on my part would be disin- 
 genuous and fraudulent, because the compromise would be unavailing. 
 
 It is now avowed by the honorable senator from South Carolina, (Mr. 
 Calhoun,) that nothing will satisfy the slave states but a compromise 
 that will convince them that they can remain in the Union consistently 
 with their honor and their safety. And what are the concessions which 
 will have that effect ? Here they are, in the words of that senator : — 
 
 " The North must do justice by conceding to the South an equal right 
 in the acquired territory, and do her duty by causing the stipulations 
 relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled — cease the agitation 
 of the slave question — and provide for the insertion of a provision in 
 the constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South in 
 substance the power she possessed, of protecting herself, before the 
 equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this 
 government." 
 
 These terms amount to this : that the free states having already, or 
 although they may hereafter have, majorities of population, and majori- 
 ties in both houses of congress, shall concede to the slave states, being 
 in a minority in both, the unequal advantage of an equality. That is, 
 that we shall alter the constitution so as to convert the government from 
 a national democracy, operating by a constitutional majority of voices, 
 into a federal alliance, in which the minority shall have a veto against 
 the majority. And this would be nothing less than to return to the 
 original articles of confederation. * * * 
 
 Nor would success attend any of the details of this compromise. And, 
 first, I advert to the proposed alteration of the law concerning fugitives 
 from service or labor. I shall speak on this, as on all subjects, with 
 due respect, but yet frankly, and without reservation. The constitu- 
 tion contains onl'' a compact, which rests for its execution on the states. 
 Not content wiji.. this, the slave states induced legislation by congress ; 
 and the supreme court of the United States have virtually decided that 
 the whole subject is within the province of congress, and exclusive of 
 state authority. Nay, they have decided that slaves are to be regarded, 
 not merely a« persons to be claimed, but as property and chattels, to be 
 seized without any legal authority or claim whatever. The compact is 
 thus subverted by the procurement of the slave states. With what 
 reason, then, can they expect the states ex gratia to reassume the obli- 
 gations from which they caused those states to be discharged? I say, 
 then, to the slave states, you are entitled to no more stringent laws; 
 and that such laws would be useless. The cause of the inefficiency of 
 the present statute is not at all the leniency of its provisions. It is a 
 law that deprives the alleged refugee from a legal obligation not assumed 
 
ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 919 
 
 by liim, but imposed upon him by laws enacted before ho was born, of 
 the writ of habeas corpus, and of any certain judicial process of examina- 
 tion of the claim set up by his pursuer, and finally degrades him into a 
 chattel which may be seized and carried away peaceably wherever found, 
 even although exercising the rights and responsibilities of a free citizen 
 of the commonwealth in which he resides, and of the United States — a 
 law which denies to the citizen all the safeguards of personal liberty, to 
 render less frequent the escape of the bondman. And since complaints 
 are so freely made against the one side, I shall not hesitate to declare 
 that there have been even greater faults on the other side. Relying on 
 the perversion of the constitution which makes slaves mere chattels, the 
 slave states have applied to them the principles of the criminal law, and 
 have held that he who aided the escape of his fellow-man from bondage 
 was guilty of a larceny in stealing him. I speak of what I know. Two 
 instances came within my own knowledge, in which governors of slave 
 states, under the provision of the constitution relating to fugitives from 
 justice, demanded from the governor of a free state the surrender of per- 
 sons as thieves whose alleged offenses consisted in constructive larceny 
 of the rags that covered the persons of female slaves, whose attempt at 
 escape they permitted or assisted. 
 
 We deem the principle of the law for the recapture of fugitives, as 
 thus expounded, therefore, unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral ; and 
 thus, while patriotism withholds its approbation, the consciences of our 
 people condemn it. * * * 
 
 Another feature in most of these plans of compromise is a bill of 
 peace for slavery in the District of Columbia ; and this bill of peace we 
 cannot grant. We of the free states are, equally with you of the slave 
 states, responsible for the existence of slavery in this district, the field 
 exclusively of our common legislation. I regret that, as yet, I see little 
 reason to hope that a majority in favor of emancipation exists here. The 
 legislature of New York — from whom, with great deference, I dissent — 
 seems willing to accept now the extinction of the slave trade, and waive 
 emancipation. But we shall assume the whole responsibility, if we 
 stipulate not to exercise the power hereafter when a majority shall be 
 obtained. Nor will the plea with which you would furnish us be of any 
 avail. If I could understand so mysterious a paradox myself, I never 
 should be able to explain, to the apprehension of the people whom I 
 represent, how it was that an absolute and express power to legislate in 
 all cases over the District of Columbia, was embarrassed and defeated 
 by an implied condition not to legislate for the abolition of slavery in 
 this district. Sir, I shall vote for that measure, and am willing to ap- 
 propriate any means necessary to carry it into execution. And, if I 
 
920 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 shall be asked what I did to embellish the capital of my country, I will 
 point to her freedmen, and sAy, these are the monuments of my mu- 
 nificence ! * * * 
 
 I come now to notice the suggested compromise of the houndonry be- 
 tween Texas and New Mexico. This is a judicial question in its nature, 
 or at least a question of legal right and title. If it is to be compro- 
 mised at all, it is due to the two parties, and to national dignity as well 
 as to justice, that it be kept separate from compromises proceeding on 
 the ground of expediency, and be settled by itself alone. 
 
 I take this occasion to say, that while I do not intend to discuss the 
 questions alluded to in this connection by the honorable and distinguished 
 senator from Massachusetts, I am not able to agree with him in regard 
 to the alleged obligation of congress to admit four new slave states, to 
 be formed in the state of Texas. There are several questions arising 
 out of that subject, upon which I am not prepared to decide now, and 
 which I desire to reserve for future consideration. One of these i? 
 whether the article of annexation does really deprive congress of the 
 right to exercise its choice in regard to the subdivision of Texas into 
 four additional states. It seems to me by no means so plain a question 
 as the senator from Massachusetts assumed, and that it must be left to 
 remain an open question, as it is a great question, whether congress is 
 Qot a party whose future consent is necessary to the formation of new 
 states out of Texas. 
 
 Mr. Webster. Supposing congress to have the authority to fix the 
 number, and time of election, and apportionment of representatives, <fec., 
 the question is, whether, if new states are formed out of Texas, to come 
 into this union, there is not a solemn pledge by law that they have a 
 right to come in as slave states ? 
 
 Mr. Seward. When the states are once formed, they have the right to 
 come in as free or slave states, according to their own choice ; but what 
 I insist is, that they cannot be formed at all without the consent of 
 congress, to be hereafter given, which consent congress is not obliged to 
 give. But I pass that question for the present, and proceed to say that 
 I am not prepared to admit that the article of the annexation of Texas 
 is itself constitutional. I find no authority in the constitution of the 
 United States for the annexation of foreign countries by a resolution of 
 congress, and no power adequate to that purpose but the treaty-making 
 power of the president and the senate. Entertaining this view, I must 
 insist that the constitutionality of the annexation of Texas itself shall 
 be cleared up before I can agree to the admission of any new states to 
 be formed within Texas. 
 
 Mr. FooTE. Did I not hear the senator observe that he would admit 
 
ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 921 
 
 California, wliether slavery was or was not precluded from ttese terri- 
 tories. 
 
 Mr. Seward. I said I would have voted for the admission of Cali- 
 fornia even as a slave state, under the extraordinary circumstances 
 which I have before distinctly described. I say that now ; but I say 
 also, that before I would agree to admit any more states from Texas, the 
 circumstances which render such an act necessary must be shown, and 
 must be such as to determine my obligation to do so ; and that is pre- 
 cisely what I insist cannot be settled now. It must be left for those to 
 whom the responsibility will belong. 
 
 Mr;' President, I understand, and I am happy in understanding, that I 
 agree with the honorable senator from Massachusetts, that there is no 
 obligation upon congress to admit four new slave states out of Texas, 
 but that congress has reserved her right to say whether those states shall 
 be formed and admitted or not. I shall rely on that reservation. I 
 shall vote to admit no more slave states, unless under circumstances 
 absolutely compulsory — and no such case is now foreseen. 
 
 Mr. Webster. What I said was, that if the states hereafter to be 
 made out of Texas choose to come in as slave states, they have a right 
 so to do. 
 
 Mr. Seward. My position is, that they have not a right to come in 
 at all, if congress rejects their institutions. The subdivision of Texas 
 is a matter optional with both parties, Texas and the United States. 
 
 Mr. Webster. Does the honorable senator meaa to say that congress 
 can hereafter decide whether they will be slave or free states. 
 
 Mr. Seward. I mean to say that congress can hereafter decide whe- 
 ther any states, slave or free, can be framed out of Texas. If they 
 should never be framed out of Texas, they never could be admitted. 
 
 Another objection arises out of the principle on which the demand for 
 compromise rests. That principle assumes a classification of the states 
 as northern and southern states, as it is expressed by the honorable 
 senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) but into slave states and 
 free states, as more directly expressed by the honorable senator from 
 Georgia, (Mr. Berrien.) The argument is, that the states are severally 
 equal, and that these two classes were equal at the first, and that the 
 constitution was founded on that equilibrium ; that the states being 
 equal, and the classes of the states being equal in rights, they are to be 
 regarded as constituting an association in which each state, and each of 
 these classes of states, respectively, contribute in due proportions ; that 
 the new territories are a common acquisition, and the people of these 
 several states and classes of states have an equal right to participate 
 in them respectively ; that the right of the people of the slave states to 
 
922 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 emigrate to the territories with their slaves as property is necessary to 
 afford such a participation on their part, inasmuch as the people of the 
 free states emigrate into the same territories with their property. And 
 the argument deduces from this right the principle that, if congress ex- 
 clude slavery from any part of this new domain, it would be only just 
 to set off a portion of the domain — some say south of 36 deg. 30 min., 
 others south of 34 deg. — which should be regarded at least as free to 
 slavery, and to be organized into slave states. 
 
 Argument ingenious and subtle, declamation earnest and bold, and 
 persuasion gentle and winning as the voice of a turtle dove when it is 
 heard in the land, all alike and altogether have failed to convince me of 
 the soundness of this principle of the proposed compromise, or of any 
 ong of the propositions on which it is attempted to be established. * * * 
 
 The constitution does not expressly affirm anything on the subject ; 
 all that it contains is two incidental allusions to slaves. These are, 
 first, in the provision establishing a ratio of representation and taxation ; 
 and, secondly, in the provision relating to fugitives from labor. In both 
 cases, the constitution designedly mentions slaves, not as slaves, much 
 less as chattels, but as persons. That this recognition of them as per- 
 sons was designed is historically known, and I think was never denied. 
 I give only two of the manifold proofs. First, John Jay, in the Fed- 
 eralist, says : 
 
 " Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth a peculiar 
 one. Let the compromising expedient of the constitution be mutually 
 adopted which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased below the 
 equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the slave as divested of 
 two-fifths of the man." 
 
 Yes, sir, of two-fifths, but of only two-fifths ; leaving still three-fifths ; 
 leanng the slave still an inhabitant, a person, a living, breathing, mov- 
 ing, reasoning, immortal man. 
 
 The other proof is from the debates in the convention. It is brief 
 and I think instructive : 
 
 "August, 28, 1787. 
 
 " Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require fugitive slaves and 
 servants to be delivered up like convicts. 
 
 " Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the executive of the state to do 
 it at public expense. 
 
 " Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and sur- 
 rendering a slave or a servant than a horse. 
 
 " Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular 
 provision might be made, apart from this article." 
 
SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 923 
 
 "August 29, 1Y87. 
 
 " Mr. Butler moved to insert after article 15 : 'If any person bound 
 to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another 
 state, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor in 
 consequence of any regulation subsisting in the state to whiclj they 
 escape, but shall be dehvered up to the person justly claiming their 
 service or labor.' " 
 
 "After the engrossment, September 15, page 550, article 4, section 
 2, the third paragraph, the term ' legally' was struck out, and the words 
 ' under the laws thereof ' inserted after the word * state,' in compliance 
 with the wishes of some who thought the term * legal ' equivocal, and 
 favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view. ^'' — Madison 
 Debates, pp. 487, 492. 
 
 I deem it established, then, that the constitution does not recognize 
 property in man, but leaves that question, as between the states, to the 
 law of nature and of nations. That law, as expounded by Vattel, is 
 founded on the reason of things. When God had created the earth, 
 with its wonderful adaptations, He gave dominion over it to man, abso- 
 lute human dominion. The title of that dominion, thus bestowed, 
 would have been incomplete, if the Lord of all terrestrial things could 
 himself have been the property of his fellow-man. * * * 
 
 But there is yet another aspect in which this principle must be ex- 
 amined. It regards the domain only as a possession, to be enjoyed 
 either in common or by partition by the citizens of the old states. It 
 is true, indeed, that the national domain is ours. It is true it was ac- 
 quired by the valor and with the wealth of the whole nation. But we 
 hold no arbitrary authority over it. We hold no arbitrary authority 
 over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation. The 
 constitution regulates our stewardship; the constitution devotes the do- 
 main to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare, and to liberty. 
 
 But there is a higher law than the constitution, which regulates our 
 authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. 
 The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage 
 of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the Universe. We 
 are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the 
 highest attainable degree their happiness. * * * 
 
 It remains only to remark that our own experience has proved the 
 dangerous influence and tendency of slavery. All our apprehensions of 
 dangers, present and future, begin and end with slavery. If slavery, 
 limited as it yet is, now threatens to subvert the constitution, how can 
 we, as wise and prudent statesmen, enlarge its boundaries and increase 
 its influence and thus increase already impending dangers ? Whether 
 
924 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 then, I regard merely the welfare of the future inhabitants of the new 
 territories, or the security and welfare of the whole people of the United 
 States, or the welfare of the whole -family of mankind, I cannot consent 
 to introduce slavery into any part of this continent which is now exempt 
 from what seems to me so great an evil. These are my reasons for de- 
 clining to compromise the question relating to slavery as a condition of 
 the admission of California. 
 
 In acting upon an occasion so grave as this, a respectful considera- 
 tion is due to the arguments, founded on extraneous considerations, of 
 senators who commend a course different from that which I have pre- 
 ferred. The first of these arguments is, that congress has no power to 
 legislate on the subject of slavery within the territories. 
 
 Sir, congress may admit new states ; and since congress may admit, 
 it follows that congress may reject new states. The discretion of con- 
 gress in admitting is absolute, except that, when admitted, the state 
 must be a republican state, and must be a state : that is, it shall have 
 the constitutional form and powers of a state. But the greater includes 
 the less, and therefore congress may impose conditions of admission not 
 inconsistent with those fundamental powers and forms. Boundaries are 
 such. The reservation of the public domain is such. The right to 
 divide is such. The ordinance excluding slf^ery is such a condition. 
 The organization of a territory is ancillary or preliminary ; it is the 
 inchoate, the initiative act of admission, and is performed under the 
 clause granting the powers necessary to execute the express powers of 
 the constitution. 
 
 This power comes from the • treaty-making power also, and I think 
 it well traced to the power to make needful rules and regulations con- 
 cerning the public domain. But this question is not a material one 
 now ; the power is here to be exercised. The question now is. How is 
 it to be exercised? not whether we shall exercise it at all, however de- 
 rived. And the right to regulate property, to administer justice in re- 
 gard to property is assumed in every territorial charter. If we have 
 the power to legislate concerning property, we have the power to legis- 
 late concerning personal rights. Freedom is a personal right ; and 
 congress, being the supreme legislature, has the same right in regard to 
 property and personal rights in territories that the states would have if 
 organized. 
 
 The next of this class of arguments is, that the inhibition of slavery 
 in the new territories is unnecessary ; and when I come to this question, 
 I encounter the loss of many who lead in favor of admitting California, 
 ****** 
 
 The argument is, that the proviso is unnecessary. I answer, then, 
 
SLAVERY IN THK TERRITORIES. 925 
 
 there can be no error in insisting upon it. But why is it unnecessary ? 
 It is said, first, by reason of climate. I answer, if this be so, why do 
 not the representatives of the slave states concede the proviso ? They 
 deny that the cUmate prevents the introduction of slavery. Then I will 
 leave nothing to a contingency. But, in truth, I think the weight of 
 argument is against the proposition. Is there any climate where slavery 
 has not existed ? It has prevailed all over Europe, from sunny Italy 
 to bleak England, and is existing now, stronger than in any other land, 
 in ice-bound Russia. But it will be replied, that this is not African 
 slavery. I rejoin, that only makes the case stronger. If this vigorous 
 Saxon race of ours was reduced to slavery while it retained the courage 
 of semi-barbarism in its own high northern latitude, what security does 
 climate afford against the transplantation of the more gentle, more 
 docile, and already enslaved and debased African to the genial climate 
 of New Mexico and Eastern California ? 
 
 Sir, there is no climate uncongenial to slavery. It is true it is less 
 productive than free labor in many northern countries. But so it is 
 less productive than free white labor in even tropical climates. Labor 
 is in quick demand in all new countries. Slave labor is cheaper than 
 free labor, and it would go first into new regions ; and wherever it goes 
 it brings labor into dishonor, and therefore free white labor avoids com- 
 petition with it. Sir, I might rely on climate if I had not been bom in 
 a land where slavery existed — and this land was all of it north of the 
 fortieth parallel of latitude ; and if I did not know the struggle it has 
 cost, and which is yet going on, to get complete relief from the institu- 
 tion and its baleful consequences. I desire to propound this question 
 to those who are now in favor of dispensing with the Wilmot proviso : 
 Was the ordinance of 1787 necessary or not? Necessary, we all agree. 
 It has received too many elaborate eulogiums to be now decried as an 
 idle and superfluous thing. And yet that ordinance extended the inhibi- 
 tion of slavery from the thirty-seventh to the fortieth parallel of north 
 latitude. And now we are told that the inhibition named is unnecessary 
 anywhere north of 36 deg. 30 min. ! We are told that we may rely upon 
 the laws of God, which prohibit slave labor north of that line, and that 
 it is absurd to reenact the laws of God. Sir, there is no human enact- 
 ment which is just that is not a reenactment of the law of God. The 
 constitution of the United States and the constitutions of all the states 
 are fuU of such reenactments. Wherever I find a law of God or a law 
 of nature disregarded, or in danger of being disregarded, there I shall 
 vote to reaffirm it, with all the sanction of the civil authority. But I 
 find no authority for the position that climate prevents slavery anywhere. 
 It is the indolence of mankind in any climate, and not any natural ne- 
 cessity, that introduces slavery in any climate. * * * 
 
yjJO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 It is insisted tliat the diffusion of slavery will not increase its evils. 
 The argument seems to me merely specious, and quite unsound. I de- 
 sire to propose one or two questions in reply to it. Is slavery stronger 
 or weaker in these United States, from its diffusion into Missouri ? Is 
 slavery weaker or stronger in these United States, from the exclusion 
 of it from the northwest territory? The answers to these questions 
 will settle the whole controversy. 
 
 And this brings me to the great and all-absorbing argument that the 
 Union is in danger of being dissolved, and that it can only be saved by 
 compromise. I do not know what I would not do to save the Union ; 
 and therefore I shall bestow upon this subject a very deliberate con- 
 sideration. 
 
 I do not overlook the fact that the entire delegation from the slave 
 states, although they differ in regard to the details of the compromise pro- 
 posed, and perhaps in regard to the exact circumstances of the crisis, 
 seem to concur in this momentous warning. Nor do I doubt at all the 
 patriotic devotion to the Union which is expressed by those from whom 
 this warning proceeds. And yet, sir, although such warnings have been 
 uttered with impassioned solemnity in my hearing every day for near 
 three months, my confidence in the Union remains unshaken. I think 
 they are to be received with no inconsiderable distrust, because they are 
 uttered under the influence of a controlling interest to be secured, a 
 paramount object to be gained ; and that is an equilibrium of power in 
 the Republic. * * * 
 
 Sir, in any condition of society there can be no revolution without a 
 cause, an adequate cause. What cause exists here ? We are admitting 
 a new state ; but there is nothing new in that : we have already admit- 
 ted seventeen before. But it is said that the slave states are in danger 
 of losing political power by the admission of the new state. Well, sir, 
 is there anything new in that? The slave states have always been 
 losing political power, and they always will be while they have any to 
 lose. At first, twelve of the thirteen states were slave states ; now only 
 fifteen out of the thirty are slave states. Moreover, the change is con- 
 stitutionally made, and the government was constructed so as to permit 
 changes of the balance of power, in obedience to changes of the forces of 
 the body politic. Danton used to say, " It's all well while the people 
 cry Danton and Robespierre ; but woe for me if ever the people learn to 
 say, Robespierre and Danton ! " That is all of it, sir. The people have 
 been accustomed to say, " the South and the North ; " they are only be- 
 ginning now to say, " the North and the South." * * * 
 
 Sir, when the founders of the republic of the south come to draw those 
 fearful lines, they will indicate what portions of the continent are to be 
 
SLAVERY in' THE TERRITORIES. 927 
 
 broken off from their connection with the Atlantic, through the St. 
 Lawrence, the Hudson, the Delaware, the Potomac, and the Mississippi ; 
 what portion of this people are to be denied the use of the lakes, the 
 railroads, and the canals, now constituting common and customary 
 avenues of travel, trade, and social intercourse ; what families and kin- 
 dred are to be separated, and converted into enemies ; and what states 
 are to be the scenes of perpetual border warfare, aggravated by inter- 
 minable horrors of servile insurrection. When those portentous lines 
 shall be drawn, they will disclose what portion of this people is to retain 
 the army and the navy, and the flag of so many factories ; and on the 
 other hand, what portion of the people is to be subjected to new and 
 onerous imposts, direct taxes, and forced loans, and conscriptions, to 
 maintain an opposing army, an opposing navy, and the new and hateful 
 banner of sedition. Then the projectors of the new republic of the south 
 will meet the question — and they may well prepare now to answer it— 
 What is all this for ? What intolerable wrong, what unfraternal injus- 
 tice, have rendered these calamities unavoidable ? What gain will this 
 unnatural revolution bring to us ? The answer will be : All this is 
 done to secure the institution of African slavery. * * * 
 
 But you insist on a guaranty against the abolition of slavery in the 
 District of Columbia, or war. Well, when you shall have declared 
 war against us, what shall hinder us from immediately decreeing that 
 slavery shall cease within the national capital ? 
 
 You say that you will not submit to the exclusion of slaves from the 
 new territories. What will you gain by resistance? Liberty follows 
 the sword, although her sway is one of peace and beneficence. Can you 
 propagate slavery then by the sword ? 
 
 You insist that you cannot submit to the freedom with which slavery 
 is discussed in the free states. Will war — a war for slavery — arrest or 
 even moderate that discussion ? No, sir ; that discussion will not cease ; 
 war will only inflame it to a greater height. It is a part of the eternal 
 conflict between truth and error — between mind and physical force — the 
 conflict of man against the obstacles which oppose his way to an ulti- 
 mate and glorious destiny. It will go on until you shall terminate it in 
 the only way in which any state or nation has ever terminated it — by 
 yielding to it — yielding in your own time, and in your own manner, indeed, 
 but nevertheless yielding to the progress of emancipation. You will do 
 this, sooner or later, whatever may be your opinion now ; because nations 
 which were prudent and humane, and wise as you are, have done so already. 
 
 Sir, the slave states have no reason to fear that this inevitable change 
 will go too far or too fast for their safety or welfare. It cannot well go 
 too fast or too far, if the only alternative is a war of races. 
 
qoo 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 But it cannot go too fast Slavery has a reliable and accommodating 
 ally in a party ,n the free states, which, though it claims to be ard doubt 
 ess .s ,n many respects a party of progrel, finds its sole L etrut^ 
 ^spohhcal power m the support and aid of slavery in the slave states 
 Of course, I do not include in that party those who Ire now cSper ' 
 m mamtammg the cause of freedom against slavery. I am not of fta! 
 party of progress which in the north thus lends its support to sW ry 
 
 for ;:t:rtti:;rtr' "^''"""'^ ^'-''-^'" '^ «5 
 
 of he north and wth the aristocracy of Europe. So long as slavery 
 sh^ossess the cotton-fields, the sugar-fields, and the rice-lelds HS 
 
 Tthv V ^^ " • ™"™'"'' ""^ ^"P'" y-M " t°l<=-'ion and sym- 
 pathy. Emanopation „ a democratic revolution. It is capital that 
 arrests all democratic revolutions. It was capital that, so recentt!, ina 
 smgle year, rolled back the tide of revolution from th; base of th Car! 
 paa,an mountains, across the Danube and the Rhine, into the streets of 
 
 r*; """"P"*' that IS rapidly rolling back the throne of Napoleon 
 mto the chambers of the Tuileries. "poieon 
 
 Slavery has a guaranty still stronger than these in the prejudices of 
 caste and color, which induce even large majorities in all the free ate 
 to regard sympathy with the slave as an act of unmanly hum 1 Mon and 
 
 — T'' , °"°"' ^'"""P"^ -"^'"^ -P-- ^- distrusrof he 
 asserted natural superronty of the white race, and confidently denies 
 
 ^e": re'r'""""''' " i"^"^ *-=''' -"M give a title to oppression. 
 arTZl IZ :7 ■""" guaranty-one that has seldom failed you, 
 and wUl seldom farl you hereafter. New states cling in closer alliance 
 than older ones to the federal power. lie concentfation of the slave 
 
 sr:HVittTatrtdo"n:;r f " ^—^^ 
 
 repre^ntatives Of CalZla,^^ tr^f^tinr^^^^^^^^^^ 
 admitted on this fioor to-day, against your most obstinate opposition 
 
 your X' °"'*^' T"°": '^''l '^^^'"g ^°- ">'--". be'om^d aj 
 
 Tlrere are many well-dUposed persons who are alarmed at the occur- 
 
 isTlr" f'"-'^°"- ^'"»'-'-°f-'««i»'ativebodytoor; e 
 
 lemMare.r r'°" ' ''"'"' "'""'' ^^ ™ e.vtra-constitutional 
 ^emblage to consult upon pubhc affairs is with them cau«, for despe- 
 ratron. Even senators speak of the union as if it existed only by con- 
 
 the s^es' "o lr '" *" '"""• ''^ "^'= ="'""' »' fte legislatures of 
 the states. On the contrary, the union was not founded in voluntary 
 choice, nor does it erist by voluntary consent. 
 
SLAVERY IN 1B"E TEURITORIEB, 929 
 
 A union was proposed to the colonies by Franklin and others, in 
 1754; but such was their aversion to an abridgment of their own 
 importance, respectively, that it was rejected even under the pressure of 
 a disastrous invasion by France. 
 
 A union of choice was proposed to the colonies in 1775 ; but so strong 
 was their opposition, that they went through the war of independence 
 without having established more than a mere council of consultation. 
 
 But with independence came enlarged interests of agriculture — abso- 
 lutely new interests of manufactures — interests of commerce, of fish- 
 eries, of navigation, of a common domain, of common debts, of common 
 revenues and taxation, of the administration of justice, of public defense, 
 of public honor ; in short, interests of common nationality and sover- 
 eignty — interests which at last compelled the adoption of a more perfect 
 union — a national government. 
 
 The genius, talents, and learning of Hamilton, of Jay, and of Madi- 
 son, surpassing perhaps the intellectual power ever exerted before for 
 the establishment of a government, combined with the serene but mighty 
 influence of Washington, were only sufficient to secure the reluctant 
 adoption of the constitution that is now the object of all our alFections 
 and of the hopes of mankind. No wonder that the conflicts in which 
 that constitution was born, and the almost desponding solemnity of 
 Washington, in his farewell address, impressed his countrymen and man- 
 kind with a profound distrust of its perpetuity ! No wonder that while 
 the murmurs of that day are yet ringing in our ears, we cherish that 
 
 distrust, with pious reverence, as a national and patriotic sentiment. 
 • *•#** • 
 
 I have heard somewhat here, and almost for the first time in my life, 
 of divided allegiance — of allegiance to the south and to the union — of 
 allegiance to states severally and to the union. Sir, if sympathies with 
 state emulation and pride of achievement could be allowed to raise up 
 another sovereign to divide the allegiance of a citizen of the United 
 States, I might recognize the claims of the state to which, by birth and 
 gratitude, I belong — to the state of Hamilton and Jay, of Schuyler, of 
 the Clintons, and of Fulton — the state which, with less than two hun- 
 dred miles of natural navigation connected with the ocean, has, by her 
 own enterprise, secured to herself the commerce of the continent, and is 
 steadily advancing to the command of the commerce of the world. But 
 for all this I know only one country and one sovereign — the United 
 States of America and the American people. And such as my allegi- 
 ance is, is the loyalty of every other citizen of the United States. As 
 I speak, he will speak when his time arrives. He knows no other coun- 
 try and no other sovereign. He has life, liberty, property, and precious 
 
 59 
 
930 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 affections, aud hopes for himself and for his posterity, treasured np in 
 the ark of the union. He knows as well and feels as strongly as I do, 
 that this government is his own government; that he is a part of it; 
 that it was established for him, and that it is maintained by him ; that 
 it is the only truly wise, just, free, and equal government, that has ever 
 existed ; that no other government could be so wise, just, free, and 
 equal ; and that it is safer and more beneficent than any which time or 
 change could bring into its place. 
 
 You may tell me, sir, that although all this may be true, yet the trial < 
 of faction has not yet been made. Sir, if the trial of faction has not 
 been made, it nas not been because faction has not always existed, and 
 has not always menaced a trial, but because faction could find no ful- 
 crum on which to place the lever to subvert the union, as it can find no 
 fulcrum now; and in this is my confidence. I would not rashly provoke 
 the trial ; but I will not sufi"er a fear, which I have not, to make me 
 compromise one sentiment, one principle of truth or justice, to avert a 
 danger that all experience teaches me is purely chimerical. Let, then, 
 those who distrust the union make compromises to save it. I shall not 
 impeach their wisdom, as I certainly cannot their patriotism ; but, 
 indulging no such apprehensions myself, I shall vote for the admission 
 of California directly, without conditions, without qualifications, and 
 without compromise. * * * 
 
 Mr. Cass, on the 13th of March, expressed his views at some length. 
 A part of his speech was in reply to certain remarks of Mr. Calhoun 
 and Mr. Seward. He agreed with what had been said by Mr. Clay ; 
 and he would vote for the proposed reference of the resolutions, indeed 
 for almost any proposition likely to bring this country into harmony 
 upon this perplexing question. He thought the country was under last- 
 ing obligations to Mr. Foote for his efforts to terminate the existing diffi- 
 culties. For Mr. Calhoun, he expressed deep sympathy, but dissented 
 from parts of his speech, which, he thought, contained a strange collec- 
 tion and collocation of facts, followed by strange conclusions. The som- 
 bre hue which pervaded his speech, he imagined, was owing to its having 
 been prepared in the recesses of a sick chamber. [Mr. Calhoun, to(^ 
 feeble to address the senate, had written his speech, which had been read 
 by Mr. Mason, of Virginia. 1 
 
 Mr. Cass took exception to an expression of Mr. Calhoun, calling 
 Washington '■'■the illustriout southerner.'''' "Our Washington — the 
 Washington of our whole country — receives in this senate, the epithet 
 of ' southerner,' as if that great man, whose distinguished characteristic 
 was his attachment to his country, and his whole country, who was so 
 well known, and who, more than any one, deprecated all sectional feeling 
 
SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 931 
 
 and all sectional action — loved Georgia better than he loved New Hamp- 
 shire, because he happened to be born on the southern bank of the Poto- 
 mac. I repeat, sir, that I heard with great pain, that expression from 
 the distinguished senator from South Carolina. * * # 
 
 We have been three months here, and what have we done? Nothing. 
 We have not passed a single law of the least national importance. We 
 have occupied the whole time by the discussion of this question, and no 
 practical result has been attained ; and present appearances do not indi- 
 cate that such a result is near. But, though we have done nothing, we 
 have ascertained that some things can not be done. We have ascertained 
 (I think I may say with certainty) that no Wilmot proviso can be passed 
 through this congress. That measure is dead. It is the latest, and I 
 hope it is the last, attempt that will be made to interfere with the right 
 of self-government within the limits of this republic. I think we may 
 also say, that no Missouri compromise line can pass, and that no one 
 expects or desires that it should pass. 
 
 Mr. President, what was the compromise line ? Allow me to read 
 the law which established it : 
 
 " Sec. 8. And be it further enacted^ That in all that territory ceded 
 by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which 
 lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not 
 included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery 
 and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, 
 whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is 
 hereby, forever prohibited." 
 
 Now, sir, what is that provision ? It is intervention north of the line 
 of 36'^ 30', and non-intervention south of that line. Why, sir, there is 
 not one southern senator on this floor, and not one southern member of 
 the other house, nor indeed a southern man who understands the sub- 
 ject, who would accept that line as a proper settlement of this question 
 
 Mr. FooTE, (in his seat.) I would not. 
 
 Mr. Cass. Why, sir, the whole doctrine of equal rights and of non- 
 intervention is taken away by it at once. Why, sir, putting out of 
 view the constitutional objections to such an arrangement, it gives the 
 south nothing, while it prohibits the people north of 36° 30' from exer- 
 cising their own will upon the subject. The true doctrine of non-inter- 
 veution leaves the whole question to the people, and does not divide 
 their right of decision by a parallel of latitude. If they choose to have 
 slavery north of that line, they can have it. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, (in his seat.) We are very competent to judge of tha* 
 matte' ourselves. 
 
 Mr Cass. Is there a senator on this floor who would accept of a 
 
932 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 proposition to apply the principle of non-intervention to a part oi the 
 territory, leaving to the people of the other portion to do as they please ? 
 No, sir ; there is not a southern senator here who would vote for it. I 
 will tell you, what would be voted for, has already been announced — a 
 law declaratory, mandatory, or permissory, for the establishment of 
 slavery south of the line of 36° 30'. The distinguished senator from 
 South Carolina might be willing to accept a declaration that slavery 
 does now exist, or that it shall exist, or may exist, south of a certain 
 line ; but I take it for granted that no senator from the south would be 
 willing to abandon the ground of non-intervention, without some provi- 
 fiion like that. * # » 
 
 Well, then, Mr. President, if these things are impossible — if they 
 cannot be done — it remains to inquire what it is in our power to do. 
 
 My own opinion is, sir, that we should take up the bill for the recap- 
 ture of fugitive slaves, reported by the judiciary committee. I am dis- 
 posed to suspend all our discussions, and to lay aside all other business, 
 with a view to act upon that bill, without unnecessary delay, and to 
 pass it in such form as would be acceptable to a majority of this body. 
 That is a point upon which the south feels most acutely, and in regard 
 to which it has the most serious cause of complaint. I have heard but 
 one man in this body deny the existence of this evil, or the justice and 
 necessity of providing an adequate remedy. # » # 
 
 If I understood the senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) he inti- 
 mated his belief that it was immoral to carry into effect the provision 
 of the constitution for the recapture of fugitive slaves. That, sir, is a 
 very strange view of the duties of a senator in this body. No man 
 should come here who believes that ours is an immoral constitution ; 
 no man should come here, and, by the solemn sanction of an oath, pro- 
 mise to support an immoral constitution. No man is compelled to take 
 an oath to support it. He may live in this country, and believe what 
 he chooses with regard to the constitution ; but he has no right, as an 
 honest man, to seek office, and obtain it, and then talk about its being 
 80 immoral that he can not fulfill its obligations. It is the duty of every 
 man, who has sworn to support the constitution, fairly to carry its pro- 
 visions into effect ; and no man can stand up before his fellow-citizens 
 and maintain any other doctrine, whatever reasons he may urge in his 
 vindication. 
 
 In one of the most disingenuous portions of the speech of the honor- 
 able senator from New York, (Mr. Seward) — which itself was one of the 
 most disingenuous I have ever heard — he speaks of " slavery having a 
 reliable and accommodating ally in a party of the free states," and ho 
 says he " bears witness to its fidelity to the interests of slavery." 
 
SLAVEKY IN THE TERRIT0RIE3. 933 
 
 Now, I ask the senator from New York, if he believes there is a 
 man in this senate from the north, whose course is influenced by hia 
 fidelity to slavery ; and if he does, what right he has to cast odium upon 
 gentlemen who are associated with him in the high duties which belong 
 to his position ? 
 
 Mr. Seward. The senator addresses a question to me, and I rise for 
 no other purpose than to answer it. I think it was Mr. Jefferson who 
 said that the natural ally of slavery in the south was the democracy of 
 the north. 
 
 A senator. It was Mr. Buchanan. 
 
 Mr. Seward. I have heard it attributed to Mr. Jefferson. How- 
 ever this may be, I believe it. I assail the motives of no senator. I 
 am not to be drawn into personal altercations by any interrogatories 
 addressed to me. I acknowledge the patriotism, the wisdom, the purity 
 of every member of this body. I never have assailed the motives of 
 honorable senators in any instance, I never shall. When my own are 
 assailed, I stand upon my own position. My life and acts must speak 
 for me. I shall not be my own defender or advocate. 
 
 Mr. FooTE. Do I understand the senator from New York as saying 
 Mr. Jefferson asserted that the northern democracy was the natural ally 
 of slavery ? He never said such a word. 
 
 Mr. Cass. I will not touch upon that question ; but I will ask the 
 senator from New York in relation to another point — and that is, 
 if he meant it in the sense which Mr. Jefferson, or whoever may have 
 used it, intended ? The one was intended as a commendation for their 
 attachment to constitutional principles — the other as a slur upon a great 
 party. 
 
 Mr. Seward. I answer promptly and freely: I had no purpose of 
 easting reproach upon, or of reflecting upon, any member of this body, 
 or upon any person anywhere. The remark had no such connection. I 
 ask leave now to say, that such as I described is, in my view, the political 
 organization of the parties of this country; that slavery has the support, 
 the toleration (given honestly, and from patriotic motives, I admit) of 
 the party to which I referred ; and that its alliance with slavery consti- 
 tutes its tower of strength. On the other hand, the party to which I 
 belong, is a party which is more distinctly identified with the progress 
 of the sentiment of freedom or emancipation, and therefore it is weaker 
 in its alliances with the soutlj. 
 
 Mr. Dawson, of Georgia, wished to know if Mr. Seward belonged to 
 the whig party and spoke its sentiments ? 
 
 Mr. Sev.'ard said he spoke for no man but himself. But in the dis- 
 chart'6 of his duty, he allien] himself to such a party as was most approxi- 
 
934 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 mate to his principles and sentiments. He had belonged to the whig 
 party during all his active life, and he should be the last to leave it, 
 because of the two great parties it was the most devoted to the cause of 
 freedom and emancipation. 
 
 Mr Cass, (resuming.) I was going to remark that, with respect to the 
 creed of the whig party, or the orthodoxy of the senator from New 
 York, it is a matter with which I have no concern ; but with respect to 
 progress, I have something to say. My progress is within the constitu- 
 tion. My age of progress is circumscribed there. If the senator from 
 New York is going out of it, I do not believe in his progress at all. 
 No, sir ! My object is to support the constitution which, under God, is 
 the source of our prosperity and happiness. 
 
 Mr. Seward, (in his seat.) That is mine. 
 
 Mr. Cass. The senator from New York says, that also is his object. 
 If it is, I think he has a very strange way of showing it, by pronouncing 
 it immoral, and denying the validity of its obligations. It would last 
 scarcely a day, if that senator, with his avowed principle of action, had 
 the direction of the government. I douotsay that it would be dissolved 
 immediately, but the seeds of dissolution would be sown, and would 
 ripen into a harvest of misfortune as speedily as the rankest vegetation 
 gains maturity under a tropical sun. 
 
 Some conversation and explanations here took place between Mr. 
 Cass and Mr. Calhoun, in reference to the remarks of Mr. Calhoun in 
 his speech, in relation to the means of saving ihe union ; which were, 
 the immediate settlement of the slave question, and an amendment of 
 the constitution : also in relation to the admission of California being 
 made a test question; which Mr. Cass understood to mean, that the 
 admission of California would be followed by a dissolution of the union ; 
 a construction of his remarks which Mr. Calhoun disavowed. In regard 
 to the word " now," he did not mean that the amendment to the consti- 
 tution must be made instanter, but that an indication should be given 
 now, that such amendment would be agreed to, leaving it to be carried 
 through the ordinary process. 
 
 Mr. Cass concluded his speech the next day. He said : I was 
 remarking yesterday, when I resigned the floor, that there were certain 
 things we could not accomplish, and others that, with equal certainty, 
 we might take for granted we could do. Among the latter, was the bill 
 providing for the recapture of fugitive ^laves ; and another object, 
 which I trust will be accomplished, is the providing of a government for 
 the new territories. I think it essential to calm this agitation, and so 
 long as these territories are left without a government, so long will the 
 present state of things continue, and this agitation be kept up, which is 
 
SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 935 
 
 80 harassing to the tranquillity, and dangerous to the peace, of the 
 union. That a law may be passed authorizing the people of the terri- 
 tories to govern themselves, without any Wilmot proviso being attached 
 to it, is my wish and my hope. 
 
 Sir, we cannot stand before the country, and before the world, and 
 object to the admission of California on the ground that has been urged. 
 The objection is not to her boundaries, though that topic has been much 
 debated. * * * J myself was at first startled at the boundary 
 claimed, stretching as it does along the coast of the Pacific one thousand 
 miles — a much greater extent than any one state in the union ought to 
 possess. * * * But the country between the ocean and the sea is a 
 narrow one, and east of the mountains is a desert, and in proportion to 
 its extent, the quantity of arable land is small. Be the boundaries aa 
 they may, it is not probable that its population will ever be as great as 
 that of some of the other states of this union. And if its southern 
 boundary were to stop at the mountains, there would be left between 
 them and the Mexican possessions a small district of country, which 
 would have to remain for an indefinite period, perhaps forever, in a 
 colonial condition. 
 
 The senator from South Carolina. (Mr. Calhoun,) who I regret to see 
 is notnn his seat to-day, dojs not assume this ground as an objection to 
 the admission of California. That objection rests upon her present 
 position and mode of application ; because she has established a govern- 
 ment of her owu without passing through a territorial process, and comes 
 here of her own accord, and asks admission into this union. This 
 ground of objection cannot be maintained in this age of the world, 
 before the people of this country, and, I may add, the people of Chris- 
 tendom. # # # 
 
 There are two positions I have always maintained with reference to 
 this subject — first, that congress, under the constitution, has no right to 
 establish governments for the territories ; secondly, that under no cir- 
 cumstances have they the right to pass any law to regulate the internal 
 affairs of the people mhabiting them. The first may be a matter of 
 aecer-jsit}' ; and when the necessity exists, if a senator votes for it, he 
 votes upon his own responsibility to his constituents. If they believe 
 the necessity and support him, he is safe, but if not, he must fall. If I 
 had voted under such circumstances, I must have looked to my constitu- 
 ants for my justification ; but under no circumstances could I have 
 voted for any law interfering with the internal concerns of the people of 
 a territory. No necessity requires it ; there is no necessity which 
 would justify it. 
 
 Mr. Chase. Did I understand the senator as saying that, in voting 
 
936 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 for a bill to establish a government in the territories he would assume 
 the exercise of any authority not given in the constitution ? 
 
 Mr. Cass. The honorable senator will undoubtedly recollect, that in 
 a historical document called the Nicholson letter, which subsequent 
 circumstances have made somewhat important, I distinctly stated my 
 viev/s upon this subject, and those views have remained unchanged to 
 the present hour. I maintained, that no power is given by the con- 
 stitution to establish territorial governments, but that where an impe- 
 rious necessity exists for such a measure, the legislator who yields to it 
 must look to his constituents for his justification. 
 
 Mr. Chase. I understood the senator to say, that there was no such 
 authority given by the constitution ? 
 
 Mr. Cass. I said, that if we do an act not authorized by the consti- 
 tution, under a pressure of necessity, that act must be done upon our 
 own responsibility ; and I refer the gentleman to the authority of Mr. 
 Madison, who justified the action of the congress of the confederation, 
 on the subject of territories, upon this ground — and upon this alone. 
 If the gentleman will take the trouble to look at my speech on the 
 Wilmot proviso, he will find my views on this point distinctly laid down. 
 What is the objection in principle to the admission of California? 
 Allow me to say, that great political rights and movements, in this age 
 of the world, are not to be determined by mere abstract or speculative 
 opinions. There is no want of heavy books in the world, which treat of 
 political science ; but you need not go to them to ascertain the rights 
 of men — either individuals or in communities ; if you do, you will lose 
 yourself groping in a labyrinth, and where no man can follow you. If 
 there are rights of sovereignty, there may be wrongs of sovereignty ; 
 and this truth should be held in everlasting remembrance. And this is 
 the case with regard to California. We have rights, and we have duties ; 
 and if the former are sacred, the latter should be sacred also. One of 
 these duties we have neglected to perform ; and we are told by gentle- 
 men who have spoken here, that when a state wishes admission into the 
 union, she should come to the door of congress and knock for admission. 
 California has thus come, and knocked ; but no door is open to h«r, and 
 she is to be told, " Go back and wait till we are ready." There is but 
 one door through which you can enter, and that door we keep shut. 
 You must pass through a territorial government; but that government 
 we have neglected to give you, and we are probably as far from estab- 
 lishing it as ever. And such is the paternal regard we manifest toward 
 one hundred thousand American citizens, who are upholding the flag of 
 our country on the distant shores of the Pacific. A good deal has been 
 said about precedents : I am not going to examine either their applica- 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 18'29. 937 
 
 tion or authority, though it has been pretty clearly shown by others, 
 that they fully justify this measure of admission. 
 
 About two months after the date of this speech of Gen. Cass, Mr- 
 Calhoun, who had participated in this debate, died in the city of Wash- 
 ington, on the 31st of March, 1850. His death was succeeded, in 1852, 
 by that of his two distinguished associates in that body, Mr. Clay and 
 Mr. Webster. The former died at Washington, on the 29th of June, 
 of that year ; the latter in the following autumn, at his residence in 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIY. 
 
 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1852. INAUGURATION OF MR. PIERCE. 
 
 The national democratic convention to nominate candidates for president 
 and vice-president, met at Baltimore on the 1st of June, 1852. The Hon. 
 John W. Davis, of Indiana, formerly speaker of the house of represen- 
 tatives, was chosen president of the convention. 
 
 The two-thirds rule, which was again proposed, was opposed on the 
 ground that it enabled a minority to force the majority into their views. 
 It was, however, adopted. Although the convention was more pacific 
 than that of 1848, there was quite as great a difficulty in effecting a 
 nomination. , 
 
 Gen. Cass received on the first ballot, 117 votes; James Buchanan, 
 93 ; Stephen A. Douglas, 20 ; Wm. L. Marcy, 27. The balloting, 
 which did not begin until the 3d day, (June 3d,) ended for that day 
 with the 17th ballot, which stood: For Cass, 99; Buchanan, 87; 
 Douglas, 50 ; Marcy, 26. The next day's balloting closed with the 
 33d trial, Cass having received 123 votes; Buchanan, 72 ; Douglas, 60 ; 
 Marcy, 25. On the 5th, the Virginia delegation having retired for 
 consultation, returned, and cast their votes for Franklin Pierce, of New 
 Hampshire, who, on the 49th ballot, received the unanimous vote of the 
 convention. 
 
 William R. King, of Alabama, was nominated for vice-president. 
 
 The whig convention, which met at the same place on the 16th of 
 June, was also in session five days, having found it no less difficult to 
 unite upon a candidate for president John G. Chapman, of Maryland, 
 was chosen president of the conventi n. SomQ delay in the proceedinga 
 
938 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the convention was caused by a contest for seats oetween seme of the 
 New York delegates. Unlike the convention of 1848, a platform of 
 principles was adopted, by a vote of 227 to 60, and before any attempt 
 at nomination had been made. 
 
 Balloting commeaced the 3d day of the session, Mr. Fillmore receiv- 
 ing 132 votes; Gen. Scott, 131 ; Mr. Webster, 29. The next day began 
 with the 7th ballot; and on the 53d, the result was, for Scott, 159; 
 Fillmore, 112; "Webster, 21; Scott having a majority. William A. 
 Graham, of North Carolina, was nominated for vice-president. 
 
 The declarations of sentiment, or platforms of the two parties were 
 less antagonistic than usual. The distinctive principles of the respective 
 parties were less prominently set forth ; while upon certain abstract 
 questions, and the subject of slavery, the two conventions took the same 
 ground. The democratic convention declared, 
 
 " That congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with 
 or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such 
 states are the sole and proper judges of every thing appertaining to their 
 own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution ; that all efforts of the 
 abolitionists, or others, made to induce congress to interfere with ques- 
 tions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calcu- 
 lated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences ; and 
 that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happi- 
 ness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the 
 union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political 
 institutions. 
 
 " That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace 
 the whole subject of slavery agitation in congress ; and therefore the 
 democratic party of the union, standing on this national platform, will 
 abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the 
 compromise measures settled by the last congress — the act for reclaim- 
 ing fugitives from service or labor included ; which act being designed 
 to carr}' out an express provision of the constitution, can not with fidel- 
 ity thereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its effi- 
 ciency. 
 
 " That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in 
 congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under what- 
 ever shape or color the attempt may be made." 
 
 The whig convention makes the following declaration : 
 
 " That the series of acts of the thirty-first congress — the act known 
 as the fugitive slave law included — are received and acquiesced in by the 
 whig party of the United States, as a settlement in principle and sub- 
 stance, of the dangerous and exciting question which they embrace ; and 
 
THE INAUGURATION 3P MR. PIERCE. 939 
 
 30 far as they are concerned, we will maintain them and insist on 
 their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the 
 necessity of further legislation, to guard against the evasion of the law 
 on the one hand, and the abuse of their powers oo the other, not impair- 
 ing their present efficiency ; and we deprecate all further agitation of the 
 question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace ; and will discounte- 
 nance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation whenever, wherever, 
 or however the attempt may be made; and we will maintain this system 
 as essential to the nationality of the whig party of the union." 
 
 The resolutions constituting the whig platform, were said to have been 
 prepared or dictated by the southern delegates. Certain it is, that in uo 
 exclusively northern convention of whigs would such a declaration as the 
 above have received the votes of the delegates from the free states who 
 seemed to concur in their adoption. It is not doubted, however, that, 
 from many of them they received a very reluctant support. 
 
 All the southern delegates, except those from Delaware, voted on the 
 first ballot for Mr. Fillmore ; and were unwilling to pledge themselves 
 to the support of Gen. Scott, until a letter from him was read to the 
 convention, expressing his willingness to accept the nomination if ten- 
 dered him, with the platform laid down by the convention. 
 
 Judging simply from their respective platforms, it would seem that 
 there was little ground for a very active and vigorous contest between 
 the parties. The campaign, however, was conducted with the usual spirit, 
 though with unequal advantages. A reunion of the democratic party 
 had taken place. The compromise of 1850 was supposed to have settled 
 the slavery controversy which had been the principal cause of difference 
 between the two sections of that party. The whigs were less united. A 
 majority of the party at the north was opposed to the late compromise 
 measures, which, in the main, were in accordance with the views of Mr. 
 Fillmore, and to which he had given his official sanction. Mr. Webster 
 also was in favor of the compromise. Hence, the mass of the friends of 
 these two gentlemen gave to the nomination at best a lukewarm support, 
 and many of them no support at all, as was evident from the popular 
 vote. Much had been expected from the military popularity of General 
 Scott; but whatever advantage this may have given him, was more than 
 counterbalanced by the disaffection of the friends of the disappointed 
 candidates. There was an overwhelming defeat of the whig party. 
 
 Of the 296 electoral votes, Mr. Pierce received 254. General Scott 
 received only the votes of the states of Massachusetts, Vermont, Ken- 
 tucky and Tennessee, in all, 42. 
 
 The inauguration of Franklin Pierce as president of the United States, 
 took place on the 4th of March, 1853. The inaugural address contained 
 
940 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the usual eulogium upon the government. One of the evidences of the 
 wisdom of its founders was found in the actual working of the system, 
 which had allayed the apprehensions of dangers from extended territory, 
 multiplied states, accumulated wealth, and augmented population. 
 
 Special allusion was made in the address to the subject " which had 
 recently agitated the nation." He said : " If the federal government 
 would confine itself to the exercise of powers clearly granted by the con- 
 stitution, it could hardly happen that its action upon any question 
 should endanger the institutions of the states, or interfere with their 
 rights to manage matters strictly domestic according to the will of their 
 own people." His regard to the great compromise of the constitution, 
 was thus expressed : " I believe that involuntary servitude, as it exists 
 in different states in this confederacy, is recognized by the constitution. 
 I. believe that it stands like any other admitted right ; and that the 
 states where it exists are entitled to efiicient remedies to enforce the con- 
 stitutional provisions. I hold that the laws of 1850, commonly called 
 the ' compromise measures,' . . . are strictly constitutional, and to be 
 unhesitatingly carried into effect. * * * J fervently hope that the 
 question is at rest, and that no sectional, or ambitious, or fanatical ex- 
 Qitement may again threaten the durability of our institutions, or obscure 
 the light of our prosperity." 
 
 CHAPTER LXXV. 
 
 THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS OF KANSAS AND NEBRASKA. 
 
 The 33d congress commenced its 1st session December 5, 1S53. 
 Lynn Boyd, a democratic member from Kentucky, was elected speaker, 
 having received 143 votes against 74 for all other candidates. 
 
 The message of President Pierce was the next day communicated to 
 congress. Besides the ordinary subjects of legislation requiring the 
 attention of congress, the slavery question was again introduced. Con- 
 sidering the question as effectually settled, he thus declared his purpose 
 of leaving it undisturbed : 
 
 " It is no part of my purpose to give prominence to any subject which 
 may properly be regarded as set at rest by the deliberate judgment of 
 the people. But while the present is bright with promise, and the 
 future full of demand and inducement for the exercise of active intelli- 
 gence, the past can never be without useful lessons of admonition and 
 
SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 941 
 
 instruction. If its dangers serve not as beacons, they will evidently fail 
 to fulfill the object of a wise design. When the grave shall have closed 
 over all who are now endeavoring to meet the obligations of duty, the 
 year 1850 will be recurred to as a period filled with anxious apprehen- 
 sion. A successful war had just terminated. Peace brought with it a 
 vast augmentation of territory. Disturbing questions arose, bearing 
 upon the domestic institutions of one portion of the confederacy, and 
 involving the constitutional rights of the states. But, notwithstanding 
 differences of opinion and sentiment, which then existed in relation to 
 details and specific divisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, 
 whose devotion to the union can never be doubtedf had given renewed 
 vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense of repose and security to 
 the public mind throughout the confederacy. That this repose is to 
 suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those 
 who placed me here may be assured." 
 
 Notwithstanding the determination, thus explicitly expressed, to 
 endeavor to prevent a renewal of the agitation of this question, a mea- 
 sure was already in train which, before the session was far advanced, 
 gave the premonition of a " shock " even more violent than any which 
 had preceded it. On the first day of the session, the day before the 
 delivery of the message, senator Dodge, of Iowa, gave notice of a bill 
 to establish a territorial government for Nebraska. On the 14th it was 
 introduced and referred to the committee on territories ; and the next 
 day it was reported by Mr. Douglas, chairman of that committee, with 
 amendments. 
 
 Some doubts having been expressed, whether the amendments repealed 
 the Missouri compromise, a special report was made on the 4th of 
 January, 1854, so amending the bill as to leave no doubt that that com- 
 promise had been superseded by the acts of 1850. These measures 
 were said to " rest upon the great principles of self-government, that the 
 people should be allowed to decide the questions of their domestic insti- 
 tutions for themselves." This report which proposed to open all that 
 vast territory to the introduction of slavery, produced a general sensa- 
 tion throughout the whole union, and revived the agitation to a degree 
 never exceeded. And what excited special wonder, was, that such a 
 proposition should be voluntarily and gratuitously tendered to the south ; 
 which was not easily accounted for, except on the supposition that it had 
 been prompted by political aspirations. 
 
 On the 1 6th of January, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, gave notice of an 
 amendment to exempt the territory from the application of the Missouri 
 oompromise. 
 
 The s^outhern boundary of the proposed territory had been fixed on 
 
942 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the parallel of 36° 30'. On having been informed that that boundary 
 would divide the Cherokee country, Mr. Douglas, on the 23d of Janu- 
 ary, reported in favor of taking the line of the 37th degree, so as to run 
 between the Cherokees and the Osages. He said also, that two agents 
 elected by the people of that territory had arrived with petitions for two 
 territories, Kansas and Nebraska, to be divided on the 40th parallel of 
 latitude. This proposition had received the approval of the representa- 
 tives of Iowa and Missouri ; and the committee therefore reported a 
 substitute for the bill before the senate, providing for the division of 
 the territory. 
 
 The debate on the bill was opened by Mr. Douglas, on the 30th of 
 January. In justification of his proposition to leave the whole territory 
 open to slavery, he insisted that the Missouri compromise had been re- 
 pealed One of the grounds upon which this declaration was founded, was 
 the action of congress in 1 848, after the acquisition of territory from Mexi- 
 co, when the senate voted into a bill a provision to extend the Missouri 
 compromise line westward to the Pacific ocean ; which provision was 
 defeated in the house. This defeat of that proposition Mr. D. construed 
 into an abandonment of the compromise. It was this defeat of that 
 compromise that created the struggle of 1850, and the necessity for 
 making the new compromise of that year; the leading feature of which 
 was non-intervention by congress as to slavery in the territories — leaving 
 the question to be settled by the people therein. It was of universal 
 application — to the country both north and south of 36° 30'. 
 
 Mr. D. said the legal efi"ect of this bill, if passed, was neither to legis- 
 late slavery into nor out of these territories, but to leave the people to 
 do as they pleased. And why should any man, north or south, object 
 to this principle ? It was by the operation of this principle, and not by 
 any dictation from the federal government, that slavery had been abolish 
 ed in half of the twelve states in which it existed at the time of the 
 adoption of the constitution. 
 
 In regard to Utah and New Mexico, Mr. D. said: " In 1850, we who 
 resisted any attempt to force institutions upon the people of those 
 territories inconsistent with their wishes and their right to decide for 
 themselves, were denounced as slavery propagandists. Every one of us 
 who was in favor of the compi-omise measures of 1850 was arraigned for 
 having advocated a principle purposing to introduce slavery into those 
 territories, and the people were told, and made to believe, that, unless 
 we prohibited it by act of congress, slavery would necessarily and inevi- 
 tably be introduced into these territories. 
 
 " Well, sir, we did establish the territorial governments of Utah and 
 New Mexico without any prohibition We gave to these abolitionists 
 
SLAVER-Y IN THE TERRITORIES. 943 
 
 a fall opportunity of proving whether their predictions would prove true 
 or false. Years have rolled round, and the result is before us. The 
 people there have not passed any law recognizing, or establishing, or 
 introducing, or protecting slavery in the territories. 
 
 " I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our part, 
 by which a geographical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and 
 climate, and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish 
 institutions for a people contrary to their wishes ; yet, out of a regard 
 for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past pledges, 
 and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises, I sustained 
 the Missouri compromise so long as it was in force, and advocated its 
 extension to the Pacific ocean. Now, when that has been abandoned, 
 when it has been superseded, when a great principle of self-government 
 has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that principle, and abide 
 in good faith, not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the last com- 
 promise. 
 
 " Sir, I do not recognise the right of the abolitionists of this country 
 to arraign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have done in 
 their proclamations. Let them show when and where I have ever pro- 
 posed to violate a compact. I have proved that I stood by the compact 
 of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its continuance and observance in 1848. 
 I have proved that the free-soilers and abolitionists were the guilty 
 parties who violated that compromise then. I should like to compare 
 notes with these abolition confederates about adherence to compromises. 
 When did they stand by or approve of any one that was ever made ? 
 
 " Did not every abolitionist and free-soiler in America denounce the 
 Missouri compromise in 1820? Did they not for years hunt down 
 ravenously, for his blood, every man who assisted in making that com- 
 promise ? Did they not in 1845, when Texas was annexed, denounce 
 all of us who went for the annexation of Texas and for the continuation 
 of the Missouri compromise line through it? Did they not, in 1848, 
 denounce me as a slavery propagandist for standing by the principles of 
 the Missouri compromise, and proposing to continue it to the Pacific 
 ocean ? Did they not themselves violate and repudiate it then ? Is 
 not the charge of bad faith true as to every abolitionist in America, 
 instead of being true as to me and the committee, and those who advo- 
 cate this bill ? 
 
 "They talk about the bill being a violation of the compromise measures 
 of 1850. Who can show me a man in either house of congress who 
 was in favor of those compromise measures in 1850, and who is not now 
 in favor of leaving the people of Nebraska and Kansas to do as they 
 please upon the subject of slavery, according to the principle of my 
 
944 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 bill? Is there one ? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado 
 has been raised by abolitionists, and abolitionists alone. They have 
 made an impression upon the public mind, in the way in which I have 
 mentioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts ; and this whole 
 organization against the compromise measures of 1850 is an abolition 
 movement. I presume they had some hope of getting a few tender- 
 footed democrats into their plot ; and, acting on what they supposed 
 they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood that 
 their address was signed by the senators and a majority of the repre- 
 sentatives from the state of Ohio ; but when we come to examine signa- 
 tures, we find no one whig there, no one democrat there; none but pure, 
 unmitigated, unadulterated abolitionists." 
 
 On the 3d of February, Mr. Chase, senator from Ohio, moved to 
 strike out from the bill, the words, " was superseded by the principles of 
 the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and," 
 eo that the clause would read : 
 
 ** That the constitution, and all laws of the United States which are 
 not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the 
 said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except 
 the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri 
 into the union, approved March 6, 1 820, which is hereby declared inope- 
 rative." 
 
 Mr. Chase then proceeded to reply to Mr. Douglas : 
 
 " Mr. President, I kad occasion, a few days ago, to expose the uttep 
 groundlessness of the personal charges made by the senator from Illinois 
 (Mr. Douglas) against myself and the ether signers of the independent 
 democratic appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statement 
 which I will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact or 
 history. I intend afterwards to move to strike out the whole clause 
 annulling the Missouri prohibition. * * 
 
 " A few days only have elapsed since the congress of the United States 
 assembled in this capitol. Then no agitation seemed to disturb the po- 
 litical elements. Two of the great political parties of the country, in 
 their national conventions, had announced that slavery agitation was at 
 an end, and that henceforth that subject was not to be discussed in con- 
 gress or out of congress. The president, in his annual message, had 
 referred to this state of opinion, and had declared his fixed purpose to 
 maintain, as far as any responsibility attached to him, the quiet of the 
 country. 
 
 " The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by 
 the chief magistrate of the country was complete, and a large majority 
 of the American people seemed to acquiesce in the legislation of which 
 
 I 
 
SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 945 
 
 he spoke. A few of us, indeed, doubted the accuracy of these state- 
 ments, and the permanency of this repose. "We never believed that the 
 acts of 1850 would prove to be a permanent adjustment of the slavery 
 question. * * • ' 
 
 " But, sir, we only represented a small, though vigorous and growing 
 party in the country. Our number was small in congress. By some we 
 were regarded as visionaries — by some as factionists ; while almost all 
 agreed in pronouncing us mistaken. And so, sir, the country was at 
 peace. As the eye swept the entire circumference of the horizon and 
 upward to mid-heaven, not a cloud appeared ; to common observation 
 there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky. But suddenly 
 all is changed ; rattling thunder breaks from the cloudless firmament. 
 The storm bursts forth in fury. * * * ^ud j^qw we find ourselves 
 in the midst of an agitation, the end and issue of which no man can 
 foresee. 
 
 " Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and contro- 
 versy ? Not we, for we have introduced no question of territorial 
 slavery into congress — not we, who are denounced as agitators and fac- 
 tionists. No, sir : the quietists and the finalists, have become agitators; 
 they who told us that all agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions 
 of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery, 
 
 " This will not escape the observation of the country. It is slavery 
 that renews the strife. It is slavery that again wants room. It is 
 slavery with its insatiate demand for more slave territory and more slave 
 states. 
 
 "And what does slavery ask for now ? Why, sir, it demands that a 
 time-honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded — a compact which 
 has endured through a whole generation — a compact which has been uni- 
 versally regarded as inviolable, north and south — a compact, the consti- 
 tutionality of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented 
 to abide. 
 
 " It will not answer to violate such a compact without a pretext. 
 Some plausible ground must be discovered or invented for such an act ; 
 and such a ground is supposed Ijp be found in the doctrine which was 
 advanced the other day by the senator from Illinois, that the compromise 
 acts of 1850 * superseded' the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30', 
 in the act preparatory for the admission of Missouri. Ay, sir, ' super- 
 seded' is the phrase — ' superseded by the principles of the legislation of 
 1850, commonly called the compromise measures.' 
 
 " It is against this statement, untrue in fact, and without foundation in 
 history, that the amendment which I have proposed is directed." 
 
 Mr. C. farther said, that, during the long discussion of the compro- 
 60 
 
946 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 mise measures in 1850, it was never suggested that they were to super- 
 sede the Missouri prohibition. At the last session, a Nebraska bill 
 passed the house, came to the senate, and was reported on by Mr. Dou- 
 glas, who also made a speech in its favor ; and in all there was not a 
 word about repeal by supersedure. The senator from Missouri, (Mr. 
 Atchison,) had also spoken upon the bill, and had distinctly declared, 
 that the Missouri prohibition was not and could not be repealed." An 
 extract was here read from the speech of this senator, of which this 
 is a part : 
 
 ' I have always been of opinion that the first great error committed in 
 the political history of this country was the ordinance of 1787, render- 
 ing the Northwest Territory free territory. The next great error was the 
 Missouri compromise. But they are both irremediable. There is no 
 remedy for them. We must submit to them. I am prepared to do it. 
 It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed. So far as 
 that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the admission of 
 this territory now as next year, or five or ten years hence.' 
 
 " Now, sir, when was this said ? It was on the morning of the 4tb 
 of March, just before the close of the last session, when that Nebraska 
 bill, reported by the senator from Illinois, which proposed no repeal, and 
 suggested no supersedure, was under discussion. I think, sir, that all 
 this shows pretty clearly that up to the very close of the last session of 
 congress, nobody had ever thought of a repeal by supersedure. Then what 
 took place at the commencement of the present session ? The senator 
 from Iowa, early in December, introduced a bill for the organization of the 
 territory of Nebraska. I believe it was the same bill which was under 
 discussion here at the last session, line for line, and word for word. If 
 I am wrong, the senator will correct me. 
 
 " Did the senator from Iowa then entertain the idea that the Missouri 
 prohibition had been superseded ? No, sir ; neither he nor any other 
 man here, so far as could be judged from any discussion, or statement, 
 or remark, had received this notion." 
 
 Mr. C. then referred to Mr. Douglas' own report of the 4th of Janu- 
 ary last, made only thirty days ago. ^ Nor did this report express tbo 
 opinion that the compromise acts of 1850 had superseded the Missouri 
 prohibition. The committee said that some affirmed and others denied, 
 that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery in the territory acquired from 
 Mexico, were still in force there ; and they said that the territorial compro- 
 mise acts stood clear of these questions. They simply provided " that the 
 states organized out of these territories might come in with or without 
 slavery as they should elect, but did not afiect the question whether 
 slaves could or could not be introduced before the organization of state 
 governmentsi That question was left to judicial decision>" 
 
SLAVERY IN THE TERBITORIEa 947 
 
 So in respect to the Nebraska territory, X^^re were southern men 
 who contended they would, by virtue of the constitution, take their slaves 
 thither, and hold them there, notwithstanding the Missouri prohibition, 
 while a majority of the American people, north and south, believed that 
 prohibition constitutional and effectual. But did the committee propose 
 to repeal it, or suggest that it had been superseded ? No. They said 
 they did "not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of 
 these controverted questions. Congress deemed it wise and prudent to 
 refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirm- 
 ing or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the 
 true intent of the constitution and the extent of the protection 
 afforded by it to slave property in the territories ; so your committee 
 are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued 
 on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the eighth 
 section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of 
 the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute." 
 
 " Mr. President, here are very remarkable facts. The committee on 
 territories declared that it was not wise, that it was not prudent, that it 
 was not right to renew the old controversy, and to rouse agitation. They 
 declared that they would abstain from any recommendation of a repeal 
 of the prohibition, or of any provision declaratory of the construction 
 of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute." 
 
 Mr. Chase traced the progress of the committee's bill. As published 
 January 7th, it contained twenty sections. On the 10th, it was pub- 
 lished again : it then had twenty-one sections. The omission of the last 
 section was alleged to be a clerical error. It was, he said, a singular 
 fact, that this twenty-first section was not in harmony with the commit- 
 tee's report. It in effect repealed the Missouri prohibition, which the 
 committee, in their report, declared ought not to be done. Waa it pos- 
 sible that this was a mere clerical error ? 
 
 But the addition of this section did not help the bill. It declared 
 among other things that the question of slavery in the territories and in 
 the states to be formed therefrom, was to be left to the decision of the 
 people through their representatives. But this did not meet the appro- 
 bation of southern gentlemen, who claimed the right to take their slaves 
 into the territories, notwithstanding any prohibition either by congress 
 or by a territorial legislature. It was not enough that the committee 
 had abandoned their report, and added this twenty-first section in direct 
 contravention of its reasonings and principles ; the section must itself be 
 abandoned and the repeal of the Missouri prohibition placed in a shape 
 which would deny the slaveholding claim. He next alluded to the 
 amendment of the senator from Kentucky, "which came square up to the 
 
948 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 repeal and to the claim. ^That amendment probably produced some flut- 
 tering and some consultation. It met the views of southern senators, 
 and probably determined the shape which the bill had JSnally assumed." 
 For " it was just seven days after the amendment had been offered by 
 senator Dixon, that a fresh amendment was reported from the commit- 
 tee on territories, in the shape of a new bill, enlarged to forty sections. 
 This new bill cuts off from the proposed territory half a degree of lati- 
 tude on the south, and divides the residue into two territories." This 
 new bill thus provided for the repeal of the Missouri prohibition : 
 
 " The constitution and all laws of the United States which are not 
 locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said 
 territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the 
 eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into 
 the union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the princi- 
 pies of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise 
 measures, and is therefore declared inoperative." 
 
 " Doubtless, Mr. President, this provision operates as a repeal of the 
 prohibition. The senator from Kentucky was right when he said it was 
 in effect the equivalent of his amendment. Those who are willing to 
 break up and destroy the old compact of 1820, can vote for this bill with 
 full assurance that such will be its effect. But I appeal to them not to 
 vote for this supersedure clause. I ask them not to incorporate into the 
 legislation of the country a declaration which every one knows to be 
 wholly untrue. I have said that this doctrine of supersedure is new. I 
 have now proved that it is a plant of but ten days' growth. It was never 
 seen or heard of until the 23d day of January, 1854. It was upon that 
 day that this tree of Upas was planted : we already see its poison fruits. 
 
 " The provision I have quoted abrogates the Missouri prohibition. It 
 asserts no right in the territorial legislature to prohibit slavery. The 
 senator from Illinois, in his speech, was very careful to assert no right 
 of legislation in a territorial legislature, except subject to the restrictions 
 and limitations of the constitution. We know well enough what the 
 understanding or claim of southern gentlemen is in respect to these limita- 
 tions and restrictions. They insist that by them every territorial legisla- 
 ture is absolutely precluded from all power of legislation for the prohibi- 
 tion of slavery. I warn gentlemen who propose to support this bill, that 
 their votes for this provision will be regarded as admitting this claim." 
 
 Having thus endeavored to prove that the doctrine that the Missouri 
 compromise had been superseded by the acts of 1850, was new, Mr, 
 Chase attempted to prove it unfounded. Mr Douglas had charged as a 
 misrepresentation, the statement in the appeal of the independent demo- 
 crats, that the acts of 1850 were intended to apply to the territory 
 
SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 949 
 
 acquired from Mexico only ; and that they did not touch the existing 
 exclusion of slavery from what was now called Nebraska. Mr. Chaae 
 referred to the report of the committee of thirteen in 1850, which dis- 
 tinctly stated that the compromise measures applied to the nev/ly acquired 
 territory ; and he appealed to Gen Casrj, who sat near him, whc1,her any 
 thing had been said in the committee of thirteen, or elsewhere, which 
 indicated a purpose to apply them to any other territory. (Mr. 
 Cass remained silent.) Mr C. therefore assumed that he was correct; 
 and he proceeded at length in attempting to disprove the assertion of Mr. 
 Douglas, that the Missouri compromise had been superseded. He said ; 
 
 " But the senator from Illinois says that the territorial compromise 
 acts did in fact apply to other territory than that acquired from Mexico. 
 How does he prove that? He says that a part of the territory was 
 acquired from Texas. But this very territory which he says was acquired 
 from Texas, was acquired first from Mexico. After Mexico ceded it to 
 the United States, Texas claimed that that cession inured to her benefit. 
 That claim, only, was relinquished to the United States. The case, then, 
 Bt^ds thus : we acquired the territory from Mexico ; Texas claimed it, 
 but gave up her claim. This certainly does not disprove the assertion 
 that tlie territory was acquired from Mexico, and as certainly it does not 
 sustain the senator's assertion, that it was acquired from Texas. 
 
 " The senator next tells the senate and the country, that by the Utah 
 act, there was included in the territory of Utah a portion of the old 
 Louisiana acquisition, covered by the Missouri prohibition, which prohi- 
 bition was annulled as to that portion by the provisions of that act. 
 Every one at all acquainted with our public history knows that the 
 dividing line between Spain and the United States extended due north 
 from the source of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel of north latitude. 
 That arbitrary line left within the Louisiana acquisition a little valley 
 in the midst of rocky mountains, where several branches of the Grand 
 river, one of the affluents of the Colorado, take their rise. Here is the 
 map. Here spreads out the vast territory of Utah, more than one hun- 
 dred and eighty-seven thousand square miles. Here is the little spot, 
 hardly a pin's point upon the map, which I cover with the tip of my 
 little finger, which, according to the boundary fixed by the territorial 
 bill, was cut off from the Louisiana acquisition and included in Utah. 
 The account given of it in the senator's speech would lead one to suppose 
 that it was an important part of the Louisiana acquisition. It is, in fact, 
 not of the smallest consequence. There are no inhabitants there. * • • 
 It was known that the Rocky Mountain range was very near the arbi- 
 trary line fixed by the treaty, and nobody ever dreamed that the adop- 
 tion of that range as the eastern boundary of Utah would abrogate the 
 
950 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Missouri prohibition. The seoator reported that boundary line-. Did 
 he tell the senate or the country that its establishment would have that 
 eiFect ? No, sir : never. The assertion of the senator that a ' close exa- 
 mination of the Utah act clearly establishes the fact that it was the 
 intent, as well as the legal effect of the compromise measures of 1850 to 
 supersede the Missouri compromise, and all geographical and territorial 
 lines,' is little short of preposterous. There was no intent at all) except 
 to make a convenient eastern boundary to Utah, and no legal effect at all 
 upon the Louisiana acquisition, except to cut oif from it the little valley 
 of the Middle Park." 
 
 Mr. Douglas bad charged the signers of the appeal with misrepresent- 
 ation in assuming that it was the policy of the fathers of the republic to 
 prohibit slavery in all the territories ceded by the old states to the union. 
 Mr. Chase commenced with a reference to the sentiments of Jefferson, 
 and traced the history of the action of the government on the subject, 
 through a long period of years, in vindication of the statement contro- 
 verted by Mr. Douglas. 
 
 Mr. Chase's amendment was negatived, 13 to 30. "* 
 
 Mr. Houston advocated the rights of the Indians included within the 
 territories, who were to be disturbed by this bill. He adverted to the 
 pledges made to tnera from time to time, and especially the assu- 
 rance given them in the treaty of 1835, that their lands beyond the 
 Mississippi should r.ever, without their consent, be included within 
 the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any state or territory. He ob- 
 jected to the bill on other grounds. There was no necessity for joining 
 three such important subjects. The organization of Nebraska without a 
 sufficient population to warrant it, nearly all being Indian territory ; the 
 organization of Kansas, entirely held and occupied by Indians; and 
 the repeal of the Missouri compromise, an important consideration for 
 the American people, were all placed in this omnibus shape, and pre- 
 sented for action. He had on former occasions supported the Missouri 
 compromise, assisted by the south, because they regarded it as a solemn 
 compact. Texas, he said, had been admitted upon that principle. It 
 was an express condition of her admission, that in all new states formed 
 out of her territory north of 36° 30', slavery should be prohibited. 
 
 Mr. H. said he had voted for the compromise of 1 850 ; but he did 
 not suppose that he was voting to repeal the Missouri compromise. Ho 
 regarded it as a final settlement of this mooted question, this source of 
 agitation. Great trials and emergencies, he feared, would arise between 
 the north and the south. The south was in a minority : she could not he 
 otherwise. If she should accede to the violation of a compact so sacred 
 as this, she would set an example that would be followed when she did 
 
SLATERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 951 
 
 not desire it. Ho averred that he would resist every attempt to infringe 
 or repeal the Missouri compromise. 
 
 On the 15th of February, the question was taken on the substitute 
 of the committee reported by Mr. Douglas, to strike out the words which 
 declared the Missouri compromise to be superseded by that of 1850, and 
 to insert the provision declaring the Missouri compromise inconsistent 
 with the principles of non-intervention of congress with slavery in the 
 states and territories as recognized by the legislation of 1850, and inope- 
 rative and void ; and declaring the people free to regulate their domes- 
 tic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of tho 
 United States. The substitute was adopted, 35 to 10. 
 
 Mr. Chase then moved to insert a provision permitting the legislature 
 to prohibit slavery. 
 
 Mr. Badger held that, although the Missouri compromise of 1§20 was 
 in its terms applied to the territory acquired from Louisiana, because we 
 then had no other territory whose destiny was to be settled by an act of 
 congress ; yet as it was to be presumed that, if there had been other 
 territory, it would have been brought under the operation of the same 
 act, he regarded the provisions of that compromise as applicable to the 
 territory since acquired. It was applied to Texas when that state came 
 into the union. But he maintained that the principle of that compro- 
 mise was repudiated by the legislation of 1850. Its application was 
 insisted on by southern senators in many cases ; they asked nothing, they 
 Bought nothing, but the simple recognition of the Missouri compromise 
 line ; but that was refused them ; and the territorial governments estab- 
 lished in 1850, were constructed in utter disregard of that compromise, 
 which he considered as no longer obligatory. 
 
 Mr. Cass expressed his regret that this question of the repeal of the 
 Missouri compromise, which opened all the disputed points connected 
 with the subject of congressional action upon slavery in the territories, 
 had again been brought before the eenate. The advantages to result 
 from the measure would not outweigh the injury which the ill-feeling 
 accompanying the discussion would produce. Nor would the south de- 
 rive any benefit from it, as no human power could establish slavery in 
 the regions defined by these bills. He was, however, in favor of tho 
 amendment of the committee which declared that the people, whether 
 in the territories, or in the states to be formed from them, were free to 
 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the 
 constitution of the United States. 
 
 Mr. C, in the course of his speech, replied to the complaints that 
 the south was excluded from, and robbed of the territories, and that they 
 were appropriated to the north. While he repeated the opinion that 
 
952 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 congress was not authorized to restrain a person, by legal enactmect, 
 from taking slaves into any territory of the United States, he maintained 
 that the prohibition of slavery by local legislation was not an exclusion 
 of the aouth more than the north, as a slaveholder and a non-slave- 
 holder could go into such territory on equal terms ; and he denied the 
 charge of the south, that congress, by admitting a state whose constitu- 
 tion interdicts slavery, is responsible for that act. 
 
 In relation to the power of congress over the territories, he contended 
 that the power granted by the constitution to regulate and " dispose of 
 the territory and other property of the United States," meant simply the 
 power to dispose of the public lands, as property, and did not include 
 the power of life and death over the inhabitants. 
 
 The debate, in which many other senators participated, was continued 
 until the 2d of March, when Mr. Clayton moved to amend so as to disallow 
 the right of suffrage and of holding oflQce to foreigners who had declared 
 on oath their intention to become citizens, and had sworn to support the 
 constitution of the United States ; and to confer this right only on citi- 
 zens of the United States. This amendment was adopted, 23 to 21. 
 The bill was passed the next day, by a vote of 37 to 1 4. 
 
 In the house, a bill had been reported on the 31st of January, by Mr. 
 Richardson, of Illinois, for which, on the 8th of May, he offered a sub- 
 stitute, which Was substantially the senate bill, leaving out the amend- 
 ment of Mr. Clayton. On the 22d, this substitute was adopted, 113 to 
 100, and sent to the senate, where, on the 25th, it was concurred in, 35 
 to 13. 
 
 Thus terminated another contest on a question which, after a brief 
 slumber, had been unexpectedly, and, as is generally believed, unnecee- 
 sarily revived, and which, from its nature, must continue to be a source 
 of sectional controversy so long as the territory of this republic shall be 
 divided between slavery and freedom. 
 
KANSAS- NEBRASKA ACT, 953 
 
 CHAPTER LXXYI. 
 
 SANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT — EARLY HISTORY OF KANSAS TOPEKA GOVERNMENT. 
 
 The following are some of the principal provisions of the " Act to 
 organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska." 
 
 The executive power is vested in a governor appointed by the presi- 
 dent and senate. 
 
 A secretary of the territory, appointed for five years. 
 
 The legislative power to be vested in the governor and a legislative 
 assembly consisting of a council and a house of representatives; the 
 council to consist of thirteen members, and the house of twenty-six. 
 The latter may be increased, but may not exceed thirty-nine. 
 
 The first election of members of the legislature was to be held at 
 such time and place, and was to be conducted in such manner, as the 
 governor should prescribe. He was also to appoint the inspectors of 
 election, and to direct the manner of making the returns. 
 
 All free white male inhabitants, twenty-one years of age and upward, 
 actual residents of the territory, and citizens of the United States, or 
 having declared on oath their intention to become citizens, were en- 
 titled to vote at the first election; the qualifications of voters at sub- 
 sequent elections to be prescribed by the legislative assembly. 
 
 Bills passed by the legislature were to be submitted to the governor; 
 but might be passed against the veto by two-thirds majorities. 
 
 The judicial power was to be vested in a supreme court, district 
 courts, probate courts, and in justices of the peace. The supreme 
 court to consist of three judges, one in each judicial district, and one 
 of them to be chief-justice. They were to be appointed by the presi- 
 dent and senate. 
 
 The first election of delegates to congress, and the time and places 
 of election, were subject to the appointment and direction of the 
 governor. 
 
 The act also provided that the acts of congress for the reclamation 
 of fugitive slaves should extend to the territories. Not the least im- 
 portant was the following: 
 
 That the constitutiou and all the laws of the United States which 
 are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within 
 the said territoty as elsewhere within the United States, except the 
 eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into 
 the uuiou, approved March 6th, 1820, which, being inconsistent witli 
 
954 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the principle of non-iutervention by congress with slavery in the states 
 and territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly 
 called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and 
 void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate 
 slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to 
 leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their do- 
 mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of 
 the United States: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be 
 construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may 
 have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 1820, either protecting, 
 establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery. 
 
 This organic law has received different constructions. It was gene- 
 rally supposed, at the time of its passage, that by the right of the 
 people of a territory to govern themselves without the interveutiou of 
 congress, which was termed " popular sovereignty," or, as expressed in 
 the act, their being " free to form and regulate their domestic institu- 
 tions in their own way," the authors meant the right to prohibit as 
 well as to permit slavery. But it was subsequently contended that the 
 right to hold slaves in the territory exists under the constitution ; and 
 that the people, by their territorial legislature, can not prohibit or 
 abolish slavery; that the power is possessed by the people only when 
 they al'e authorized to form a state government. 
 
 It was the general opinion that Kansas was designed to be made a 
 slave state. Immediately after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska 
 act, emigration from Missouri to Kansas commenced, and was soon fol- 
 lowed by emigration from other slave states. From the northern and 
 eastern states also emigration commenced at an early day, and was in 
 a measure facilitated by eastern Emigrant Aid Societies, under whose 
 auspices companies were formed, by whom and other northern people, 
 large accessions were made to the population of Kansas. And while 
 it was the object of the settlers from the slave states to effect the 
 establishment of slavery in the territory, it was the purpose of those 
 from the free states to prevent it. 
 
 Soon after the act of organization was passed, meetings, some of 
 them attended by leading citizens of Missouri, were held in various 
 parts of the territory, at which were passed resolutions similar to the 
 two following, adopted at one of those meetings: 
 
 " That we will afford protection to no abolitionist as a settler of this 
 territory. 
 
 " That we recognize the institution of slavery as already existing in 
 this territory, and advise slaveholders to introduce their property as 
 early as possible." 
 
EARLY HISTORY OF KANSAS. 955 
 
 In October, 1854, Governor Andrew H. Reeder and other officers 
 appointed by President Pierce, arrived at Fort Leavenworth. Before 
 any election had been held in the territory, a secret political society 
 was formed in Missouri, known by different names, as " Social Band," 
 "Friends' Society," "Blue Lodge," " The Sons of the South." Its 
 members were bound together by secret oaths, and had passwords, 
 signs, and grips, by which they were known to each other. Their 
 avowed purpose was to extend slavery into Kansas, by organizing aud 
 sending men into the territory to vote at elections. 
 
 Pursuant to appointment by the governor, an election was held on 
 the 29th of November, 1854, to choose a delegate to congress. The 
 principal candidates were John W. Whitfield and J. A. Wakefield. 
 The former was regarded as an ultra pro-slavery man ; the latter was a 
 free-state man. The election was declared in favor of Whitfield; but 
 was pronounced by his opponents to be unlawful, as large numbers — in 
 some districts a majority — of the votes had been cast by citizens of 
 Missouri, who had come into the territory for that purpose, and re- 
 turned immediately after they had voted. From the report of a com- 
 mittee of investigation appointed by the house of representatives of 
 congress, it appears that, in nine of the seventeen election districts, 
 of the aggregate number of voters, more than two-thirds were non- 
 residents. 
 
 In January and February, 1855, the governor caused an enumera- 
 tion to be taken of the inhabitants and voters in the tfmtory. There 
 were 8,501 inhabitants, of whom 2,905 were voters. The governor 
 then ordered an election to be held on the 30th of March, 1855, for 
 choosing members of the legislative assembly. By an organized move- 
 ment in Missouri, companies of men were again sent into the territory 
 before the election. They declared their right and determination 
 to vote; and in one district, their demand to be allowed to vote with- 
 out being swern being refused, a number of them rushed into the 
 room, threatening to eject the judges of election if they did not resign 
 in five minutes. The judges were dispersed, and new judges were 
 chosen. 
 
 Many protests were entered, and affidavits and petitions filed, against 
 the alleged fraudulent returns from several districts. The governor, 
 without deciding upon his power to set aside elections for force and 
 fraud, set them aside in some of the districts for the following reasons: 
 In one district, because the words, " by lawful resident voters," were 
 Btricken from the returns. In several others, for material erasures of 
 words from the printed form of the oath. In another, because the 
 oath was administered by a person not authorized. In another, be- 
 
956 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 cause the judges were not sworn at all. Although the fraud and force 
 in other districts were equally great as in these, yet, as the governor 
 had no information in regard to them, he issued certificates of election 
 according to the returns, and ordered a new election in the six con- 
 tested districts, to be held in May. The pro-slavery party took no 
 interest iu this election, having determined not to recognize it, except 
 in the Leavenworth district, where they reelected their candidates. In 
 the other districts, free-state men were elected. 
 
 The reasons offered in justification of the part taken by the Missouri- 
 ans iu the election of March, 1855, were: that men had been sent into 
 the territory by the New England Aid Society of Boston, to control the 
 elections, and liad voted and returned; and that others in the eastern 
 and northern states had been induced to go into the territory solely 
 to vote in order to make it a free state; and that the governor had 
 purposely postponed the day of election to allow this emigration to 
 arrive, and had notified the Emigrant Aid Society and persons in the 
 eastern states of the day of election, before he gave notice to the peo- 
 ple of Missouri and the territory. These aliegatioas, however, the 
 free-state men denied ; although it has been shown that in one or more 
 of the election districts, some votes were given for the free-state candi- 
 dates by men who had not yet become actual settlers, and who, having 
 become dissatisfied with the country and its political condition, and 
 from other causes, had returned after the election. The result of the 
 election, however, was not affected by their votes. 
 
 in April, 1854, the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Society was incor- 
 porated, but never went into operation. Two others were subsequently 
 formed, one iu July, 1854, the other in February, 1855, and were in- 
 corporated by the legislature. Their declared object was that of 
 " directing emigration westward, and aiding and providing accommo- 
 dations for the emigrants after arriving at their place of destination." 
 It appears that the societies imposed upon the emigrante no condition, 
 nor inquired into their political, religious, or social opinions; and their 
 purposes, so far as could be ascertained, were lawful. 
 
 Two of the congressional committee of investigation (whose appoint- 
 ment will be hereafter noticed) regarded the charges against the Aid 
 Societies and other northern people as pretexts to induce an armed inva- 
 Bion to control the elections and establish slavery; and they cite, as 
 evidence, the testimony of several witnesses, among whom was Col. 
 John Scott, of Missouri, who said in his deposition: "The leading pur- 
 pose of our intended removal to the territory is to determine the 
 domestic institutions of this territory when it comes to be a state; and 
 we would not come but for this purpose." Also at a public meeting, 
 
EARLY HISTORY OF KANSAS. 95T 
 
 attended and addressed by Judge Lecompte and others, it was, 
 " Resolved, That the institution of slarery is known and recognized in 
 this territory; .... and we warn all persons not to come to 
 our peaceful firesides to slander us and to sow the seeds of discord 
 between the master and the servant; for, as much as we deprecate the 
 necessity to which we may be driven, we can not be responsible for the 
 consequences," 
 
 Upon the assembling of the territorial legislature, seats were refused 
 to the free-state men elected at the May election, and given to those 
 elected on the 30th of March. The legislature met on the 2d of July, 
 1855, at Pawnee City, the place appointed by the governor, in the 
 interior of the territory. On the 4:th, a bill was passed to remove the 
 seat of government to Shawnee Mission, near the Missouri border. The 
 bill was vetoed by the governor, but afterward repassed by two-thirds 
 majorities, and became a law. He subsequently refused to sign several 
 other bills, and on the 31st of July he was ofiScially notified of his re- 
 moval from office. The duties of the office of governor now devolved 
 upon Daniel Woodson, the secretary of the territory 
 
 The great body of general laws enacted by this legislature were 
 exact transcripts from the Missouri code. The material differences be- 
 tween the statutes of Missouri and Kansas, were in the qftalifications 
 and oaths of voters and public officers, and in the slave codes. Execu- 
 tive and judicial officers were to be appointed by the legislature, or by 
 some officers appointed by it; and the persons appointed were to hold 
 over two regular elections, and until after the general election in Octo- 
 ber, 1857, when the members of the new council were to be elected. 
 The new legislature was to meet on the first Monday of July, 1858. 
 
 It was also enacted that no session was to be held in 1856; but the 
 members of the house were to be elected in October of that year. A 
 candidate, to be elegible at this election, must swear to support the 
 fugitive slave law; and each judge of election, and each voter, if chal- 
 lenged, must take the same oath, which was also required of officers 
 elected or appointed in the territory, and of attorneys admitted to prac- 
 tice in the courts. Jurors were to be selected by the sheriff, and " no 
 person who was conscientiously opposed to the holding of slaves, or who 
 did not admit the right to hold slaves in the territory, should be a juror 
 in any cause" affecting the right to hold slaves, or relating to slave pro- 
 perty. 
 
 The slave laws were extremely rigorous. Any person printing, 
 writing, publishing, or circulating any paper, book, or circular, contain- 
 ing anything "calculated to promote a disorderly or dangerous disaffec- 
 tion among the slaves, or to induce them to escape from the service of 
 
958 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 their masters, or to resist their authority," or any person assisting in 
 Buch writing, publishing, etc., was to be de«raed "guilty of a felony, 
 and be imprisoned at hard labor not less than five years." And any 
 free person asserting or maintaining that persons had no right to hold 
 slaves in the territory, or causing to be published or circulated any book, 
 paper, or circular containing a denial of such right, was to be deemed 
 guilty of a felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor for a 
 term of two years. 
 
 While the legislature was in session, a movement was made by the 
 free-state settlers to form a state government, and to apply for admis- 
 sion into the union as a state. The first general meeting was held in 
 Lawrence on the 15th of August, 1855, at which it was resolved, that, 
 " as the people of Kansas had been, since its settlement, without any 
 law-making power," all bona fide citizens were requested "to consult 
 together in their respective election districts, and elect delegates to as- 
 semble in convention at Topeka, on the 19th day of September, 1855, 
 to consider and determine upon all subjects of public interest, and par- 
 ticularly upon that having reference to the speedy formation of a state 
 constitution, with an intention of an immediate application to be ad- 
 mitted as a state into the union." 
 
 Meetings were accordingly held in various places. One of them, held 
 at Big Springs, September 5, was attended and addressed by Ex- 
 Gov. Reeder, who, after his removal, acted with the free-state party. 
 This meeting denied the validity of " the tyrannical enactments of the 
 spurious legislature," and declared the right of every freeman " to resist 
 them." They denounced a majority of the supreme court for having 
 " prejudged the case of the free-state men before they could be heard," 
 and for having " pledged themselves to these outlaws in advance to 
 decide in their favor." They repudiated the election law, and resolved 
 not to attend the election, but would themselves appoint a day for 
 electing a delegate to congress. They resolved to resist, the territorial 
 laws " to a bloody issue," if " peaceable remedies should fail, and forci- 
 ble remedies should furnish reasonable prospects of success," and re- 
 commended the " organization and discipline of volunteer companies, 
 and the procuremect and preparation of arms." 
 
 Agreeably to the resolution of the meeting at Lawrence, delegates 
 were elected, who met at Topeka on the day above named, and adopted 
 measures preparatory to an election to be held on the second Tuesday 
 of October, 1855, for choosing delegates to the proposed constitutional 
 convention. Delegates were accordingly elected ; and at the same elec- 
 tion Ex-Gov. Reeder was chosen delegate to congress. 
 
 The delegates to the convention met at Topeka on the 23d of Octo- 
 
TOPEKA GOVERNMENT. 959 
 
 ber, 1855, and formed a constitution, which was adopted by the people 
 at an election on the 15th of December. The number of votes for the 
 adoption was 1,T31; against it, 46; the pro-slavery party taking no 
 interest or part in the election. 
 
 Members of the state legislature and state officers were elected on the 
 15th of January, 1856. The legislature assembled at Topeka on the 
 1st of March, and proceeded to organize a state government. Dr. 
 Charles Robinson, who had been elected governor, delivered his inaugu- 
 ral address. A committee was appointed to frame a code of laws for 
 the future state in case it should be admitted into the union; and two 
 United States senators, Andrew H. Reeder and James H. Lane, were 
 chosen. A memorial to congress was prepared; and the legislature 
 adjourned to the 4th of July, 1856. 
 
 After the adjournment, Governor Robinson and several other promi- 
 nent actors in this movement were arrested on a charge of high treason, 
 and held in confinement four months. They repeatedly demanded a 
 trial, but it was not granted. At length. Judge Lecompte, having heard 
 that General Lane was marching with his army to release them, con- 
 sented to discharge them on bail. About eight months thereafter, the 
 district attorney entered nolle proseqids in their cases, and they were 
 discharged. 
 
 The members of the Topeka legislature having assembled on the 
 morning of the 4th of July, pursuant to adjournment, they were visited 
 by Marshal Donaldson, who caused to be read a proclamation of Presi- 
 dent Pierce, issued in February preceding, in which he declared that 
 the laws of the Shawnee legislature should be enforced by the entire 
 force of the government. A proclamation to the same effect from 
 Acting-Governor Woodson was delivered. Col. Sumner, at the head of 
 about two hundred men, appeared in front of the hall, and informed the 
 people that he had come to disperse the legislature. The members 
 readily obeyed the order, and no organization was attempted. 
 
 Wilson Shannon, of Ohio, successor to Governor Reeder, assumed 
 the executive functions on the 1st of September, 1855. He had ex- 
 pressed his determination to promote the interests of the pro-slavery, or 
 "law and order party;" the latter name having been given to it from 
 its insisting on the enforcement of the territorial laws. But from the 
 want of moral courage, as some supposed, or from some other cause, he 
 failed to fulfill the expectations of his friends. On the occasion of a 
 meditated attack upon the town of Lawrence, he proceeded thither, 
 and proposed to Robinson and Lane that they should surrender their 
 arms, as a means of safety and peace, which they declined. In.siead of 
 encouraging an^ assault, he entered into a treaty of pacification with 
 
960 THE AMERTCAN STATESMAN. 
 
 these two free-state leaders. These two last, in behalf of the citizeus 
 of Lawrence, pledged their aid in the execution of legal process against 
 free-state offenders; declared that they designed no resistance to the 
 legal service of any criminal process; and pledged their influence to 
 preserve order in the town and vicinity: provided that persons arrested 
 in Lawrence and vicinity, while a foreign foe remained in the territory, 
 should be examined before a United States district judge of the terri- 
 tory, in that town, and admitted to bail; that all citizens arrested 
 without legal process should be released; and that Governor Shannon 
 should endeavor to obtain remuneration for damage, if any had been 
 suffered from unlawful depredations committed by the sheriff's posse, in 
 Douglas county. And further, Gov. Shannon stated that he had not 
 called upon the residents of any state to aid in executing the laws, 
 believing that he had no authority to do so; and that he would not call 
 upon the citizens of any other state who might be there. Signed De- 
 cember 8, 1855. 
 
 By this act and others of a pacificatory nature, Governor Shannon 
 disappointed his pro-slavery friends, who felt, as expressed by one of 
 their papers, that " a northern governor had cheated them out of their 
 just revenge." He continued in office, however, until the 21st of August 
 1856, when he was officially informed of his removal, and Secretary 
 Woodson again became acting governor. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXYH. 
 
 KEjETING of congress. — ACTION OF CONGRESS ON KANSAS AFFAIRS. RE- 
 PORTS OF COMMITTEES. TROUBLES IN KANSAS. — ACTS OF CONGRESS. 
 
 The 1st session of the 34th congress commenced on the 3d of Decem- 
 ber, 1855. But the house was not organized by the election of a 
 speaker until the 2d of February, two months having been spent in 
 unsuccessful attempts at an election. After the 129th ballot, it was 
 agreed to adopt the plurality rule. If, on or before the third ballot 
 thereafter taken, no person should receive a majority, then, on the next 
 trial, the person receiving the highest number of votes was to be de- 
 clared elected. Thus, on the 133d ballot, Nathaniel P. Banks, of 
 Massachusetts, was elected, having received 103 votes, and William 
 Aiken, of South Carolina, 100. 
 
 The annual message of President Pierce was transmitted to congress 
 
ACTION OF C0NGRES3 ON KANSAS AFFAIRS. 961 
 
 on the 31st of December, Besides the topics usually embraced ia presi- 
 dential messages, the troubles iu Kansas are briefly noticed ; it being 
 doubtless intended to present them more in detail in a subsequent com- 
 niuuication. Much space, however, is devoted to the constitutional 
 rights of the states ; the acquisition and disposal of territory as affected 
 by the question of slavery ; the disregard, on the part of the free states, 
 of their constitutional obligations, by their interference in the domestic 
 affairs of the slave states, and a vindication of the latter from the 
 charge of aggression upon the rights and interests of the former. 
 
 On the 24th of January, 1856, the house not yet being organized, 
 the president sent a special message to congress on the state of affairs 
 in Kansas. He contrasts the prompt and tranquil organization of 
 Nebraska with the long-delayed organization of Kansas. This delay 
 he attributes to the tardiness of the governor in reaching the seat of 
 government, and iu ordering the taking of the census ; in consequence 
 of which the legislature was not elected until the 30th of March, and 
 did not assemble until the 2d of July, 1855. He also charges the 
 goveroor with a want of vigilance ; with not having put forth all his 
 energies to prevent or counteract the tendencies to illegality ; and with 
 having allowed his attention to be diverted from official obligation by 
 other objects, and set an example of the violation of law ; for which 
 he had removed him from office. 
 
 He mentions, as one cause of the difficulties, " the extraordinary mea- 
 sure of propagandist colonization of the territory, to prevent the free 
 and natural action of its inhabitants in its internal organization, and 
 thus to anticipate or to force the determination of that question (sla- 
 very) in this inchoate state." And he makes special allusion to the 
 Emigrant Aid Societies, whose " designs and acts had the necessary 
 consequence to awaken emotions of intense indignation in states near 
 to the territory of Kansas," and especially Missouri, " whose domestic 
 peace was thus the most directly endangered." 
 
 Although accusations abounded on all sides of illegal voting, and of 
 fraud and violence, the governor's having received the election returns, 
 and declared a large majority of the members "duly elected," had 
 given " complete legality to the first legislative assembly." 
 
 He says : " The allegation that the acts of the legislative assembly 
 were illegal by reason of this removal (to the Shawnee Manual Labor 
 School), was brought forward to justify the first great movement m 
 disregard of law within the territory." The election of a delegate to 
 congress by the free-state party, he pronounces to have been " without 
 authority." Such also was the formation and adoption of their consti- 
 tution and the election, under it, of state officers and a representative 
 
 61 
 
962 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to congress. These acts he considered of a revolutionary character ; 
 aiid if they reached the length of organized resistance, they would 
 become treasonable insurrection. Bound to see the laws faithfully 
 executed, if they were opposed in Kansas, he should call out the public 
 force, and, if necessary, the militia of one or more states. It was not 
 his duty, he said, to volunteer interposition by force to preserve the 
 purity of elections in a state or territory. The people had a right to 
 regulate their own social institutions. Interference, on the one band, to 
 procure the abolition or prohibition of slave labor in the territory had 
 produced mischievous interference on the other, for its maintenance or 
 introduction. Inflammatory agitation had, for twenty years, produced 
 nothing but unmitigated evil. But for this, the character of the do- 
 mestic institutions of the future new state would have been of too little 
 interest to the people of contiguous states to produce among them any 
 political emotion, and the present disturbing question would have been 
 quietly determined. 
 
 The president suggested, that when the population should be suffi- 
 cient to constitute a state, the regular steps should be taken to frame 
 a constitution, and thus to prepare for admission into the Union. He 
 recommended the enactment of a law to that effect. He also recom- 
 mended a special appropriation to defray any expense which might 
 become requisite to execute the laws and maintain public order in the 
 territory. 
 
 In the senate, the message was referred to the committee on terri- 
 tories, and on the I2th of March, 1856, Mr. Douglas, the chairman, 
 made an elaborate report. He discusses the question whence congress 
 derives authority to organize temporary governments for the territories. 
 A state is a sovereign power, limited only by the Constitution of the 
 United States. There is no authority for putting a restriction upon 
 the sovereignty of a new state which the Constitution has not placed 
 upon the original states. The power to organize temporary govern- 
 ments is not granted in the " power to dispose of and make all needful 
 rules and regulations. respecting the territory and other property be- 
 longing to the United States," This clause confers power only to pro- 
 vide for surveying the public lands, and exposing them to private and 
 public sale, issuing patents, confirming titles, etc. ; in short, for making 
 rules and regulations for protecting and disposing of the public domain 
 and other public property of the United States, which power extends 
 to the lands and other property of the United States as well as 
 in the territories, Mr. D. deduces the power in question from the 
 power to pass laws necessary and proper to carry into effect some other 
 power specifically granted. He considers the organization of a terri- 
 
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 963 
 
 tory as a proper means of enabling its people to form their domestic 
 institutions, and to establish a state government preparatory to admis- 
 sion. Such was the design of the Kansas and Nebraska act. 
 
 The report imputed to the Eastern Aid Societies the design of forcing 
 into the Union a free state. It admits the right of citizens coming into 
 the territory as actual settlers, in case of ordinary emigration, to vote 
 at elections and participate in the control of its government ; but con- 
 siders it a very different thing when a state creates a moneyed cor- 
 poration to control the domestic institutions of a distinct and distant 
 political community, by sending out emigrants for that purpose. This 
 led the people of the western counties of Missouri, by a similar system 
 of emigration, to counteract this design, and to protect themselves and 
 the domestic institutions of their own state, which they apprehended 
 would be endangered by the abolitionizing of Kansas. 
 
 The committee consider it no part of their duty to examine and 
 review the laws of the Kansas legislature. The internal concerns of 
 the territory are confided to the people through their representatives, 
 and not to congress. The question as to the validity of the laws is a 
 judicial question, to be determined by the courts of justice. 
 
 Tbe committee commend the messages and proclamation of the pre- 
 sident, which give the gratifying assurance that the rebellion will 
 be crushed ; aggressive intrusion for controlling elections will be re- 
 pelled ; the federal and local laws will be vindicated against all at- 
 tempts of organized resistance ; and the people of the territory will be 
 protected in the establishment of their own institutions. 
 
 The report closes with a response to the recommendations of the 
 president in his special message. 
 
 Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, dissenting from the report of the commit- 
 tee, submitted a minority report, of which the following is an abstract : 
 
 Thirteen states of this union have passed peacefully through the 
 period of pupilage of territorial training preparatory to admission. A 
 territory of our government is now convulsed with violence and dis- 
 cord. The national executive power is put in motion, the army in 
 requisition, and congress is invoked for interference. It becomes neces- 
 sary to inquire into the cause of existing trouble. 
 
 The object of the action of congress has been to settle clearly the 
 law in relation to slavery to be operative in the territory while it 
 remains such, not leaving it to be a subject of controversy within the 
 same. This had been done for sixty years under the power " to dis- 
 pose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the terri- 
 tory or other property belonging to the United States." Settling the 
 Bubject of slavery is no higher exercise of power than regulating the 
 
964 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 functions of the territorial government and appointing its principal 
 functionaries. Peace, prosperity and success have attended this course. 
 The rule was this : where slavery existed to any considerable extent, 
 it has been suffered to remain. Where it did not exist to any great 
 extent, it has been expressly prohibited. The subject has been re- 
 garded, too, as one in which the whole country has an interest. 
 
 Mr. C. alluded to the Missouri Compromise, by which a northern 
 boundary to slavery had been fixed. But by the Kansas and Nebraska 
 act, the subject had been left to be discussed, agitated and legislated 
 on in the territories. This had opened a course for rivalship between 
 the friends oi Mberty and those of slavery. It was the right of those 
 who believed in the blessings of slavery to aid in making the territory 
 a slave state, either by becoming settlers and voters, or by inducing 
 others to do so. And so it was the right of those who believed slavery 
 an evil, to adopt the same means for making it a free state ; and if it 
 could be best done by voluntary associations or corporations, it was 
 equally lawful and laudable to use such meaas. It was not to be ex- 
 pected ttiat the people of the free states, who regarded the act of 
 1854 as a double breach of faith, would sit down and make no effort 
 by legal means to correct it, 
 
 Mr. C. adverted to the character of the elections, which had been 
 carried by fraud and violence by invaders from an adjacent state ; to 
 the acts of the legislature for the security of slavery by severe penal- 
 ties ; and to the acts of the governor, his removal, etc. Instead of 
 permitting the people to elect officers, the legislature had created 
 oflSces and filled them, or appointed officers to fill them for long periods ; 
 so that no change of laws or officers could be effected by the people 
 until after a change of the council, which was elected for two years. 
 There was no excuse for the oppressive laws of the legislature in the 
 pretense that the inhabitants had carried with them into the territory 
 a quantity of Sharpe's rifles, even if true ; but it was untrue, as these 
 rifles had been obtained afterward, for the purpose of self-defense. The 
 laws were obviously intended to oppress and drive out the opponents of 
 slavery, and, if they remained, to silence them, and subject them to the 
 control of the people of Missouri. The laws, the president said, must 
 be enforced by the army and poM^er of the nation. The people, seeing 
 their government used to crush them, had proceeded, under the gua- 
 ranty of the Constitution, "peaceably to assemble to petition the 
 government for the redress of grievances." Seeing no source of relief 
 but in the formation of a state government by the people and its ratifi- 
 cation by congress, they had acted accordingly. 
 
 Congress having been informed by the president that he has no 
 
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 965 
 
 power tci correct a usurpation, and that the laws, even though made 
 by usurped authority, must be by him executed, even with military 
 force, it was proper to inquire what should be done by congress. Let 
 the act of 1854 be repealed, and Kansas be organized anew as a free 
 territory ; and all would be put right. 
 
 On the 17 th of March, 1856, Mr. Douglas reported a bill, notice of 
 which was given in his report. This bill authorized the legislature of 
 the territory of Kansas to provide by law for a convention, to form a 
 constitution and state government, preparatory to their admission into 
 the union on an equal footing with the original states, so soon as it 
 should appear, by a census to be taken under the direction of the gov- 
 ernor, by authority of the legislature, that the territory contained 
 93,420 inhabitants, that being the number required by the present 
 ratio of representation for a member of congress. The debate on this 
 bill continued until the 2d of July, when, having received several 
 amendments, it was passed : yeas, 33 ; nays, 12. 
 
 On the 19th of March, 1856, the Kansas contested election being 
 under consideration in the house, a resolution was adopted, authoriz- 
 ing the appointment of a committee of three members, to inquire iuto 
 the troubles of Kansas generally, and particularly in regard to any 
 fraud or force in reference to the elections. The committee appointed 
 in pursuance of the resolution, consisted of John Sherman, of Ohio ; 
 William A. Howard, of Michigan ; and Mordecai Oliver, of Missouri. 
 They proceeded to Kansas, where they spent several weeks in collect- 
 ing evidence ; and made their report to the house on the 1st of July, 
 1856. The report, including the testimony, makes a volume of 1,200 
 pages. The sketch of the history of the affairs of Kansas in the pre- 
 ceding chapter, is taken principally from thi^ report. Only a few addi- 
 tional statements contained in the report will be given. 
 
 The committee express the opinion that the elections held by the 
 free-state party, whether conducted in pursuance of law or not, were 
 not illegal. They were proper, in accordance with examples, both in 
 states and territories. They were attended with acts of violence on 
 the part of those who disapproved this movement for the organization 
 of a state government. 
 
 In the fall of 1855, out of the existing discord and excitement, 
 there sprang up two secret free-state societies. They were defensive 
 in their character. One of them was confined to the town of Law- 
 rence. It soon produced its desired effect, and ceased to exist. Both 
 societies were cumbersome, and served only to give confidence to the 
 fvne-statc men, and enabled them to know and aid each other in case 
 of danger. There was no evidence of their having 1^ to acts of vio- 
 
966 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 lence in resistance to either real or alleged laws. One of the societiea 
 alluded to by the committee was probably the "Kansas Legion," 
 which, however, was formed early in the year. Its object was declared 
 to be, first, to secure to Kansas the blessing and prosperity of being 
 a free state ; and, secondly, to protect the ballot-box from the leprous 
 touch of unprincipled men." It evidently contemplated the employ- 
 ment of force, if necessary, in carrying out its purposes. 
 
 The conclusions of the committee, as established by the testimony, 
 were, substantially, as follows : 
 
 That the elections under the organic or alleged territorial law, had 
 been carried on by organized invasions from Missouri, 
 
 That the alleged territorial legislature was an illegally cocstitutttl 
 body, and had no power to pass valid laws. 
 
 That these alleged laws had not, generally, been used to protect per- 
 sons and property, and to punish wrong, biit for unlawful purposes. 
 
 That neither John W. Whitfield, the sitting delegate, nor Andrew 
 H. Eeeder, the contestant, was entitled to a seat, as neither had been 
 elected in pursuance of any valid law. 
 
 That Reeder had received the greater numbe." of votes of resident 
 citizens. 
 
 That a fair election could not be held in the territory without a new 
 census, a stringent election law, impartial judges, and the presence of 
 United States troops at every place of election. 
 
 That the elections preliminary to the formation of the state govern- 
 ment had been as regular as the disturbed state of the territory would 
 allow ; and that the constitution formed by the convention held in pur- 
 suance of said elections, embodies the will of a majority of the people. 
 
 Mr. Oliver, the minority member of the committee, made an adverse 
 report. The election for the legislature had been held pursuant to 
 Governor Reeder's proclamation ; the returns had been made to him, 
 and he had set aside the election of but nine of the twenty-six mem- 
 bers of the house, and three of the thirteen elected as members of the 
 council, and had certified the election of others ; he had ordered new 
 elections in the disputed districts ; he had convened the legislature on 
 the 1st of July, 1855, and communicated with and recognized them as 
 a properly constituted body ; and never until August, 1855, after he 
 had been removed, did he object to their election. These facts, in the 
 opinion of Mr. Oliver, rendered the acts of the legislature valid, even 
 if illegality in voting had been proved. He afiBrmed that the weight 
 of testimony showed that a majority of the legal voters in fourteen of 
 the eighteen districts were in favor of the party electing a majority of 
 the legislature ; and it was far from conclusive that there was not a 
 
TREASON INDICTMENTS IN KANSAS. 96f 
 
 like majority in the other dlsta-icts. Nor did it appear to him that the 
 electioa had been carried by force, violence, or non-residents. 
 
 As to the societies nanaed by the majority, designed to raalie Kansas 
 a slave state, their object was to counteract other organizations, first 
 started, to make it a free state. The Kansas Aid Society was formed 
 in Washington by members of congress and others, immediately after 
 the passage of the Kansas Nebraska act. Large numbers sent out by 
 the eastern aid societies, went into the territory just before the elec- 
 tion, in March, 1855, and many had been seen returning after electioa. 
 Many of the Missourians had gone over on the day of the election to 
 prevent illegal voting by eastern emigrants. 
 
 In stating his conclusions, he gives a direct negative to those of the 
 majority. 
 
 We have not room, nor is it properly our province, to record the 
 numerous murders and other acts of violence reported by the commit- 
 tee. For a history of these and the " civil war," so called, which for 
 a time prevailed in the territory, the reader is referred to other sources. 
 
 The Kansas judiciary was no less obnoxious to the free-state mea 
 than was the legislature. It was charged with partiality and ineffi- 
 ciency. At the Douglas county court, in May, 1856, Judge Lecompte, 
 in his charge to the grand jury, declared that, as the legislature was 
 the instrument of congress in governing the territory, those who 
 resisted the territorial laws were guilty of high treason against the 
 United States. If only combinations had been formed for the purpose 
 of resisting them, the aiding and abetting of such combinations was 
 constructive treason, " as the courts had decided that, to constitute 
 treason, the blow need not be struck, but only the intention must be 
 made evident." A presentment was accordingly made, in which the 
 grand jury declared that the Herald of Freedom and the Kansas Free 
 State, newspapers, had denied the legality of the territorial authorities, 
 and published resolutions of public meetings, in which resistance toJ;he 
 laws had been agreed upon ; and that they were satisfied that the 
 Free State Hotel in Lawrence had been constructed with a view to 
 military occupation and defense, and designed as a stronghold of 
 resistance to law : and they recommended their abatement as nuis- 
 ances. Soon after this the hotel was burned, and the two pi-esses were 
 destroyed, by direction of Sheriff Jones, acting in obedience to writs 
 issued for that purpose by the first district court of the United States. 
 
 On the 7th of April, 1856, the constitution framed at Topeka 
 was presented to congress. In the senate, the supplication for the 
 admission of Kansas as a free state under the constitution was 
 rejected. Yeas, 16. 
 
968 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Id the house a majonty of the committee reported in favor of sncb 
 admission. Before the question was taken on the bill, Mr. Stephens, 
 oi Georgia, proposed as a substitute, a bill which provided for taking 
 a census of the inhabitants and legal voters of the territory, and elect- 
 ing delegates, to assemble in convention on the first Monday of Decem- 
 ber, 1856, to form a constitution. 
 
 Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, proposed to amend this substitute bill, by 
 adding a section intended to repeal that part of the section of the 
 Kansas-Nebraska act which declares the Missouri compromise of 1820 
 inoperative and void, and recognizes the principle of non-intervention 
 by congress with slavery in the territories. The pi'oposed additional 
 section also provided to discharge from service all slaves remaining in 
 the territory after twelve mouths. Mr. Dunn's amendment was carried, 
 109 to 102. The bill, though thus amended, was, as a whole, accept- 
 able to neither party ; receiving only the votes of Mr. Harrison, of 
 Ohio, and Mr. Dunn. 
 
 Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, moved that the bill reported by the com- 
 mittee be laid on the table. This motion was lost : yeas, 106 ; nays, 
 101. After an animated contest, the final question was taken, and the 
 bill rejected, lOt to 106. A motion by Mr. Barclay, of Pennsylvania, 
 on the 1st of July, to reconsider this vote, was carried on the 3d of 
 July, 101 to 99 ; and the bill was passed, 99 to 91. 
 
 In the senate, several bills having been submitted for settling the 
 troubles in Kansas, Mr. Douglas, on the 30th of June, reported on the 
 same, and also against the proposition of Mr. Seward, to admit Kan- 
 sas under the Topeka constitution, Mr. Douglas' bill proposed to 
 reorganize Kansas, and gave the right of suffrage to alien residents 
 who had declared their intention to become citizens. This provision, 
 on motion of Mr. Adams, of Mississippi, was struck out, 22 to 16. 
 The bill was further amended, by adding a provision forbidding any 
 law which should require any attestation or oath to support any act of 
 congress, or any other legislative act, as a qualification for office, as 
 juror, or as a voter, or which should restrain the free discussion of any 
 subject of legislation, or the free expression of opinion thereon. Car- 
 ried, 40 to 8. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, offered a section, declaring that, prior to 
 any act of the territorial legislature, slaves could not be lawfully held 
 in the territory. Lost : yeas, 9 ; nays, 34. He then proposed a sec- 
 tion declaiing that the organic act " was intended to, and does, 
 authorize the people of Kansas, through the legislature, to exclude 
 slavery, or to recognize and regulate it. Lost : yeas, 11 ; nays, 34. 
 He then proposed sections declaring all previous acts of the territorial 
 
ACTION OF CONGRESS ON KANSAS AFFAIRS. 969 
 
 legislature null and void, and prohibiting any person from holding 
 oflBce or exercisiug any authority derived from the legislative assembly, 
 and the members thereof from exercising any power as such. Lost i 
 yeas, 11 ; nays, 36. 
 
 Mr. Co! lamer, of Vermont, proposed a section prohibiting slavery, but 
 allowing the reclamation and return of fugitive slaves. Lost : yeas, 
 10 ; nays, 35. A motion of Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, to strike 
 out the whole bill, and insert another repealing all the territorial laws, 
 was lost : yeas, 8 ; nays, 35 ; as was a motion by Mr. Seward to strike 
 out the whole bill, and insert one admitting Kansas under the Topeka 
 constitution, 11 to 36. 
 
 The bill, as amended, was reported to the senate, and passed : yeas, 
 33 ; nays, 12. It was entitled, "An act to authorize the people of 
 the territory of Kansas to form a constitution and state government 
 preparatory to their admission into the union on an equal footing with 
 the original states." The bill was sent to the house, where it was not 
 acted on. 
 
 In the senate, on the 8th of July, the bill from the house was amended 
 by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting the bill of 
 the senate above referred to ; but it was not acted upon by the house. 
 
 In the house, on the 29th of July, Mr. Dunn proposed a bill " to 
 reorganize the territory of Kansas, and for other purposes." Mr. 
 Grow, of Pennsylvania, from the committee on territories, had, on the 
 27th of February, reported a bill to annul certain acts of the Kansas 
 legislature, and to secure to the citizens their rights and privileges. For 
 this bill, that of Mr. Dunn was offered as a substitute. It contained a 
 provision to revive the Missouri compromise act ; but slaves lawfully 
 held in the territory were not to be discharged from service, if removed 
 from the territory prior to the 1st of January, 1858 ; and fugitive 
 slaves were to be surrendered. 
 
 The free-state members now found themselves in a dilemma. To vote 
 for the bill would be to recognize and sanction slavery in the territory ; 
 to vote against it would give fresh occasion for the charge of desiring 
 to protract the Kansas difficulties with a view to party effect. But as 
 there were as yet few slaves in the territory; and as the early termina* 
 tion of slavery therein at an early day would be rendered certain, and 
 its existence probably shortened, by the passage of the bill, the anti- 
 slavery members generally voted for the bill, and it was passed : yeas, 
 88 ; nays, 74. This bill was not acted on in the senate. 
 
 Nothing being likely to be done by direct legislation for terminating 
 the troubles in Kansas, the house affixed to the legislative, executive, 
 and judicial appropriation bill, three provisoes : 1. That no part of the 
 
910 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 money appropriated should be paid, until all pending prosecutions in 
 Kansas for alleged violations of the laws of the Shawnee legislature 
 should be dismissed ; 2. Nor for the compensation of the members, 
 ofiQcers, and contingent expenses of the next territorial legislature ; 3. 
 Nor for presecuting any other persons charged with treason or other 
 political offenses in the territory. These provisoes were opposed by the 
 senate ; and the first and third were given up by the house. The second 
 being finally agreed to, the passage of the bill was secured. 
 
 But the army appropriation bill was not passed when the session 
 expired, (August 18th, 1856,) as the two houses could not agree upon 
 a proviso annexed by the house, forbidding the employment of any part 
 of the military force of the United States to enforce the enactments of 
 the Kansas legislature, until congress had enacted that it was or was 
 not a vahd legislature, lawfully elected ; and requiring the president, 
 until such enactment by congress, to use the military force to pre- 
 serve peace, repel invasion, and protect persons and property, and to 
 dicM'm the organized militia of the territory, &c. 
 
 The necessity of providing for the support of the army, induced the 
 president to call an extra session of congress on the 21st of August, 
 after a recess of three days. The bill was again passed by the house, 
 but the proviso was struck out by the senate. The struggle con- 
 tinued until the 30th, when the house concurred with the senate, 101 
 to 97. 
 
 Among the acts passed during the first or regular annual session, was 
 one to change the compensation of members of congress. Instead of 
 $8 a day, they were to be allowed a salary of $3000 a year ; mileage 
 $8 for every 20 miles travel, to remain unchanged. Reductions were 
 to be made for each day's absence, except for the cause of sickness of 
 a member himself, or of some member of his family. 
 
 An important discussion in the senate, at this session, sprang out of 
 our relations with Great Britain. By the treaty of April, 1850, called 
 the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the two governments covenanted, that neither 
 would ever occupy, colonize, or exercise dominion over Nicaragua, Costa 
 Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America. The pre- 
 sident in liis annual message informed congress that Great Britain 
 claimed riglits in that country which were not conceded by the treaty. 
 This " Central American question," involved the " Monroe doctrine," 
 so called from its having had its origin in the administration of Pre- 
 sident Monroe, who, in his annual message to congress, in 1823, asserted 
 " as a principle, that the American continents were henceforth not to 
 be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European 
 Power." The occasion of this declaration was the apprehended inter- 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856. 9^1 
 
 ference, by the Allied Powers of Europe (the Holy Alliance) in the 
 contest between Spain and her revolting South American colonies. He 
 said, " as it was impossible for these Powers to extend their system to 
 any part of America without endangering our peace and happiness, we 
 should not behold such interference with indifference." 
 
 It is, however, the opinion of some of our statesmen, that this decla- 
 ration of Mr. Mouroe was intended, not as a principle for all future 
 time, but only for the occasion on which it was uttered, and to cease at 
 the expiration of this European league. 
 
 At this session were passed acts granting public lands to the states 
 of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, 
 to aid in the construction of railroads in those states. By these acts, 
 every alternate section of land, for six sections in width, on each side 
 of a railroad, is granted for that purpose ; and the sections remaining 
 to the United States are not to be sold for less than double the minimum 
 price of the public lands when sold ; nor shall they be subject to ;s "ivate 
 entry until they shall have been first offered at public sale at the in- 
 creased price. The wisdom of this policy is by many consiuered 
 questionable. Private interest, they believe to have been quite as 
 powerful a motive in making these grants, as the public good. Similar 
 grants have since been made for railroads in other states. 
 
 Four several bills, two for the improvement of the navigation of the 
 Mississippi river, and two for deepening channels over the St. Clair and 
 St. Mary's flats, were vetoed by the president, for the reason that the 
 general government has not the constitutional power to prosecute 
 internal improvements. These bills were all subsequently passed by 
 two-thirds majorities. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXYm. 
 
 PBESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856. ACTS OF CONGRESS, 1856-7. KANSAS 
 
 AFFAIRS. PRESIDENT BUCHAKAN's INAUGURAL ADDRESS. OPINION OF 
 
 THE SUPREME COURT. — LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 
 
 The presidential canvass of 1856 was one of uunsual interest and 
 animation. One of the effects of the repeal of the Missouri compro- 
 mise, had been a union of the opponents of slavery extension under tlie 
 name of republicans. State republican organizations were formed in 
 1855; and a convention of delegates from free states was held at 
 
972 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Pittsburg on the 22d of February, 1856, with a view to the formation 
 of a national party. At this convention, resolutions were adopted 
 containing the leading principles which constitute the present basis of 
 the republican party. 
 
 Besides the two principal parties, the democratic and the republican, 
 was the American party, which had its origin in secret organizations 
 ihroughout the country, whose members, called " Know-Nothings," 
 had, in the space of two or three years, increased so rapidly in numbers 
 as to have become truly formidable to the other parties. 
 
 The American national nominating convention was held at Phila- 
 delphia the 21st of February, 1856. Millard Fillmore, of New York, 
 was nominated as candidate for president, and Andrew J. Donelson, 
 of Kentucky, for vice-pi'esident. Mr. Fillmore's antecedents, previous 
 to 1860, had been those of an anti-slavery whig. He was elected to 
 Congress in 1838, under a pledge to the abolitionists of his district. 
 During his congressional term, he acted with the advocates of the right 
 of petition, of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and 
 of Ifi'ndred measures. And in 1844, after the expiration of his con 
 gressiotial term, he was a zealous opponent of the annexation of Texas 
 aud the extension of slavery. In 1850, as vice-president and (after 
 Taylor's death) as president of the United States, he favored the com- 
 promise measures of that year. 
 
 The more distinctive principles of the platform adopted by the 
 American convention, were : That Americans must rule America ; and 
 to this end, native born citizens should be selected for all government 
 oflQccs in preference to all others. Nor should such offices be given to 
 persons who recognize (as is alleged that Catholics do) any allegiance 
 or obligation to any foreign prince, potentate, or power, or who do not 
 recognize the federal and state constitutions as paramount to all other 
 laws as rules of political action. Foreigners should not be naturalized 
 until after a residence here of twenty-one years. The citizens of any 
 territory should have the right " to regulate their domestic and social 
 affairs in their own mode, and to be admitted into the union when they 
 have the requisite population for a i-epresentative in congfess." 
 
 The Americans were not unanimous in the support of their regularly 
 nominated candidates. A convention held in the city of New York, 
 representing the more anti-slavery portion of the party, nominated 
 John C. Fremont for president and Gov. Johnson, of Pennsylvania, for 
 vice-president. 
 
 The democratic convention met at Cincinnati, June 6th, 1856. As 
 in former conventions of this party, the two-thirds rule was adopted. 
 The leading candidates were Mr. Pierce, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Douglas, 
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856. 973 
 
 and Mr. Marcy. After several ballotings, Mr, Buchaaan was chosen as 
 the candidate of the party. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan's "antecedents" had been the reverse of Mr. Fill- 
 more's. He was a democrat, and had acted with the representatives 
 of slavery in congress. Also, while minister to England, himself and 
 our ministers to France and Spain, Mason and Soule, held a conference 
 at Ostend, and, having offered Spain, as is said, two hundred million 
 dollars for Cuba, which she refused, issued a manifesto, in which they 
 say : " After we shall have offered Spain a price for Cuba far beyond 
 its present value, and this shall have been refused, it will then be time 
 to consider the question. Does Cuba, in the possession of Spain, 
 seriously endanger our internal peace and the existence of our cherished 
 union ? Should this question be answered in the affirmative, then, by 
 every law, human and divine, we shall be justified in wresting it from 
 Spain, if we have the power." By these and other acts, Mr. Buchanan 
 had gained the confidence of the South, which gave him its almost 
 unanimous support. 
 
 The convention adopted the leading principles of the platform of the 
 convention of 1852, with numerous additional resolutions. These reso- 
 lutions declare, that " no party (alluding to the American party) can 
 justly be deemed national, constitutional, or in accordance with Ameri- 
 can principles, which bases its exclusive organization upon religious 
 opinions and accidental birthplace." They " repudiate all sectional 
 parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to 
 embroil the states and incite to treason and armed resistance in the 
 territories, and adopt, as a principle, non-interference of congress with 
 slavery in the territories or in the District of Columbia." They approve 
 the " Monroe doctrine," which, according to the popular construction, 
 forbids any European power to establish a colony on the American 
 continent. They assert the right to control " the great highway which 
 nature has marked out for free communication between the Atlantic 
 and Pacific oceans." They " sympathize with the efforts of the people 
 of Central America to regulate that portion of the continent which 
 covers the passage across the inter-oceanic isthmus ;" meaning, as some 
 suppose, the attempt of Walker to revolutionize that country. And 
 they " expect of the next administration every proper effort to insure 
 our ascendency in the gulf of Mexico ;" evidently referring to the 
 acquisition of Cuba. 
 
 The republican convention was held in Philadelphia the 17 th of 
 June, 1856. The prominent candidates for nomination were Messrs. 
 Seward, Fremont, Banks, and Judge M'Lean. Before the balloting 
 commenced, it was announced that Mr, Seward had requested the with- 
 
9T4- THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 drawal of his name. The contest was mainly between Col. Fremont 
 and Judge M'Lean. John C. Fremont was, after several ballots 
 declared unanimously nominated. 
 
 The resolutions adopted by the convention as the platform of the 
 republicans, " deny the authority of congress, or of a territorial legis- 
 lature, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United 
 States." They claim for congress " sovereign power over the terri- 
 tories for their government," and " in the exercise of this power, it is 
 both the right and the duty of congress to prohibit in the territories 
 those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." They charge 
 the administration with sanctioning the numerous violations of the 
 constitutional rights of the people of Kansas ; as, the " invasion of 
 their territory by an armed force ;" the enforcement " of unconsti- 
 tutional and tyrannical laws ;" the requiring of " test oaths as a 
 condition of voting and holding office ;" denying " the right of a speedy 
 and public trial by an impartial jury ;" infringing " the right of the 
 people to bear arms ;" encouraging " murders, robberies, and arsons, 
 and allowing the offenders to go unpunished," etc. They declare 
 " that Kansas should be immediately admitted with her present free 
 constitution ;" that " the highwayman's plea, that ' might makes 
 right,' embodied in the Ostend circular, is unworthy of American 
 diplomacy;" that "a railroad to the Pacific ocean, by the most central 
 and practicable route, is imperatively demanded by the interests of the 
 whole country;" that appropriations by congress for the improvement 
 of rivers and harbors of a national character, required for the accom- 
 modation and security of our existing commerce, are authorized by the 
 constitution ;" and they " invite the affiliation and cooperation of 
 freemen of all parties, however differing from us in other respects, in 
 support of the principles herein declared." 
 
 At the election in November, electors in favor of Mr. Buchanan were 
 chosen in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, 
 California, and all the slaveholding states except Maryland ; in all, 
 lt4 electors. Mr. Fillmore received the electoral vote of Maryland, 
 8 electors. Col. Fremont received* the support of all the free states, 
 except the five before mentioned, 114 electors. 
 
 The 3d session of the 34th congress commenced on the 1st ©<* 
 December, 1856. The next day the president's message was communi- 
 cated to both houses. 
 
 The president, in noticing tne election just passed, says, " the people 
 have asserted the constitutional equality of all the states and of all 
 the citizens of the United States, whatever their religion, wherever 
 their birth or their residence ;" and " have condemned the idea of 
 
ACTS OF CONGRESS, 1856-t. 9T5 
 
 organizing mere geographical parties." He censures those who "seek 
 to prevent the spread of slavery into the present or future states of the 
 nnion ;" says " they endeavor to prepare the people of the U. States 
 for civil war ;" that "violent attack from the North" begets "a spirit 
 of angry defiance at the South ;" that " the voice of the people has 
 pointedly rebuked the attempt of a portion of the states, by a sectional 
 organization and movement, to usurp the control of the government of 
 the United States ;" and mentions as among " the long series of acts 
 of indirect aggression " npon the South, the " objecting to the 
 admission of Missouri " as a slave state, and the prohibition of slavery 
 in acts for the organization of territorial governments. He announces 
 "the restoration of comparative tranquillity" in Kansas, and attributes 
 the disturbances there to the "unjust interference on the part of persons 
 not inhabitants of the territory." 
 
 The public debt is stated to be $30,963,909. The average annual 
 expenditure, .deducting payments on account of the public debt, and 
 $10,000,000 paid by treaty to Mexico, has been about $48,000,000 ; 
 and unless some extraordinary occasion for its increase should occur, 
 the expenditures for the ensuing five years would probably not exceed 
 that sum : therefore, the revenue from customs, which, during the pre- 
 ceding year were more than $64,000,000, might be reduced so as not 
 to exceed $50,000,000. 
 
 The receipts of the post-office department were $7,620,801; and its 
 expenditures, $10,407,868. 
 
 Among the acts passed was "An act reducing the duty on imports;" 
 by which the duties imposed on sundry articles by the tariff of 1846 
 were reduced, and some articles subject to duty were made free : 
 
 An act to aid in laying the telegraph cable across the Atlantic : 
 
 An act to authorize the people "Of Minnesota to form a constitution 
 and state government preparatory to their admission into the union : 
 
 An act granting lands to the territory of Minnesota to aid in con- 
 structing railroads. 
 
 No law having reference to the affairs of Kansas was passed at this 
 session. In the house, Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, reported a bill for 
 the relief of the people of Kansas. This bill declared the enactments 
 of the territorial legislature to have been forced upon the people in 
 violation of the organic act, and to be therefore of no binding force or 
 effect ; and required the governor to order an election for choosing 
 members of a new legislature, under such roles and regulations as he 
 should direct. It also provided safeguards against unlawful and 
 fraudulent voting. 
 
 The question on the final passage of this bill was taken on the 17tb 
 
976 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of February, 1857, and decided in the affirmative: yeas, 98; nays, 79. 
 The yeas, 92 republicans and 6 Fillmore men, were all from free states. 
 Of the nays, 65 were from slave states, and 14 from free states; 20 
 being Fillmore Americans, and 59 democrats. 
 
 In the Senate, this bill was laid on the table, 30 to 20. Yeas, from 
 slave states, 22; from free states, 8. Nays, from free states, 18; from 
 slave states, 2. 
 
 Although this attempt at the pacification of Kansas failed, a mani- 
 fest improvement of its condition had taken place under the administrar 
 tion of the then existing governor, John W. Geary. Governor Geary 
 had been appointed in July, 1856. As it was understood that he in- 
 tended not to side with either party, the pro-slavery leaders were not 
 pleased with the appointment. They published an address, in which 
 they complained that they had " asked a successor acquainted with 
 their condition;" but " in his stead they had one who was ignorant of 
 their condition, and who, they feared, would prove uo more efficient 
 than his predecessors." They therefore hastened to gather an army 
 from Missouri and other slave states before the arrival of the governor. 
 Acting-governor Woodson, by proclamation, declared the territory in a 
 state of rebellion and insurrection, and called upon the territorial militia 
 and all other citizens to aid in putting down and punishing the insurrec 
 tionists. This call soon brought in a large number of men from Missouri. 
 
 Governor Geary arrived at Fort Leavenworth the 9th of September. 
 He immediately became witness to flagrant outrages upon the per- 
 sons and property of citizens, and ordered the restoration of the pro- 
 perty. He declared to the citizens of Lawrence his intention to do 
 jastice to all classes, and recommended forbearance, as they could ask 
 the next legislature to revise the laws. He also ordered the discharge 
 of the volunteer militia, the employment of which was unauthorized: 
 the regular forces were sufficient to insure the execution of the laws. 
 By these and other means he succeeded in greatly improving the con- 
 dition of the country. 
 
 He next endeavored to increase the energy of the judges, whose in- 
 efficiency had become the subject of remark. He called upon them to 
 render an account of their judicial labors. Their answers showed that 
 their judicial characters had not been misrepresented. Having become 
 convinced, from sundry acts of Judge Lecompte, that a less partial 
 judiciary was necessary to preserve the peace of the territory, the 
 governor communicated the facts to President Pierce, who nominated 
 to the senate C. 0. Harrison, of Kentucky, as successor to Lecompte; 
 but the president having issued no writ of supersedeas, the senate ra 
 fused to confirm the appointment of Harrison. 
 
KANSAS AFFAIRS. 971 
 
 On the 6lh of January, 1857, the free-state legislature under the 
 Topeka constitution met at Topeka. A quorum not being present, thoy 
 adjourned to the next day. On leaving the house, a deputy marshal^ 
 acting under a writ issued by Judge Cato, arrested seven of the mem- 
 bers. But as the marshal had neither posse nor troops with him, the 
 persons arrested refused to go with him. The legislature reassembled 
 the next day, organized, appointed a committee to memorialize con- 
 gress for admission, and another to frame an election law, and adjourned 
 to the next day. The marshal having returned with carriages and 
 assistants, arrested a dozen or more of the members, who made no re- 
 sistance, and were taken to Tecumseh. The next day (8th) tliere was 
 no quorum in either body, and their presiding oflBcers were among the 
 prisoners. The members of both houses met in joint session, adopted 
 a memorial to congress, and took a recess till June. The prisoners 
 were bound over, on their own recognizances, in the sum of $500 
 each. 
 
 The territorial legislature met at Lecompton on the 12th of January. 
 A new house had been elected; and as the free-state men had taken no 
 part in the election, both bodies were composed entirely of pro-slavery 
 men. The message of Governor Geary disapproved some of the acts 
 of the previous legislature, and recommended their repeal. Among 
 others, he mentioned those which left no officer amenable to him or to 
 the people. But his recommendation was received with evident dis- 
 favor. 
 
 The governor had previously ordered the rearrest of Hays, who had 
 been indicted for the murder of Buffum, and admitted to bail by Judge 
 Lecomptc, and who had been again discharged by the judge on a writ 
 of habeas corpus. The legislature therefore passed an act allowing 
 judges to take bail in all cases of crime whatever, whether such crimes 
 had heretofore been bailable or not. The bill was vetoed by the 
 governor; but it was passed against the veto with but one dissenting 
 vote. 
 
 An act was also passed to provide for electing a convention to frame 
 a constitution; the election to be held on thei^d Monday of June, and 
 the delegates to meet at Lecompton on the 1st Monday of September. 
 This act, it was believed, did not provide sufficient security for a fair 
 election. None were to be allowed to vote who were not in the terri- 
 tory on or before the 15th of March. Many free-state men had left 
 their homes during the disturbances of the past year, and would be 
 unable to return before that day. Another objection to the act was, 
 that it was not to be submitted to the people for their sanction or re- 
 jection. The governor had informed certain members, before its paa- 
 
 62 
 
978 ; THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 sage, that if this objection should be removed, he would waive other 
 objections, and give the bill his approval. The reply was, that this 
 would defeat the object of the act, which was to secure Kansas to the 
 south as a slave state. The bill was passed, vetoed, and again passed, 
 and became a law. 
 
 By another act, a new legislature was to be elected in October, and 
 those only whose names were on the lists at the June election were to 
 be entitled to vote. Thus all would be again excluded, who were not 
 in the territory on or before the 15th of March. An act, however, 
 abolishing the test oath imposed on voters, was passed against con- 
 siderable opposition. 
 
 In his instructions from the government at Washington, the governor 
 was told; " The president relies on your energy and discretion to over- 
 come the difficulties which surround you, and to restore tranquillity to 
 Kansas. The exigencies of affairs as they shall be presented to you on 
 the spot, will indicate the course of proceeding in particular cases." 
 But thinking that he was not duly sustained by the government, and 
 being without power in the territory, he resigned his office at the close 
 of Mr. Pierce's administration. 
 
 On the 4th of March, 185Y, Mr. Buchanan entered upon the duties 
 of his office as president. That part of his inaugural address which 
 most attracted the public notice, was that relating to popular sove- 
 reignty. This doctrine had been generally understood to concede to 
 the people of a territory, represented in their legislature, full power 
 over slavery. But the president says: 
 
 " A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the time when the 
 people of a territory shall decide the ques-tion for themselves. This is 
 happily a matter of but little practical importance, and besides, it is a 
 judicial question which legitimately belongs to the supreme court of the 
 United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is under- 
 stood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common 
 with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be; 
 though it has been my individual opinion, that, under the Kansas- 
 Nebraska act, the appropriate period will be when the number of 
 actual residents in the territories shall justify the formation of a con- 
 stitution with a view to its admission as a state into the union." 
 
 This denial to the people in a territorial condition the right to con- 
 trol slavery, was considered by some as an abandonment of the doctrine 
 of popular sovereignty. The right to exclude it on adopting a consti- 
 tution had never been disputed. More than this, therefore, must have 
 been meant by leaving the people of a territory " free to form and 
 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." This is further 
 
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COUBT. 919 
 
 evident from the fact, that the advocates of the doctrine in question 
 claimed for the peo-ple of a territory the power which their opponents 
 claimed for congress. 
 
 The case in which the opinion of the supreme court was foreshadowed 
 in the president's address, was that of Dred Scott against John F. A. 
 Sandford. The plaintiff, a negro slave, had been taken by a former 
 master, Dr. Emerson, from Missouri, into Illinois, and there held as a 
 slave for about two years, and thence removed to Fort Snelling, now 
 in Minnesota. While here, he was married to a female slave of the 
 same master. In 1838, Dr. Emerson removed Scott, his wife, and 
 daughter, to Missouri, where he sold them to the defendant. 
 
 Scott now sued for his freedom, and that of his wife and child, in the 
 circuit court of St. Louis county, and obtained a judgment in his favor. 
 The supreme court of the state reversed the judgment, and remanded 
 the same to the circuit cqurt, where it continued to await the decision 
 in this case. By writ of error, the case was brought before the supreme 
 court of the United States, where, on the 6th of March, 1851, judgment 
 was pronounced reversing the judgment of the circuit court, and direct- 
 ing the dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction. 
 
 Chief-Justice Taney, in behalf of the majority of the court, expressed 
 the opinion that free negroes, whose ancestors were slaves, can not be- 
 come citizens. He says: 
 
 " Every person and every class and description of persons, who were 
 at the time of the adoption of the constitution recognized as citizens of 
 the several states, became also citizens of this new political body; but 
 none other; it was formed by them, and%r them and their posterity, 
 
 but for no one else The legislation and histories of the 
 
 times, and the language used in the declaration of independence, show 
 that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor 
 their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then 
 acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in 
 the general words used in that memorable instrument. They had for 
 more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and 
 altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in moral or 
 political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which 
 the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly 
 and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." 
 
 The chief-justice cites the enactments of some of the colonies pro- 
 hibiting the marriages of negroes or raulattoes with whites, thus "fixing 
 a stigma of the deepest degradation upon the whole race." To 
 include negroes among the " all men " concerning whom certain truths 
 are afiRrmed in the declaration of independence, as self-evident, or 
 
980 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 among " the people of the United States " named as the authors of the 
 constitution, would make their conduct " utterly inconsistent with the 
 principles they asserted." Sanctioning for a time the importation of 
 slaves, and requiring the return of " persons held to service," further 
 prove that the negro race were considered as a separate class of per- 
 sons. 
 
 Justice Curtis, who, with Justice M'Lean, dissented from the opinion 
 of the majority, maintained that, under the constitution of the United 
 States, every free person born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen 
 of that state by force of its constitution and laws, is also a citizen of 
 the United States. He cited the old constitutions of New Hampshire, 
 Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, and the decisions of North 
 Carolina and Massachusetts, to prove that, at the time when the 
 national constitution was adopted, all the free inhabitants of those 
 states were citizens, and entitled to vote, if they possessed the necessary 
 qualifications, of which color or descent was not one. The fact that 
 New York, North Carolina, and New Jersey have since restricted the 
 right of colored persons to vote, is regarded as proof of its previous 
 existence. That the confederation was meant to confer general citizen- 
 ship upon free persons of color, is inferred from the motion of South 
 Carolina to amend the fourth article, so that only " free white inha- 
 bitants should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free 
 citizens in the several states ;" which motion was lost. 
 
 Departing from the common custom of judicial tribunals, the majority 
 
 proceeded to give their opinions upon questions not involved in the case 
 
 judicially before the court — questions at issue between the present 
 
 political parties. These opinions were therefore held to be extra-judicial, 
 
 and of no authority, even if they were universally admitted to be 
 
 correct. They declare the Missouri compromise to have been unconstitu- 
 
 +• nal ; deny the power of congress over slavery in the territories ; 
 
 concede' ^" slaveholders the right to take their slaves into any territory 
 
 as any otheT property. These decisions are controverted by the minority 
 
 ■•istices who ma'intain the old doctrine established by the courts, that 
 
 ' slavery has its origin in power, and is against right ; " that it 
 
 \ - as essential to its existence, municipal regulations, which the 
 
 u^\i n has neither made nor provided for. In eight distinct 
 
 requii'eb. -inning with the first congress, has congress excluded 
 
 constWtio. territory of the United States ; and in six distinct 
 
 instances, be^ -ongress organized governments of territories, has 
 
 slavery from X\Q ^ and continued, beginning also with the first 
 
 instances, in which ^ a to the year 1822. These acts were severally 
 
 slavery been recogniaeu <' the United States, beginning with Gea 
 
 congress, and coming do\y. 
 
 Kgned by seven presidentt Q* . 
 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 981 
 
 Washington, and coming regularly down as far as JohnQuincy Adams, 
 thus including all who were in public life when the constitution was 
 adopted. If the ]iracticai construction of the constitution by men 
 intimately acquainted with its history from their personal participation 
 in framing and adopting it, and continued by them through a long 
 series of acts of the gravest importance, be entitled to any weight in 
 the judicial mind on a question of construction, it would seem to be 
 difficult to resist the force of the acts referred to. Hence it is inferred, 
 that by taking the plaintiflf into the state of Illinois where slavery is 
 prohibited by a constitutional law of the state, he became free ; and 
 if he became free in the state, he continued free in the territory, since 
 no law in force there operated to remand him to his original condition. 
 
 But it is held by the majority, however, that Scott lost whatever 
 claim he might have had to freedom, by his return to Missouri. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan appointed as his cabinet officers, Lewis Cass, of Mi- 
 chigan, secretary of state ; Howell Cobb, of Georgia, secretary of the 
 treasury ; Jacob Thompson, of Mississippi, secretary of the interior ; 
 Isaac Toueey, of Connecticut, secretary of the navy ; John B, Floyd, 
 of Virginia, secretary of war ; Jeremiah S. Black, of Pennsylvania, 
 attorney-general ; and Aaron V. Brown, of Tennessee, postmaster- 
 general. Mr. Brown died March 8, 1859 ; and Joseph Holt, of Ken- 
 tucky, was appointed as his successor. 
 
 Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, was appointed to succeed J. W. 
 Geary as governor of Kansas, and Frederick P. Stanton, of Tennessee, 
 was appointed secretary. Gov. Walker being from a slave state, and 
 himself a slaveholder, tlie appointment was distasteful to the free-state 
 men, as was also the appointment of most of the principal officers in 
 tlie territory, who had eitlier been accessory to, or had themselves com- 
 mitted acts of violence during the civil war in the territory. 
 
 On tlie Ilth of May, a nolle prosequi was entered on the indictments 
 for treason ;i gainst Governor Eobinson and other members of the To- 
 peka legislature. Robinson was afterward tried before Judge Cato 
 on another indictment for usurping the office of governor, and 
 acquitted. 
 
 The act providing for the constitutional convention, required a cen- 
 sus of legal voters and inhabitants to be taken on the first of April. 
 In a considerable portion of the territory, including several counties 
 mostly inhabited by free-state men, no census was taken. In appor- 
 tioning the delegates, Acting-Governor Stanton, (Governor Walker not 
 having yet arrived,) classed several of these counties from which there 
 were no returns, with other counties ; but many counties were left oat 
 entirely. 
 
982 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 In the latter part of May, Governcr Walker arrived in the territory 
 He endeavored, as, before his arrival, Stauton had done, to persuade 
 the free-state men to take a part in the election of delegates to the 
 constitutional convention ; assuring them that the people of Kansas 
 should have a fair expression of their will upon the constitution to be 
 framed. But the free-state men adhered to their resolution. Only 
 about two thousand votes were cast at the election, which took place 
 on the 15th of June. 
 
 The Topeka legislature again assembled on the 9th of June, and 
 held a brief session undisturbed ; passed an act for an election in 
 August to choose new state officers ; and provided for taking a state 
 census. On the 15th of July a state convention met at Topeka, and 
 made nominations for the election. 
 
 By the persevering efforts of Governor Walker, and the favor shown 
 to the proposition by many of their friends out of the territory, a large 
 portion of the free-state men determined to vote at the October terri- 
 torial election. Governor Walker admitted the unfairness of the appor- 
 tionment, by which a large number of free-state counties were not 
 allowed a representative in either branch of the legislature ; but he 
 promised his endeavors to protect the polls against illegal voters. M. 
 J. Parrott, the free-state candidate for (ingress, nine of the thirteen 
 couucilmen, and twenty-seven of the thirty-nine representatives, were 
 elected by the free-state party. A fraudulent return was made from 
 one precinct, giving the names of 1624 persons as having voted in the 
 same, which, as was said, contained but eleven bouses. Had these 
 votes been counted, the political character of the legislature would 
 have been changed, although the free-state men would still have had a 
 considerable majority of the popular vote, and retained their delegate 
 to congress. This list was so palpably fraudulent, besides being defective 
 in form, that the return was rejected by the governor. About 11,000 
 votes were polled, of which the free-state candidates received about 
 two-thirds. Dissatisfied with this act of the governor, the disappointed 
 parties procured from Judge Cato an order, requiring him to show cause 
 why a writ of mandamus should not issue to him to give a certificate 
 of election to the pro-slavery candidates. The governor replied by 
 denying the jurisdiction of the judge. 
 
 The constitutional convention, which had met at Lecorapton in 
 September, having soon after its organization adjourned over till after 
 the territorial election, now reassembled to complete its labors. The 
 constitution affirmed the right of slave-owners to hold their slaves in 
 the territory as any other property; and prohibited laws for emancipat- 
 ing slaves without the consent of their owners, or without paying their 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOK. 983 
 
 owners for them. It also prohibited laws to prevent emigrants to the 
 state from bringing with thera their slaves. 
 
 The slavery sections were to be submitted separately to the registered 
 electors, on the 21st of December. The ballots were to be indorsed, 
 " Constitution with Slavery," or " Constitution with no Slavery." As 
 this constitution, generally called the " Leco-mpton Constitution," has 
 been the subject of much remark, and even of a partial disruption of 
 the democratic party, it is deemed proper to notice some of the features 
 most objectionable to the " Anti-Lecompton democrats." 
 
 In the first place, it did not provide for being submitted to the 
 people for their approval or rejection. This was a serious objection to 
 many democrats as well as others out of the territory. The provisions 
 respecting slavery made it obnoxious to the free-state electors ; because 
 they could not vote against slavery without voting for the constitution ; 
 and, if challenged on offering to vote, they must take an oath to support 
 the constitution if adopted. It also provided that it was to be in force 
 " after its ratification by the people," even before it could receive the 
 sanction of congress, and required an election at as early a day as 
 possible, (the first Monday in January, 1858,) for choosing a governor, 
 other state officers, members of the legislature, and delegate to con- 
 gress ; the result of which would be, if it were not tlie direct object, 
 to displace immediately those who had' been elected in October. It 
 also placed the repeal of the laws of the old territorial legislature 
 beyond the power of the then existing anti-slavery legislature, by 
 providing, that all laws in force not repugnant to the coustitutiou, 
 should continue until altered or repealed by a legislature elected under 
 the constitution. The first meeting of the legislature was to take place 
 upon the proclamation of the president of the convention, when offi- 
 cially informed of the admission of Kansas into the union. Another 
 provision prohibited any amendment previous to 1864, and then ouly 
 upon the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses, and a majority of 
 all the citizens of the state ; who would, until that time, be precluded 
 from abolishing slavery. 
 
 In accordance with the expressed wish and intention of Mr. Bu- 
 chanan, that the people of Kansas should be allowed to vote upon the 
 adoption of the constitution, the governor had pledged to thom his 
 efforts to procure its submission to the popular vote. The failure to 
 effect this produced a great excitement. The free-state party expressed 
 a determination to put their own government into operation at all 
 events ; and the peace of the territory was seriously threatened. 
 
 Governor Walker was now absent. He had gone to Washington to 
 confer with the president upon the subject ; but had found, on his 
 
984 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 arrival, that Mr. Buchanan had already given the Lecompton scheme 
 his approval. However, before this fact could be communicated to 
 Kansas, Secretary Stanton, (then acting-governor,) acceding to the 
 known wishes of a large majority of the people, had, (December 3d,) 
 called the new territorial legislature to meet on the Tth, (four weeks 
 in advance of its regular time of meeting,) "to provide, for a direct 
 vote upon the constitution, which was to be partially submitted on the 
 21st. On receiving intelligence of this act of Mr. Stanton, the president 
 removed him, and appointed J. W. Denver in his stead. 
 
 CHAPTEE LXXIX. 
 
 MEETING OP CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. — GOVERNOR WALKER's 
 
 RESIGNATION. POPULAR VOTES ON THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 
 
 ELECTION OF STATE OFFICERS. 
 
 The 35th congress began its first session December t, 185T. James 
 L. Orr, of South Carolina, democrat, was elected speaker of the house, 
 over Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, republican. The democrats 
 in this congress had a majority of about ten in the house, over both 
 republicans and Americans. Upon the slavery question, a majority of 
 the latter from the northern states acted with the republicans, and 
 most of the southern Americans with the democrats. 
 
 The president's message was communicated to both houses on the 
 8th. He notices the pecuniary pressure which had just taken place, 
 and ascribes it solely to our " extravagant and vicious system of paper 
 currency and bank credits, exciting the people to wild speculations and 
 gambling in stocks. The federal government can not do much to pro- 
 vide against a recurrence of existing evils," He believes, " if the 
 states would afford us a real specie basis for our paper circulation, by 
 increasing the denomination of bank notes, first to twenty, and after- 
 ward to fifty dollars ; if they would require the banks to keep on 
 hand one dollar of specie for every three dollars of their circulation 
 and deposits," and compel them the moment they suspend to " go into 
 liquidation ;" and would require them also " to publish a weekly state- 
 ment of their condition, we should be far secured against future sus- 
 pensions of specie payments." He recommends a bankrupt law for 
 banking institutions. 
 
 He discusses at length the afi'aira of Kansas. The law providing foi 
 
phesident's message. 985 
 
 a convention to frame a constitution he considers fair and just. It wtis 
 to be regretted that all the qualified electors had not registered them- 
 selves and voted under its provisions. Whether it was meant by the 
 language of the Kansas act that the convention should have authority 
 finally to decide the question of slavery, or that it should be left to the 
 people to decide it by .a direct vote, he had no serious doubt ; there- 
 fore, in his instructions to Governor Walker, of the 18th of March 
 last, he merely said that when " a constitution shall be submitted to 
 the people of the territory, they must be protected in the exercise of 
 their right of voting for or against that instrument, and the fair 
 expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or 
 violence." He did not intend to interfere with the decision of the 
 people, either for or against slavery. The refusal of a large portion of 
 the citizens to register their names and vote for delegates when an 
 opportunity was fairly afforded, could not affect the legality of the con- 
 vention. Should the constitution without slavery be adopted, the 
 rights of property in slaves now in the territory are reserved. The 
 highest judicial tribuno,l had decided that slaves were held in the terri- 
 tory as property "under the constitution of the United States ; and to 
 have confiscated the property in slaves already in the territory, would 
 have been gross injustice. 
 
 Acts of hostility against the United States had been committed in 
 Utah. Governor Young had declared his determination to maintain 
 his power by force. The president, therefore, recommended the rais- 
 ing of four additional regiments, to suppress the insurrection, and to 
 maintain the sovereignty of the constitution and laws over the ter- 
 ritory. 
 
 He recommended the establishment of a territorial government over 
 Arizona, incorporating it with such portions of New Mexico as might 
 be deemed expedient 
 
 He also recommended a railroad to the Pacific. 
 
 A few days after the removal of Stanton, Governor Walker, still in 
 Washington, in a long letter to the state department, dated December 
 15, 1857, resigned his office as governor of Kansas. He discussed at 
 length the question of popular sovereignty, which he considers a power 
 that can not be delegated, but rests exclusively with the people. 
 Hence the change from a territorial to a state government can only be 
 made by the power where sovereignty rests with the people. Yet a 
 state government is forced upon them by the Lecompton constitution ; 
 not against it. How can it be known that the people would assent to 
 the constitution unless it be sulnuitted to them ? If acquiescence can 
 be presumed in any case, it can not be in the case of Kansas, where so 
 
986 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 many delegates violated their pledges to submit the constitution to a 
 vote of the people ; where tlie delegates who signed it represented 
 scarcely one-tenth of the people, and where nearly one-half of the 
 countieB were disfranchised. In nineteen counties out of thirty-four no 
 census had been taken, and, therefore, no delegates could be, appor- 
 tioned to them ; and in fifteen out of the thirty-four there was no 
 registry of voters. Not a solitary vote was given, or could be given, 
 for delegates in any one of these counties. The fifieer. counties in 
 which no registry was taken gave a much larger vote at the October 
 election, even with the six months' qualification, than tlio whole vote 
 given to the Lecomptou constitution in November last. The omission 
 of the census and registry was the fault of the officers whose duty it 
 was to make them, and who, he said, " were political partisans, dissent- 
 ing from the views of the people of these counties, as was proved by 
 the election in October last." 
 
 The president, through the secretary of state, having, in his instruc- 
 tions to Governor Walker, declared it to be his " clear conviction, 
 that, unless the convention submit the constitution to the vote of all 
 the actual resident settlers of Kansas, and the election be fairly and 
 justly conducted, the constitution will be, and ought to be rejected by 
 congress ;" and Governor Walker having, under this assurance, given 
 the people this expectation, but finding himself not sustained by the 
 president, he resigned the office, rather than go to Kansas and force 
 the president to remove him for disobedience to his instructions. 
 
 The election for voting upon the slavea'y clauses of the Lecompton 
 constitution, was held on the 21st of December, 1851. The free-state 
 men having adhered to their determination not to vote, the result was, 
 "for the Lecompton constitution wilh slavery," 6,143; "for the 
 Lecompton constitution without slavery," 569. A lai'ge proportion of 
 the votes cast were alleged to have been illegal. 
 
 Tlie territorial legi lature, convened by Governor Stanton, ordered 
 an election to be held on the 4th of January, 1858. The result of 
 which, as certified by Governor Denver, was, "for the constitution 
 with slavery," 138 ; for the constitution without slavery, 24 ; againxt 
 the consutiiiion, 10,226. 
 
 An election was held also on the 4th of January, under the Lecomp- 
 ton constiiurion, to choose state oflScers, a representative to congress, 
 and a legislature. Although the regular organization of the free-state 
 party refused to recognize or vote at this election, a portion of the 
 party did vote. Returns were made to Calhoun, president of the con- 
 stitutional convention, at whose request the presiding officers of the 
 territorial legislature met with him to canvass the votes. The presid- 
 
ELECTION FRAODS. 987 
 
 ing officers reported the election of the entire state ticket by an aver- 
 age majority of about 500, and two-thirds of the legislature. Calhoun, 
 however, did not concur in the report. A person was subsequently 
 dispatched to Delaware crossing, a pro-slavery settlement, to get up, as 
 was alleged, a fraudulent return. On his way back he was arrested, 
 under the new law against election frauds ; and he concluded not to 
 present them. Calhoun was subpcEuaed as a witness against him, but 
 he refused to obey. He was arrested on a writ of attachment, and 
 subsequently escaped from the territory, and proceeded to Washington, 
 The returns, if allowed, were sufficient to elect the pro-slavery state 
 officers, and a sufficient number of senators and representatives to 
 change the political character of the legislature. 
 
 Charges of gross fraud, both in voting and in the returns, were 
 alleged against the pro-slavery party, at both the constitutional elec- 
 tion, December 21st, and the election for state officers and representa- 
 tive in congress. The number of votes returned was judged to be in 
 some precincts at least double the number of the legal voters residing 
 in them. This charge of fraud was confirmed by Ex-Governor Stan- 
 ton, in an address " to the people of the United States," published 
 after his return from the territory, under date of January 29, 1858. 
 He adverts to specific cases of fraudulent voting and unjust apportion- 
 ments. " The populous county of Douglas had been attached to the 
 border county of Johnson, with a large and controlling representation 
 in the legislature. The celebrated Oxford fraud was perpetrated with 
 a view to obtain majorities in both houses of assembly." And he says 
 that 'lie and Governor Walker "found the papers so imperfect as to 
 make it their duty to reject them. The minority, thus righteously 
 defeated in the effort to prolong their power, became fierce in opposi- 
 tion, and resorted to every means of intimidation. But I am led to 
 believe that they found their most effectual means of operation by 
 undermining us with the administration at Washington." 
 
 Of the constitutional convention he says: "Many of the members of 
 that body were bitterly hostile to the governor and secretary, on account 
 of their rejection of the Oxford and McGee frauds, in which some of the 
 members and officers of the convention had a direct participation. 
 They hiid given a preponderance of representation to the counties on 
 the Missouri border, and afforded every possible facility for the intro- 
 duction of spurious, votes. The president of the convention was clothed 
 with unlimited power in conducting the elections, and receiving the re- 
 turns, while the officers are not required to take the usual oath to secure 
 fair and honest dealing." 
 
 With respect to submitting the constitution to the people, he says: 
 
988 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 " The measure for which I have been nnjustly condemned, has enabled 
 the people of Kansas to make known their real will in regard to the 
 Lecompton constitution. If congress will heed the voice of the people, 
 and not force npon them a government which they have rejected by a 
 vote of four to one, the whole country will be satisfied, and Kansas will 
 quietly settle her own affairs without difficulty, and without any danger 
 to the confederacy." 
 
 As the issuing of certificates of election had been devolved upon Cal- 
 houn, president of the convention, it was supposed that, while at Wash- 
 ington, he would issue them to the pro-slavery candidates. After he had 
 been there a month or longer, apparently in a state of indecision as to 
 bis course, the secretary of the interior (February 8), received from 
 Gov. Denver a letter with affidavits of the judges of election at Delaware 
 Crossing, certifying that only 43 votes had been cast at that precinct. 
 As this fact could not be resisted, he could no longer refuse to grant 
 certificates to the free-state candidates. 
 
 An investigation made by a committee appointed by the Kansas legis- 
 lature, disclosed other palpable frauds. It was alleged that after about 
 140 persons had voted, the poll-books were taken to a place in Missouri, 
 where the clerk added between *rOO and 800 names, read off to him by 
 a man who had been a member of the Lecomptou constitutional con- 
 vention. 
 
 On the 2d of February, 1858, President Buchanan, having received 
 from J. Calhoun, president of the Kansas constitutional convention, a 
 copy of the constitution certified by himself, submitted the same to con- 
 gress. 
 
 In his accompanying message, he alludes to a part of the people of 
 Kansas as " in a state of rebellion against the government under which 
 they live," and says they "have done all in their power to overthrow 
 the territorial government established by congress." He says the elec- 
 tion of the 21st of December " afforded them opportunities, if in the 
 majority, of making Kansas a free state according to their own pro- 
 fessed desire." He regards the Topeka government as treasonable ; a 
 " usurpation of the same character as it would be for a portion of the 
 people of any state to undertake to establish a separate government 
 within its limits for the purpose of redressing any grievance." The 
 adherents of the Topeka organization "would doubtless have voted 
 against the Lecompton constitution, had the whole been submitted to 
 the people." They would have done this, " not upon consideration of 
 the merits of the whole or a part, but simply because they have ever 
 resisted the authority of the government authorized by congress." 
 
 The president recognizes the right of the people of Kansas, without 
 
POPULAR VOTKS ON THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. 989 
 
 an enabling act of congress, to form a state constitution ; and he pro- 
 nounces the whole movement legal and fair. But " the enemies of the 
 existing government refused to vote for delegates, not because there 
 was an omission to register the comparatively few voters of certain 
 counties in the early spring of 1851, but because they had determined 
 to defeat the establishment of any other constitution than that formed 
 at Topeka." They suffered the election to pass by default; but of this 
 they can never justly complain. The convention " did not think pro- 
 per to submit the whole constitution to a popular vote ; but they did 
 submit the question whether Kansas should be a free or a slave 
 etate." 
 
 The provision that the constitution might not be altered until 1864, 
 did not, in his opinion, prevent an earlier change. The legislature already 
 elected might immediately submit to the people the question of calling 
 a convention to amend it. It had been adjudged by onr highest judicial 
 tribunal, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the constitution of 
 the United States. He says: "Kansas is therefore, at this moment, as 
 much a slave state as Georgia or South Carolina." And slavery can 
 not be prohibited in Kansas, but by a constitutional provision; and this 
 can be done most " promptly by admitting her into the union." To 
 reject the state because slavery remains in the constitution, will renew 
 the agitation in a more alarming form ; whereas, her speedy admission 
 will restore peace and quiet to the whole country." 
 
 In the senate, the message was referred to the committee on territo- 
 ries. In the house, Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, moved a reference to the 
 territorial committee. Mr. Harris, of Illinois, proposed to refer the 
 message and constitution to a select committee of fifteen, to inquire into 
 the facts connected with the formation of the constitution, and whether 
 • it was satisfactory to the legal voters of the territory. On the 8th of 
 February, after an animated debate, Stephens' motion was negatived : 
 yeas, 113; nays, 114; and Harris' resolution was adopted, 114 to 111. 
 
 This vote inspired the opponents of the Lecompton constitution with 
 strong hopes of ultimate success. But Speaker Orr, contrary to parli- 
 amentary usage, as the opposition claimed, placed on the committee a 
 majority of members in favor of immediate admission under that consti- 
 tution, who determined to pass over the alleged irregularities and frauds 
 in the elections, and to confine their investigation to the proceedings 
 of the Lecompton convention, and report speedily. 
 
 In the senate, February 18, Mr. Green, of Missouri, from the com- 
 mittee on territories, made a report. He declared the Lecompton con- 
 vention to have been "legally called and legally elected, and clothed 
 with authority to make a constitution," which was as binding as if the 
 
990 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 people " had assembled en masse instead of by their representatives." 
 The report was accompanied by a bill for the admission of Kansas. 
 
 Mr. Douglas dissented from the views of the majority, and made a 
 Beparate report. He said there was no satisfactory evidence that the 
 constitution was the act and deed of the people of Kansas. The con- 
 vention had not power to establish the constitution without the assent 
 of congress, which had been expressly withheld ; hence the convention 
 bad only such power as the territorial legislature could confer, which 
 was to form a constitution, and send it to congress as a memorial for 
 admission, which could be approved or rejected acco. ling as it embo- 
 died the popular will. The proceedings of the convention should have 
 been held in strict obedience to the authority of the territorial govern- 
 ment; but it was declared to be in force in defiance of the territorial 
 government, as well as without the consent of congress. The only law- 
 ful election held on the adoption of the constitution was that on the 4th 
 of Jaiuiary last, which was in obedience to the law of the legislature 
 established by congress, with full legislative power on all rightful sub- 
 jects within the territory. 
 
 Mr. Collamer, from the same committee, in behalf of himself and Mr. 
 Wade, also made a report; in which be cites the numerous acts of con- 
 gress relating to slavery in the territories, and reviews the history of 
 the affairs of Kansas down to the rejection of the Lecompton constitu- 
 tion. The report adds : " The territorial government of Kansas was 
 never organized as provided in its organic act — that is, by its own peo- 
 ple — but was usurped by a foreign force, conquered, subdued by arms, 
 and a minority installed in power, which has ever since been sustained 
 by the general government, instead of being examined into and correct- 
 ed. This has been done and sustained to establish and perpetuate 
 slavery. 
 
 " The Lecompton constitution is the result of this proceeding, and is 
 contrary to the will of a great majority of that people, legally expressed. 
 
 . . . . The people of that territory, in the late territorial elec- 
 tion, have reclaimed their rights; and that territorial government is for 
 the first time now moving peaceably on in its legitimate sphere of pro- 
 mised freedom." 
 
 The course of the president upon the Kansas question, and especially 
 in regard to the Lecompton constitution, gave great dissatisfaction to 
 a large portion of the democratic party, as well as to the republicans. 
 Democratic mass conventions were held in several states, and resolu- 
 tions adopted strongly disapproving the attempt to force upon the peo- 
 ple of Kansas a constitution against their will. At some of these 
 meetings were read letters from distinguished democrats, among whom 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION IN CONGRESS. 991 
 
 were Gov. Wise, of Virginia, and Robert J. Walker, ex-governor of 
 Kansas, expressing their sympathy with the object of the movement. 
 The letter of the latter gentleman was very severe. " Is the president 
 the master or the servant of the people, that he shonld thus dictate to 
 them or their representatives, under threats of exclusion from the party 
 of their choice ? Is democracy a name and a shadow, or a substance ? 
 It means the fower of the people. Or has it lost its true signification ? 
 or are we moving from it with viewless but rapid strides toward despotic 
 power, to make and unmake the rules of political faith under pains and 
 penalties abhorrent to the souls of freemen ? Is this the eighty-second 
 year of our independence ? or is it the first year of American monarchy, 
 that is now dawning upon us ?" 
 
 It may be proper to state, that the administration was not denounced 
 by those demo'^'rats because its policy would establish or continue sla- 
 very in Kan?as; but because it was opposed to the doctrine of popular 
 sovereignty, upon which the administration had come into power. 
 
 While the bill for the admission of Kansas was before the senate, 
 Mr. Crittenden proposed an amendment,requiring, as a condition of ad- 
 mission, that the entire constitution should be first submitted to a vote 
 of the people, and receive the assent of a majority of the legal voters ; 
 and if the constitution should be rejected, the people were authorized 
 to eJect delegates to a convention to frame another constitution. This 
 amendment was rejected; and the bill of the committee was passed, and 
 sent to the house. 
 
 In the house, Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania, a democrat, oflFered, 
 as an amendment, to substitute the rejected bill of Mr. Crittenden in 
 the senate, which was adopted : yeas, 120 ; nays, 112. The senate, 
 not concurring in the amendment of the house, requested a committee 
 of conference, which was granted by the casting vote of the speaker ; 
 four of the anti-Lecompton, or Douglas democrats, having voted for 
 the conference. Mr. English, of Indiana, proposed, in committee, a 
 compromise between the two houses, which was agreed to by a majority 
 of the committee. It proposed to grant to the state of Kansas lots 
 number sixteen and thirty-six of every township, for the support of 
 schools ; and seventy-two sections of land for the support of a university ; 
 ten sections, for completing the public buildings or erecting new ones ; 
 all the salt springs, not exceeding twelve, with six sections of land to 
 each ; and five per cent, of the proceeds of the sales of the public 
 lands within the state which should be sold after its admission into the 
 union, for the purpose of making roads and internal improvements. 
 These propositions were to be voted on at an election ; each ballot to 
 be indorsed, " For proposition of congress and admission," or, "Against 
 
993 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 proposition of congress and admission." If the proposition should he 
 • accepted, the admission was to be immediately proclaimed by the presi- 
 dent ; bnt if rejected, the people could not form a state government 
 and be admitted, until it should be ascertained by a census that the 
 population was equal to the ratio of representation required for a 
 representative. 
 
 This proposition was deemed by the friends of "free Kansas" as 
 obnoxious as it was singular ; and was denounced as unjust to the 
 people of Kansas, and as a bribe for the benefit of slavery. It 
 conceded the population of the territory to be sufficient tor a slave 
 6tate, but not for a free state. It was an offer to receive them 
 immediately as a state into the Union with slavery, but denie<3 
 them admission for an indefinite period, or until they should number 
 93,340. The proposition was agreed upon in the conference on 
 the 20th of April, and passed both houses on the 30th : the senate 
 by a vote of 80 to 22 ; the house, 112 to 108. Thus was Kansas 
 destined to remain for years in a territorial condition, as the mass 
 of her people could not be induced, by the liberal grant of lands, or 
 bj' any other consideration, to accept a constitution authorizing 
 slavery. 
 
 The territorial legislature of Kansas, at a session which expired the 
 12th of February, 1858, passed a bill, calling a convention to frame a 
 constitution. Grovernor Denver did not sign the bill ; but not liaving 
 returned it within what the legislature considered a reasonable or 
 proper time, they pronounced it a law. The election for choosing 
 delegates was held on the 9th of March. The convention met at Min- 
 neola, and adjourned to Leavenwortli, where they met on the 25th, 
 and closed their labors the 2d of April. Governor Denver did not 
 recognize the convention. Tbe constitution provided for submitting it 
 to the vote of the people on the third Tuesday in May, and for the 
 election of state officers at the same time. It also provided that, if 
 Kansas should be admitted under the Lecompton constitution, this 
 constitution should go into force immediately after its ratification by 
 the people. 
 
 A convention was held at Topeka on the 30th of April, to nominate 
 state officers. The subject had been considered of organizing under 
 the Lecompton constitution (in case of its acceptance by congress,) iu 
 order to change it ; and a circular letter had been addressed to several 
 prominent men, containing certain questions, one of which was, whe- 
 ther, if it should pass congress, as it had already passed the senate, 
 they were in favor of putting the government under the Leavenworth 
 constitution into immediate operation, if the constitution should be 
 
ELECTION OF STATE OFFICERS. 993 
 
 ratified by the people. Answers ia the affirmative from men who were 
 subsequently nominated for office, were read in the convention. 
 
 Few acts of great importance were passed at this session of congress; 
 the Kansas question having engrossed a large share of the time. 
 
 Minnesota was admitted as a state into the union, in pursuance of 
 an act passed by the former congress, authorizing the people of the 
 territory to form a constitution and state government preparatory to 
 admission. 
 
 A bill to increase the army by the number of about 2,500 men, was 
 introduced in the senate, but did not pass that body. 
 
 A bill for securing to actual settlers, as a homestead, a quarter sec- 
 tion of the public lands, subject to private entry at $1 25 per acre, 
 or a quantity equal thereto, was passed by the house, but was lost in 
 the senate. 
 
 At the election in Kansas, on the 2d of August, 1858, the Lecomp- 
 ton constitution was rejected by a very large majority. The aggregate 
 vote, after rejecting the returns from a few precincts, on account of 
 informalities, was 13,088 ; which is considerably less than it would 
 have been, but for excessive rains, which had rendered streams impas- 
 Bable. To accept the proposition, 1,788 ; to reject the proposition, 
 11,088. Whether the vote of the minority shows the proportionate 
 strength of the pro-slavery party or not, we are not informed. The 
 small number of votes for the proposition has been ascribed in part to 
 the fact, that the election was held on the same day of the state elec- 
 tion in Missouri. The selection of that day was said to have been 
 made by design. The persons appointed by the act to carry its 
 provisions into effect, and insure a fair and free election, were the 
 governor, the secretary, and the United States district-attorney of the 
 territory, and the presiding officers of the two houses of the legislature. 
 The 2d of August was said to have been proposed by the president of 
 the council, because on that day the voters of Missouri would attend 
 the election in their owo state. That this was the motive is probable, 
 from the election's having been appointed at so late a day. 
 
 The result of the fall elections in the states was awaited with great 
 anxiety, as it would be regarded as indicating the popular sentiment 
 respecting the course of the administration on the Kansas question. 
 The number of opposition members of congress elected was largely 
 increased ; and a majority of the popular vote for representatives 
 to congress was against the administration in nearly all the free states. 
 Especial interest was taken in the election in Illinois, as the return of 
 Mr. Douglas to the senate of the United States depended upon the 
 legislature then to be chosen. The republican state ticket was elected 
 
 63 
 
994 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 by a majority of about 5,000. There was about the same majority of 
 the popular vote on the republican members of the legislature ; but 
 it was charged that owing to the inequality of the apportionment, forty 
 democratic representatives were elected by a smaller number of votes 
 than were cast for thirty-five republicans. Mr. Douglas was reelected 
 to the senate. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXX. 
 
 MEETING OF CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. CUBA, OREGON, HOME- 
 STEAD, AND OTHER BILLS. KANSAS AFFAIRS. 
 
 The first session of the 36th congress commenced on the 6th of De- 
 cember, 1858. The message of the president was received the same day. 
 
 The first topic of the message, and that which is most largely 
 discussed, is the " unhappy agitation " of slavery in Kansas. Much, 
 the president said, had been done by the last congress to remove the 
 excitement from the states, and to confine it to the territory. The 
 supreme court had decided that American citizens have a right to take 
 their slave property into the territories ; and the action of congress 
 had given it practical effect. Left to control its own affairs in its own 
 way, Kansas had become tranquil and prosperous. The Lecompton 
 constitution, he said, was unexceptionable in its general features, and 
 provided for submitting the slavery question to the people. By refus- 
 ing to vote, the opponents of the lawful government preferred that 
 slavery should continue rather than surrender their revolutionary 
 Topeka organization. A better spirit had since prevailed. He 
 admitted that he had, as an individual, expressed an opinion both 
 before and during the session of the conventioo, in favor of submitting 
 the whole constitution to the people ; but in his ofBcial character he 
 had not the power to rejudge the proceedings of the convention. 
 Having rejected the proposition submitted to them, the people of Kan- 
 sas have no authority to form another constitution until they have a 
 population equal to the ratio required for a representative. They 
 should be required to wait until then before making a third attempt. 
 ThiK excellent provision, he said, should be made to apply hereafter to 
 all territories. 
 
 Congress is informed that the long-pending controversy between the 
 United States and Great Britain, relating to the right of search, had 
 
president's message, 995 
 
 been amicably adjusted. Great Britain had abandoned the claim, 
 but had proposed that some mode should be adopted by mutual 
 arrangement, for verifying the nationality of vessels suspected of 
 carrying false colors. The British government had been informed that 
 we were ready to receive proposals. 
 
 The Central American question had not yet been adjusted. 
 
 Our relations with Spain were unsatisfactory. Our " Cuban claims" 
 were yet unpaid. These claims were for the refunding of duties 
 unjustly exacted from American vessels at different custom-houses 
 in Cuba. " The truth is, that Cuba, in its present colonial condition, is 
 a constant source of injury and annoyance to the American people. It 
 is the only spot in the civilized world where the African slave trade is 
 tolerated ; and we are bound by treaty with Great Britain to main- 
 tain a naval force on the coast of Africa, at much expense of life and 
 treasure, solely for the purpose of arresting slavers bound to that 
 island. 'As long as this market shall remain open, there can be no 
 hope for the civilization of benighted Africa." 
 
 If Cuba could be acquired, the slave trade would instantly disappear. 
 We would not, if we could, acquire it but by fair purchase, unless 
 compelled by the overruling law of self-preservation. And, before 
 renewing negotiations with Spain, he wished to be intrusted with the 
 means of making an advance to the Spanish government. 
 
 The president repeats the recommendation made in his former 
 message, for an appropriation to be paid to the Spanish government, 
 for distribution among the claimants in the Amistad case. 
 
 The expenditures of the government exceeded its revenues ; and the 
 consequent increase of the public debt, demanded an increase of 
 duties, as it would be ruinous to continue to borrow. It was also 
 demanded by our manufacturing interest, and would give a fresh 
 impulse to our reviving business. He recommended specific duties 
 instead of ad valorem, as the best means of securing the revenue 
 against false and fraudulent invoices. 
 
 The democratic party had long been committed, not only to low, 
 but to ad valorem duties. Therefore, the passage of an act like that 
 recommended by the president, was as improbable as the recommenda- 
 tion was unexpected. All attempts to effect a modification of the 
 tariff were unsuccessful. A few days before the close of the session, a 
 motion was made to suspend the rules, to allow the introduction of a 
 bill to revise and increase the tariff. Two-thirds being required, leave 
 was not granted. The principal opposition, as might have been 
 expected, was from the south. The vote stood : free states, yeas 111, . 
 nays 22 ; slave states, yeas 17, nays 66. Of the 12S who supported 
 
996 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the motion, only 31 were professed friends of the administration. It 
 was proposed by the friends of the president to supply the treasury by 
 additional loans ; the republicans, and tariff democrats and Americans, 
 were opposed to an increase of the public debt. 
 
 Oregon presented to congress a constitution and a memorial for 
 admission as a state into the union. The bill was opposed in the house 
 by republicans, because, 1. The constitution forbids the immigration of 
 free negroes and mulattoes, or excludes them from the state, in violation 
 of Art. 4, sec. 2, of the constitution of the United States, which guar- 
 anties to " the citizens of each state the privileges and immunities of 
 citizens in all the states." 2. It prohibits them from holding real 
 estate, making contracts, or maintaining suits at law. 3. The distinc- 
 tion which is made between Oregon and Kansas. The question of 
 allowing slavery had been submitted to the people and decided against: 
 but the provision excluding free blacks had been adopted. The vote 
 in the house on the question of admission was, yeas, 114 ; nays, 103. 
 
 A bill was introduced in the senate, proposing to put into the hands 
 of the president $30,000,000, to be used by him in negotiation with 
 Spain with reference to Cuba. The bill was ably discussed ; but a few 
 days before the close of the session, there being no hope of its passage, 
 it was withdrawn. The president's message, or rather the proposition 
 in regard to Cuba, was indignantly noticed in the Spanish Cortes. The 
 pressing of this question after repeated refusals to former purchasers, 
 they pronounced " an offense to Spanish honor and dignity." 
 
 An effort was made in the senate to increase the rates of postage, 
 A provision to that effect was attached to the Post Office appropriation 
 bill, which passed that body. But in the house it was objected to on 
 the ground that, by the constitution, the house only has power to 
 originate bills for raising revenue ; and, by a vote of llT to 76 it was 
 returned to the senate unacted on. The senate struck out this provi- 
 sion ; but the second reading of the bill in this shape being objected to, 
 it was lost ; and no appropriation for the postoffice was made at this 
 session. 
 
 The president vetoed a bill granting public lands to all the states in 
 aid of seminaries for instruction in agriculture, mechanics, and the use- 
 ful arts. This bill was opposed chiefly by southern members, as appears 
 from the final vote in the house : Yeas, free states, 91 ; slave states, 13. 
 Nays, free states, 37 ; slave states, 63. 
 
 The president, on the 18th of February, 1859, sent a special message 
 to congress, representing the " great urgency and importance of 
 immediate legislative action, for the protection of American citizens 
 and their property while in transit across the isthmus between the 
 
CUBA, OREGON, HOMESTKAI), AND OTHER BILLS. 99T 
 
 Atlantic and P;u;ific possessions," and asking for "authority to employ 
 the land and naval forces in preventing the transit from being obstructed 
 or closed by lav?less violence." Force might also become necessary to 
 obtain redress from the republics south of the United States, which 
 had seized and confiscated American vessels and their cargoes. Con- 
 gress, however, did not see fit to respond favorably to this request. 
 
 Two propositions relating to the public lauds were acted on at this 
 session, whicl^ though unsuccessful, are deemed worthy of notice. A 
 bill in relation to preemptions was pending in the house. Mr. Grow, 
 of Pennsylvania, moved an amendment, to the effect that no public 
 land should thereafter be exposed to sale by proclamation of the presi- 
 dent, until the return of the survey should have been filed in the laud 
 office for ten years or more. The object of the amendment was to give 
 to preemptors an advantage over speculators and monopolists, by 
 allowing actual settlers to obtain lands at the minimum price, and to 
 have time to pay for their farms from the proceeds of the soil. 
 Although the amendment was adopted, 98 to 81, the bill was defeated, 
 by 91 yeas to 95 nays. The sectional and party character of the vote 
 appears from the record : 
 
 Yeas : Maine, 4 ; New Hampshire, 3 ; Vermont, 3 ; Massachusetts, 
 10 ; Rhode Island, 2 ; Connecticut, 2 ; New York, 21 ; New Jersey 
 
 2 ; Pennsylvania, 9 ; Maryland, 1*; Ohio, 14 ; Michigan, 4 ; Indiana, 
 4 ; Illinois 5 ; Wisconsin, 2 ; Iowa, 2 ; Minnesota, 2 ; Missouri, 1. 
 Total, 91. All were rei)nblicans, except 3 democrats from New York, 
 
 3 from Ohio, 1 from Illinois, and 2 from Minnesota ; 1 American, from 
 Maryland ; in all, 14. 
 
 Nays ; Connecticut, 1 ; New York, 4 ; New Jersey, 1 ; Penn- 
 sylvaiiia, 9 ; Delaware, 1 ; Maryland, 3 ; Virginia, 8 ; North Carolina, 
 1 ; South Carolina, 3 ; Georgia, 6 ; Florida, 1 ; Alabama, 6 ; Missis- 
 sippi, 4; Louisiana, 2; Texas, 2; Arkansas, 1; Tennessee, 9; Kentucky, 
 10 ; Ohio, 5 ; Indiana, 4 ; Illinois, 2 ; Missouri, 6. Total, 95. All 
 democrats, except 1 American from Maryland, 2 from North Carolina, 
 1 from Georgia, 3 from Tennessee, 1 from Kentucky, and 1 from 
 Missouri — 9. 
 
 The other proposition alluded to was, A bill to secure Homesteads 
 to actual settlers on the public domain. This was substantially the 
 " Homestead bill " of the previous session. The bill proposed to give 
 to any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the 
 age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen of the United States, or who 
 shall have filed his intention to become such, one quarter section of 
 laud, subject to private entry at $1,25 per acre, or a quantity equal 
 thereto, to be located in a body. This bill passed the house ; yeas, 
 
998 THE AMERICAN STATESMEN. 
 
 120 ; nays, 16. Of the yeas, 83 were republicans, and 31 democrats — 
 all from free states, except 1 democrat from each of the states of 
 Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri. All the nays were from the slave 
 states, except 1 each from Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana. All were demo- 
 crats and Americans, except the one from Ohio, who was a republican. 
 
 In the senate, no vote was taken on its passage ; but not less than 
 six votes were taken on motions to postpone and to take it up, some of 
 which were carried in favor of the bill. The last vote taken was upon 
 a motion to set aside the Cuba bill to take up the Homestead bill. Yeas, 
 19, all reps, but 2 ; nays, 29, all democrats. It appears to have been 
 the object of the opponents of the bill to avoid a direct vote upon it. 
 A similar bill had at one or two previous sessions been passed by the 
 house, but defeated in the senate. 
 
 Samuel Medary, of Ohio, was appointed governor of Kansas, to 
 succeed Governor Denver, resigned, and assumed the duties of his 
 oflBce early in December, 1858. He had not been long in Kansas, 
 before he called upon the president for military aid in suppressing 
 disturbances at and about Fort Scott, in the southeastern borders of 
 the territory. This object was more effectually accomplished at the 
 next session of the legislature, which met in January, 1859, by an act 
 of amnesty stopping the various prosecutions for political offenses which 
 had been commenced in the southeastern counties. 
 
 At this session of the Kansas legislature, an act was passed repealing 
 the obnoxious laws of the first territorial legislature, opprobriously 
 called the "bogus laws." There were passed also an act making a new 
 apportionment ; an act for submitting to the people the question of a 
 new constitutional convention at an election to be held the third Mon- 
 day in March ; and a bill to abolish and prohibit slavery, which, how- 
 ever, failed, having been passed at so late a day of the session, as to 
 enable the governor to defeat it by refusing to sign and return it. 
 
 At the election in March there was a majority of nearly 4,000 votes 
 in favor of the proposed constitutional convention. The election for 
 delegates was held in June, and the convention was to meet the 5th 
 of July. 
 
 On the 18th of May, a republican convention was held at Osawa- 
 tomie, for organizing a republican party. Since that time the same 
 politcal distinctions have existed in the territory as in the states. Of 
 the fifty-two delegates elected, thirty-five were republicans. The 
 convention met on the 5th of July, and adjourned on the 2Tth, after 
 adopting a constitution by a vote of 34 to 13. All the democrats 
 present voted against it, and refused to sign it. They objected to its 
 boundaries, des/ring the annexation of a part of Nebraska, and the 
 
KANSAS AFFAIRS. 999 
 
 retaining of the western gold region. They desired also the exclusion 
 of free negroes, and the prohibition of bank issues ; but in these, too, 
 they were disappointed. The bill of rights prohibits slavery. 
 
 The constitution provided for its beiag submitted to a vote of the 
 people on the first Tuesday in October. It was ratified by a majority 
 of abouj; 4,000. In November the territorial election was held for the 
 election of members of the legislature, and a delegate to congress. 
 The delegate and a majority of the legislature elected were republicans 
 
 On the 6th of December, an election was held under the new constitu- 
 tion for choosing state ofiBcers and a delegate to congress. The major- 
 ity for the republican candidates was about 3,000. 
 
 During the year 1859, the doctrine of popular sovereignity was a 
 subject of much controversy between the leading men of the two 
 divisions of the democratic party. It is evident that when this doctrine 
 was first asserted by Gen. Cass in 1848, in his Nicholson letter, it 
 meant, that congress had no right to legislate either for or against 
 slavery in the territories ; but that the right belonged to the people of 
 the territories to regulate it for themselves. And this was generally 
 believed to be the doctrine of the Kansas-Nebraska act. Since the 
 Dred Scott decision, a difference of opinion has become manifest. Mr. 
 Douglas and his friends deny to congress, and claim for the territorial 
 legislatures, power to legislate on the subject. They admit that slave- 
 holders have a right, under the constitution, to take their slaves as 
 other property into the territories ; but they hold that the owners 
 must be protected, if at all, by the territorial legislatures, Vi^hich may, 
 either by not acting upon the subject, or by unfriendly action, practically 
 prohibit slavery. This may be doae by refusing remedies to the slave- 
 holder, or by imposing heavy taxes upon his chattels. But an appeal 
 may be made to the supreme court, which may declare these laws 
 unconstitutional. 
 
 Southern statesmen contend, that neither congress nor the territorial 
 legislatures have the right to legislate against slavery in the territories, 
 but that it is the right and the duty of congress to intervene for its 
 protection. 
 
 Such also, substantially, appears to be the doctrine of the administra- 
 tion, as enunciated by Mr. Buchanan and those who claim to be the 
 exponents of his principles. They repudiate "squatter sovereignty," 
 (as they call it,) which "recognizes the right of those men, (whatever 
 their number,) who may have squatted on the public domain in advance 
 of the public surveys, and without the ownership of an acre of land, 
 to elect a legislature which shall undertake to prohibit slavery in a 
 territory." But "popular sovereignty," which they advocate, means, 
 
1000 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 that the people, while in a territorial condition, cannot exclude or 
 prohibit slavery, but only when they come to form a state constitution. 
 Congress, they say, has not the power, and should not attempt, to 
 establisli or prohibit slavery in any territory ; and the territorial legis- 
 lature, deriving all its powers of legislation from congress, has not 
 the power and should not attempt to establish or prohibit slai'ery ; but 
 protection is the duty of those invested with the power of local legisla- 
 tion ; and it is the duty of the judiciary to set aside any " unfriendly 
 legislation" which is calculated to destroy or impair any right of 
 property. Whatever rights individuals have in the territory, may 
 demand, and when demanded, must have protection ; and if the right 
 of slavery to exist in the territory has been confirmed by the supreme 
 court, and the territorial legislature fails to protect it, congress may 
 do 80 without violating the doctrine of congressional non-intervention. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXI. 
 
 MEETING OF THE XXXVITH CONGBESS. LONG CONTEST FOR SPEAKER. THE 
 
 JOHN BROWN INVESTIGATION. 
 
 The 36th Congress commenced its 1st session December 5th, 1859. 
 On the 1st ballot for speaker of the house, Tliomas S. Bocock, of Va., 
 Democrat, received 86 votes ; John Sherman, of Ohio, Republican, 
 received 66 ; Galusha A. Grow, of Pa., Republican, 43 ; A. R. Boteler, 
 of Va., American, 14 ; scattering, 22. Mr. Grow then declined ; and 
 the house was about to proceed to a 2d ballot, when J, B. Clark, of 
 Mo., rose and stated, that several members had signed a circular re- 
 commending Helper's "Impending Crisis of the South'" for general 
 circulation ; that the work contained incendiary and treasonable doc- 
 trines ; and that no person who had recommended such a book was 
 fit to be speaker, A debate, interspersed with ballotings, ensued, 
 which was continued about eight weeks before an organization of the 
 house was effected. 
 
 The principal subject of discussion during this protracted contest, 
 was the slavery question, including John Brown's raid into Virginia, 
 and Helper's Crisis. For the information of the few who may not 
 know the character of this book, it may be proper to state, that it 
 was written by a citizen of North Carolina, with the vinw of showing 
 
CONTEST FOR SPEAKER, 1001 
 
 the adverse eflfects of slavery upon the prosperity of the southern 
 states ; which lie endeavors to do by presenting the statistics of popu- 
 lation and property of the slave and free states respectively. The 
 author occasionally indulges in very caustic and sometimes not well 
 chosen language against slaveholders. 
 
 During this long contest in the house, the slavery question wa8 
 discussed in the senate also. In the debates in both houses, much 
 acrimony was mutually indulged by the two antagonistic branches of 
 the Democratic party, generally designated as the Lecompton and 
 Anti-Lecompton Democrats. 
 
 On the first day of the session. Mr. Mason, of Va., submitted to the 
 senate a resolution for the appointment of a committee " to inquire 
 into the facts attending the late invasion and seizure of the armory 
 and arsenal at Harper's Ferry by a band of armed men," &c. — com- 
 monly designated as " John Brown's raid into Virginia." 
 
 When, the next day, the resolution came up, 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, of 111., said it would receive his cordial support. 
 Whenever murder has been committed, let us ascertain who are 
 guilty and hold them responsible. It would have been well if a simi- 
 lar investigation had been instituted in 1855, when th*e arsenal at 
 Liberty, Mo., was broken open, and the public property taken away. 
 That, however, was for the purpose of forcing slavery into Kansas, 
 wdiile at Harper's Ferry the effort was to abolish slavery. He then 
 offered an amendment to the I'esolution extending the inquiry to 
 former cases. 
 
 Mr. Mason said that, after a lapse of four years, and neither that 
 senator nor those who act with him, had asked an investigation, it 
 was strange that he should be so anxious to couple these transactions. 
 They could not be both examined at once, and it would be time and 
 expense lost to adopt the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Hale, of N. H., was for the resolution. He had been accused 
 of complicity in the affair, but he was not to admit or deny that here, 
 but would say tliat the Republican party in the North never sought 
 to tamper with slaves. Fears had been entertained of danger to the 
 Union ; but he thought the greatest danger arose from the constant 
 obloquy and reproach heaped upon the heads of the people of the free 
 states every time an opportunity presented itself. He alluded to the 
 incitenfents to bloodshed found in the southern papers. For instance, 
 in the Richmond Enquirer there appeared an advertisement offering 
 a reward of $10,000 for the head of a distinguished citizen of Ohio. 
 He denounced the supreme court of the United States for its servility 
 to the slave power, and expressed his views on various topics con- 
 nected with slavery. 
 
1002 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr, Hunter, of Ya., was surprised at the manner in which this re- 
 solution had been received. It was proper in itself, and made 
 eminently necessary by circumstances of recent occurrence. The 
 South was not so much startled by the foray of Brown and his few 
 followers, but at the sympathy so openly expressed in the North for 
 him, and at the apparent indifference of the great mass at the North 
 at such manifestations of sympathy. He said the senator from Illi- 
 nois proposed to turn the matter into a party issue. The South were 
 loth to believe such things could be treated with indifference by those 
 bound to them by the ties of common government ; but if such was 
 the case, it was time they were made aware of it. The South could 
 take care of themselves. If no remedy could be found in the general 
 government, let the South know, so they could take action. Is this 
 Union to be used only to stay the arms of states for self-defense, and 
 give no protection against such insurrectionists ? If there be in 
 truth such alienation, and this simple resolution can not pass without 
 being smothered by party issues, let us know it at once. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Miss., said one gratifying fact was the distinctness 
 with which senators disavowed all connection with or sympathy for 
 the mad foray of Brown. What connection had the affair at Liberty 
 with the question before us ? We have a great duty to perform to 
 afford protection to our common country against attacks from foes 
 within as well as without. 
 
 Mr. Green, of Mo., said the purpose for which the arms were taken 
 at Liberty was not to force slavery into Kansas, not to subvert the 
 government or laws of the United States, but to resist the unlawful 
 acts of the Emigrant Aid Society, which had prevented the execution 
 of the laws of the territory. Although an unlawful act, it was for a 
 good purpose. It was not an atrocious act like that at Harper's 
 Ferry. Tliis affair demands the interposition of the Federal Govern- 
 ment ; while scenes in Kansas, whether right or wrong, have passed 
 by. Those acts are recorded for posterity to judge, and let them 
 remain undisturbed. 
 
 Mr. Crittenden, of Ky., thought the amendment could do no harm, 
 and occupy only a few days more time, and hoped it would be 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Wilson, of Mass., said he should vote for the resolution and 
 amendment. When this intelligence first reached the North, it was 
 regarded as merely a strike of the workmen. On learning its real 
 character, it was received almost unanimously with disapprobation 
 and regrets. But elections were pending in New York and New 
 Jersey ; and one or two leading papers in New York, for the purpose 
 of affecting those elections, made the most false and infamous charges 
 
 II 
 
THE JOHN BROWN INVESTIGATION. 1003 
 
 against the public men and masses of the people of the free states. 
 This excited universal indignation there. Not one in a thousand 
 ever dreamed of such a fora}', or knew anything of it. He spent two 
 or three weeks in New York and New Jersey before the election, and 
 everywhere heard regret and condemnation of that movement. He 
 saw not a man who did not regret it. The leader in that invasion, 
 by his conduct and language, had excited sympathy and admiration. 
 He was regarded as sincere, although a fanatic. He violated the law 
 under a conviction that he was doing right, and was willing to take 
 the consequences. But the present governor of Virginia, by his mode 
 of dealing with this question, by his evident attempt to make politi- 
 cal capital, and get up needless clamor, has excited a feeling of 
 derision and contempt among the masses of the North. Had he dealt 
 with this question as a discreet magistrate, and not made an infa- 
 mous attempt to implicate innocent men for party purposes, what is 
 witnessed to-day would never have taken place. 
 
 Mr. Simmons, of R. I., favored the amendment, thinking one in- 
 quiry as infiportant as the other, if legislation were necessary to pre- 
 vent similar outrages. He deprecated any attempt to make one 
 political party responsible for such outrages, and denied that any 
 general sympathy had been excited in the North for Brown or his 
 movements. In his crime there was not one redeeming quality to 
 save it from utter detestation ; still he was a brave man. It was 
 the duty of the Federal Government to extend protection to every 
 part of the Union. 
 
 Mr. Mallor}', of Fla., said the South would stand by Virginia. He 
 was not surprised that senators denied a knowledge of Brown's plans. 
 Northern sympathy showed that the " irrepressible conflict" had in- 
 deed commenced. Two indorsers of Helper's book were candidates 
 for speaker of the house. The only safety for the country was to be 
 found in the Democratic party. 
 
 Mr. Iverson, of Ga., said the disclaimers by Republicans of sympa- 
 thy with Brown were not worth the paper they were written 
 upon. Actions speak louder than words. What do the New York 
 Trii une and the Albany Journal say — the organs of the Republican 
 party ? He believed that the northern portion of the Democratic 
 party was as rotten as the Republicars. There was no difference 
 between senator Douglas and his supporters, on this vital question, 
 and the Black Republicans themselves. Mr. Sherman disclaims 
 knowledge of the contents of Helper's book, but he ought to have 
 known what they were before indorsing it. The South stands on the 
 brink of a volcano, and unless they take timely action, what will bo 
 the consequence ? He presumed Mr. Sherman would be elected, for, 
 
1004 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 doubtless, traitors enough would be found in the ranks of the Anti- 
 Lecompton Democrats. But, if such should be the case, he would 
 counsel southern members of congress to retire from the halls, and 
 let the Union be dissolved. Mr. Iverson having referred to statements 
 in certain Democratic newspapers, 
 
 Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, entered his protest against such a mode 
 of judging public opinion Senators must know something of the 
 North, if they think to discover public sentiment in such a way. It 
 is the trade of Democratic newspapers to misrepresent their own 
 people. It was insulting to charge Republican senators with com- 
 plicity. He would as soon think of charging the senator from Vir- 
 ginia with compliQity in violating the laws against importing slaves 
 from Africa. 
 
 Mr, Brown, of Miss., said when senators disavow these things, he 
 would not stand up before his peers and charge them with deliberate 
 falsthodd ; but the events transpiring at the North were calculated 
 •to produce a very different impression upon the southern mind. He 
 alluded to certain Republican journals which had expressed sympa- 
 thy for John Brown. If it was not true that sympathy was generally 
 felt for Brown, let the Republicans call general meetings and dis- 
 avow it. 
 
 Mr. Chandler, of Mich,, was in favor of the resolution for reasons 
 different from those stated by others. This has been the first execu- 
 tion for treason in the United States ; and he wanted it to go forth 
 as a warning to all traitors, everywhere ; whether Garrison Aboli- 
 tionists or southern governors, who declare that under certain con- 
 tingencies they will raise their hands against the constitution and the 
 Union. Let all traitors^ hang. Threats have been made for thirty 
 years, that in certain events this Union would be dissolved. It is no 
 small matrer to dissolve this Union, It means bloody revolution, or 
 it means a halter. It means a successful overturning of this g(jvern- . 
 ment, or it means the fate of John Brown. Abolitionists as a class 
 are non-resistants. Where did Brown receive his education in scenes 
 of violence ? That education can not be charged upon the Republi- 
 can party. If any political party is responsible for the action of 
 Brown, it is the Democratic party alone. 
 
 Mr. Doolittle, of Wis., challenged senators to produce one Repub- 
 lican paper throughout the North- West which ever justified or sym- 
 pathized with the act of Brown at Harper's Ferry. They might 
 sympathize with him as an individual, as any man under sentence of 
 death might receive sympathy for personal qualities. Where did all 
 this violence and disregard of the laws begin ? W^ho unchained the 
 tio-er, and opened up civil war in this country ? Let the inquiry be 
 
THE JOHN BROWN INVESTIGATION. 1005 
 
 Bearching- and thorough, and see who is responsible. He g-ave the 
 history of the Kansas agitation as the foundation of this trouble. 
 The design of the Republicans was to put down lawless violence, 
 whether from Canada into Virginia, from the southern states into 
 Nicaragua, or from Missouri into Kansas. The Republican party 
 stands pledged to sustain the constitution and the rights of all the 
 states, North and South, and will stand by them even to the bitter 
 end, be the consequences what they may. They do not believe that 
 there exists such insanity in the South that they would attempt to 
 break up the government because a Republican president might be 
 elected. The Republican party stand pledged to maintain the Union 
 against all enemies, whether from Canada or the southern states. 
 They will arrest them for treason, indict them, and, unless a jury 
 acquit them on the ground of insanity, hang them for treason, as 
 sure as there is a God in heaven. 
 
 Mr. Chesnut, of S. C, said the propriety of the resolution was so 
 manifest, that he had not believed there was a solitary man on the 
 floor of the senate who would oppose it. Yet this amendment seemed 
 for the purpose of trammeling and defeating its force. He hoped it 
 would be withdrawn or voted down. He spoke at some length in re- 
 gard to the rights of the South, and interference with them by Re- 
 publicans, and read extracts from the speech of Mr. Seward in March, 
 1858, where he spoke of free labor invading Delaware, Maryland and 
 Virginia. How significant the language I Though he doubtless 
 meant a moral and intellectual invasion, unlettered minds might 
 understand it literally. Addressing northern senators, Mr. Chesnut 
 said : " If you value the Union, as you say j'ou do, it is for you to 
 preserve it. The South can not preserve the Union. It does not be- 
 hoove her in her down-trodden and feeble condition. But it is for you. 
 It becomes your interest and your concern in the future. • If the 
 Union be so dear to you, it is for you to preserve it, and not for the 
 South." 
 
 Mr. King, of N. Y., remarked that his colleague having been allud- 
 ed to, he would say that it is well known that he pursues his purpose 
 by constitutional and peaceful means. 
 
 Mr. Pugh, of Pa., appealed to Mr. Trumbull to withdraw the 
 amendment. He thought it would be generous and honorable 
 to do so. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull could not consent to withdraw it after what had been 
 eaid. The assured object of the resolution was to learn the avowed 
 sentiment of the North. He wanted also to learn the public senti- 
 ment of the South, which was equally important. He believed sin- 
 cerely that the outbreak at Harper's Ferry arose from the teachings 
 
1006 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the Democratic party — by upholding and not rebuking the sacking 
 of the armory and the arsenal in Missouri, but rewarding the perpe- 
 trators of that act with federal office ; also by sending govern- 
 ment troops into Kansas, to arrest men on trumped-up charges of 
 treason. 
 
 Mr. Iverson, a few days after the foregoing debate, said he had 
 been misunderstood by the Constitution newspaper, in a remark made 
 respecting the corruption of the northern Democracy. He did not 
 accuse them of complicity or sympathy with John Brown ; but on the 
 question of the territorial rights of the southern people, a great por- 
 tion of the northern Democracy were unsound. 
 
 Mr. Bigler, of Pa., was surprised to hear the remarks of the senator 
 the other day. The noi'thern Democracy had labored, day after day, 
 in season and out of season, in defense of the rights of the South. At 
 the North we have been constantly assailed by the opposition on the 
 ground that we are subservient to the South, and that we are pro- 
 slavery. He thought he had spent one hour in defense of the rights 
 of the South where Mr. Iverson had spent one minute ; and he could 
 not sit still under such imputations. The northern Democracy had 
 stood like a bulwark between the South and the abolitionists. Break 
 us down at your peril 1 
 
 Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, gave notice that, on some convenient occasion, 
 he should say something on this subject. If the Democracy of the 
 southern states hold the sentiments of Mr. Iverson, we want to know 
 it before the meeting of the Charleston Convention ; and we intend 
 to know, at least I do, so far as the question and answer can bring it 
 from the representatives of the Democratic party of the northern states, 
 whether they sympathize with such sentiments. 
 
 Mr. Iverson. I am ready to answer at any time, and will do so to 
 your heart's content. 
 
 Mr. Clay, of Ala., said he wished to know where we stood. Sena- 
 tors on the other side profess to respect the constitutional rights of 
 the South, and declare they will maintain them. But the South has 
 good reason to distrust these professions. One senator treats the 
 whole matter with levity. Another ridicules the cowardice and 
 weakness of the South in suffering a handful of men to seize the 
 armory at Harper's Ferry in the face of 1,500 inhabitants. Another 
 entertains us with the newly discovered opinions of Washington, 
 Jefferson, and other fathers disapproving slavery. Others threaten 
 us with coercion, to make us submit to their authority. The Repub- 
 lican party in the North have opposed slavery by non-action, in re- 
 fusing to enforce the constitutional guaranties, and also by unfriend- 
 ly legislation. For many years past negroes have been stolen, yet 
 
THE JOHN BROWN INVESTIGATION. lOOt 
 
 the northern states refuse to execute the fugitive slave law, and en- 
 deavor to throw obstacles in the way of the owner who seeks to 
 recover this species of property, 
 
 Mr. Doolittle stated that the constitution, properly construed, gives 
 to congress no power to pass a fugitive slave law. It sinaply inhibits 
 the states from discharging the fugitive from service who may be 
 held by the laws of the state from which he escapes. 
 
 Mr. Clay would enter into no constitutional argument respecting 
 the fugitive slave law of 1850 or 1193. But the legislature of Wis- 
 consin has never passed an act for the rendition of fugitive slaves. 
 Does the North suppose we of the South intend to bow our 
 necks to the yoke, to submit to the domination of our masters ? 
 There are men, I rejoice to say, in the North, not only of the 
 Democratic, but also of the old Whig party, who appreciate our 
 rights, who estimate our virtues, and who respect our honor more 
 than the Republicans profess to do, Millard Fillmore was one ; 
 an(f he spoke, I trust and believe, the sentiment of the freemen of the 
 South, when he said that they would never submit to be governed by 
 a Republican president, I indulge in no menace, I make no pre- 
 diction or promise for my own state •, but unless she and all of the 
 southern states, with, perhaps, two or three exceptions, are faithless 
 to the pledges they have given, they will never submit to your Re- 
 publican domineering in this government. Every southern state, 
 except two or three, had declared that, if a new slave state should 
 be refused admittance into the Union, or the fugitive slave law be 
 repealed or modified, or an attempt be made to abolish the inter-state 
 slave trade, or slavery in the territories should be prohibited, they 
 would dissolve this Union if they possessed the power, I ask whether 
 there is not much stronger cause for the southern people to separate 
 from the Union upon the election of a president of a party pledged 
 by a platform to carry out all these things. 
 
 Mr. Gvvin, of Cal., thought sentiments had been uttered by Repub- 
 lican senators which werecalculated to arouse the indignation of the 
 South and distui'b the Union. They had said, that in the event of 
 the election of a Republican candidate for president, if there is any 
 resistance, they will hang those who resist. It is a species of degra- 
 dation to southern senators to be thus threatened in case of resist- 
 ance to the inauguration of a Republican president ; and it affords 
 ground for the southern states to prepare themselves for defense 
 against the execution of the threats, and for a separation from the 
 North. The Republican party is a sectional party. Where are there 
 any Republicans in the fifteen southern states ? If there are any, it 
 is only in certain localities, and even there it is dangerous for them 
 
1008 THE AM, CAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to avow their sentiments, because the people of those fifteen states 
 believe the utterance of such sentiments to be treason ; therefore I 
 consider it as the inevitable result of the principles avowed by the 
 Eepublican party, that the South should prepare for resistance in the 
 event of the election of a Republican president. How could he carry 
 on the government in any southern state ? Any men who would ac- 
 cept a commission from a Republican president, would be looked 
 upon as public enemies, and could not execute the duties imposed 
 upon them.. 
 
 Mr. Hale. In my humble judgment, the position of affairs repre- 
 sented here presents a more distinct line than has ever before been 
 presented. If the position assumed by the gentleman from Califor- 
 nia be true, we have been laboring under an utter delusion. We are 
 not a Union of states, but subject provinces. Our people do not 
 choose a president. You, the representatives of fifteen states, sit there, 
 and proclaim to a majority of the people of this Union, that, if t^ey 
 dare to exercise their prerogative and choose a president representing 
 their views, j'ou will not submit to the will of that majority, and will 
 separate from the Union. You thus declare that the presidential 
 election is an idle mockery, a delusion, a deception. It is no choice 
 of the people. You people of the non-slaveholding states, you are 
 not a part of the sovereign power of the confederacj'. You occupy to 
 us, the South, the position that the old French parliament did to the 
 monarch. He made the decrees, and it was the prerogative of the 
 parliament to register them. That was all. The senator from Cali- 
 fornia speaks to us as if we had been appealed to. I do not consider 
 it so. I consider it as a declaration of facts, which, if they exist, 
 ought to be known, and can not be known too soon. If this is to be 
 the remedy, that a majority of the people shall surrender their con- 
 victions, and forbear to exercise the highest functions with which God 
 has endowed a freeman, I am glad to hear it. They must go to the 
 polls next fall, and go through the idle ceremony of voting, for the 
 result is already a foregone conclusion ; and if your decrees are not 
 registered, the Union is dissolved. How idle the idea of equality, 
 when we are told before exercising a right guarantied by the consti- 
 tution, that, if, by the exercise of it, and in the manner prescribed by 
 the constitution, we succeed in electing a representative of our views 
 as president, then the government is at an end ! 
 
 Mr. Wade, of Ohio, said, it had been stated by the mover of this 
 resolution, that one great object of it was to elicit the state of north- 
 ern feeling respecting the invasion at Harper's Ferry. 
 
 Mr. Mason desired to correct the senator. What he had said was, 
 that he wished to ascertain from what source Brown derived his 
 
THE JOHN BROWN INVESTIGATTON. 1009 
 
 funds, and the counsel which led to the incursion. He had reason to 
 believe it came chiefly from the New England states. 
 
 Mr. Wade resumed. For the basest purposes the party to which 
 he belonged had been charged with complicity in this affair. The 
 charge was so overstrained that it fell on his ear without giving him 
 a single emotion. But he knew what its effect would be at the South. 
 One-sided statements only reached the ears of the southern people ; 
 and the antidote to this charge they would never get. No man is 
 allowed to express his sentiments at the South, unless they are made 
 to suit public opinion. It is not strange, therefore, that they are de- 
 luded respecting the state of northern feeling, Mr. W, regarded 
 Brown as insane, and asked senators to discriminate between the man 
 and his acts. If the state of Virginia feels deeply at this incursion 
 into her territory and murder of her citizens, what were the feelino-s 
 of northern men, a few years ago, whose relations and friends had 
 gone into a far distant territory, and formed colonies there, weak and 
 feeble, and scattered through that wilderness, when they found it was 
 the deliberate purpose of a great and powerful party to drive them 
 out, or coerce them to obedience under institutions which they ab- 
 horred. They were driven out, and murdered in cold blood ; and 
 their property was destroyed. They appealed to Congress for redress ; 
 but they only got insults here instead of sympathy. I state what I 
 do know. This government did at least connive at the acts of that 
 band of conspirators who, armed lawlessly with arms belonging to 
 the goverimient, invaded that territor^^, took possession of the ballot 
 boxes, drove the citizens away from the polls and from their posses- 
 sions. The difference between the two cases was, that the invasion 
 of Kansas was made to introduce slavery there, at all hazards, by 
 force of arms ; whereas Brown and his men, with a like unlawful 
 purpose, undertook to extirpate slavery from Virginia. The free-state 
 men in Kansas got no consolation from the Government ; but one 
 senator said : " We will subdue you ; you are traitors ; we will hang 
 every man of you." 
 
 In the darkest hour of Kansas, when her rights were all in peril, 
 and the Federal Government failed to interfere in her behalf, then it 
 was that John Brown appeared on the stage of action, arming himself 
 as well as he might, and commenced doing that justice to himself and 
 his fellows that the government had denied. He did it with a hero- 
 ism and determination that challenged admiration from his friends, 
 and even respect from his enemies He drove the " border ruflSans"^ 
 from the territory, and conquered a peace. Mr. W. believed Brown 
 was maddened by the scenes of blood he witnessed in Kansas ; fur he 
 
 64 
 
1010 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 did not think any sane man would have undertaken the enterprise he 
 did at Harper's Ferry. 
 
 Mr. W. said he had looked Helper's book through carefully, and 
 found nothing but arguments against slavery. Can not a man in free 
 America give currency to a book containing arguments which he 
 thinks are properly addressed to whole classes of the free population 
 of the country ? The great body of the statistical information in the 
 book is drawn from the census returns and public documents in the 
 archives of the nation. If arguments against slavery can not be 
 safel}^ made, that constitutes the greatest objection to the spread of 
 the institution. He alluded to the muttered thunder from the South 
 in case a Republican president was elected. He felt no alarm from 
 that cause. This Union was not easily dissolved. He spoke of the 
 navigable rivers, lines of railroads, and other interests interlacing the 
 South and North. We are married forever, for better or worse. 
 There will be no divorcement. There is no way in which it can be 
 effected, but least of all in the contingency mentioned. If you wait 
 till a Republican president is elected, you will have waited a day too 
 long. Why not do it now, when you have the government in your 
 own hands ? He would be but a sorry Republican who, if elected by 
 a majority of the votes of the people, and consequently backed by 
 them, should fail to vindicate his right to the presidential chair. He 
 will do it. No man at the North is to be intimidated by threats of 
 dissolution. If the Republican candidate shall have been constitu- 
 tionally elected to preside for the next four years over this people, 
 my word for it, preside he will. Who will prevent it ? 
 
 Mr. Trumbull's amendment extending the inquiry to the seizure of 
 the arsenal at Liberty was rejected : Yeas, 22 ; Nays, 32. 
 
 Mr. Mason's resolution was then (December 14,) unanimously 
 adopted : Yeas, 55. 
 
 Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, on a resolution of his own, proposing the repeal 
 of so much of the acts organizing the territorial government of New 
 Mexico and Utah as requires the laws passed by the territorial legis- 
 lature to be submitted to Congress for approval or rejection, spoke in 
 defense of the northern Democracy against the imputation of unsound- 
 ness made by Mr. Iverson, of Georgia. The charge, he said, did not 
 come with a good grace from those in the South who had not done so 
 much for the party as northerners. He denied that the position of 
 Mr. Douglas on territorial rights was akin to the Wilmot proviso, or 
 anti-Democratic, reading from a speech of Gen. Cass sustaining the 
 same position ; and from a speech of Mr. Iverson himself in the house 
 eleven years ago, which was as strong in support of non-intervention 
 views as Mr. Cass's Nicholson letter, or Mr. Douglas's Freeport 
 
THE JOHN BROWN INVESTIGATION. ' 1011 
 
 speech. He referred to the instructions of the Georgia legislature to 
 her senators when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was up, in favor of non- 
 intervention. In reply to Mr. Gwin, of Cal., Mr. P. quoted the seiiti- 
 Tients of the California legislature at the same time, and read the 
 Democratic platform adopted in California since the last session of 
 Congress, which was almost literally copied from that of Ohio drawn 
 up by Mr. P. himself He also quoted the resolutions of the Florida 
 legislature in 184T, in support of his position. Thus it appeared that 
 California stood, and southern states had stood on the platform of 
 " squatter sovereignty." This odious epithet, " squatter sovereignty," 
 which had been used to frighten the people from their propriety, had 
 been invented for the benefit of California, and first applied to her in 
 the formation of her state constitution, in which Mr. Gwin himself 
 took an active part. The Lecompton constitution was "squatter 
 sovereignty." He did not see any safe ground upon which the advo- 
 cates of the Lecompton constitution could stand, if the doctrine an- 
 nounced by Mr. Iverson was to be the doctrine of the Democratic 
 party. Mr. P. alluded to Mr. Douglas' having been removed from the 
 chairmanship of the committee on territories which he had held for 
 many years, on" account of his views on the Kansas bill. He would 
 not stand up here to defend Mr. Douglas, who was able to speak for 
 himself. If he was expelled for that reason, for the same reason 
 ninety-nine hundredths of the Democracy in every non-slavehold"ng 
 state might be expelled. But facts seemed to show that he was not 
 removed for that. After he had made his speech in the senate against 
 the Lecompton constitution, and taken issue with the administration 
 and almost the entire body of Democratic senators North and South, 
 the senate proceeded to put him again at the head of the territorial 
 committee ; and he staid there until the Lecompton controversy was 
 dead and buried. Now it is avowed that he is not removed for that 
 cause, but because he entertains opinions which are held by almost 
 the entire northern Democracy. He would appeal to his brethren in 
 the northern states whether they recognize this as a test of Democra- 
 tic fellowship. It had been the usage of the senate, first, never to 
 displace a senator without his consent ; and second, never to promote 
 another over him. He was soon going out of the senate, and would 
 therefore frankly declare that this usage was intolerably bad. It had 
 operated to give senators from the slavcholding states the chair of 
 every committee controlling the public business. The senator from 
 Illinois was the only exception, and he had been decapitated. He 
 thought the simplest way out of this controversy was to da justice, 
 and put down all attempts from one section of the Union or the other, 
 to disturb the platform of the Democratic party. 
 
1012 * THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Gwin said the resolutions of the California legislature refeired 
 to by Mr. Pugh, were intended to take the subject from Congress, 
 and leave it with judicial tribunals of the country. The Democratic 
 party in California hold these to be purely judicial questions. As to 
 the action in the case of Mr. Douglas, he ought to have been here 
 when the senate was organized. It was right that the majority of 
 the Democratic senators, who were responsible for the organization 
 of this body, should no longer place a man at the head of the commit- 
 tee on territories holding opinions in direct conflict with the majority 
 on the subject of territorial power. As to ninety-nine hundredths of 
 the northern Democracy agreeing with Mr. Douglas, Mr, P. might 
 speak for Ohio ; but that was not the doctrine of California. It had 
 been condemned by the people by an overwhelming majority. The 
 maintenance of that doctrine was dangerous to the Democratic party. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXII. 
 
 SLAVERY DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. — PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. OPPOSITION TO 
 
 ELECTING SPEAKER BY PLURALITi". ELECTION OF SPEAKER. 
 
 In the house, the debate on Mr. Clark's resolution was still in pro- 
 gress. Mr. Gilmer, of N. C, (American,) had offered (December 6,) 
 a substitute, reiterating, in substance, the declarations of the Whig 
 and Democratic parties in their national conventions, in 1852, that 
 they would resist all attempts to renew the slavery agitation, in 
 whatever shape or color it might be made. He was opposed to send- 
 ing out inflammatory discussions. 
 
 Mr. Millson, of Va., confessed that he had been much disappointed 
 in the character of the present debate, as well as in the source from 
 which discussion had come. Those gentlemen on the other side 
 (Republicans) maintained a sullen and almost contemptuous silence. 
 Those who entertain such sentiments as are advanced by Helper, 
 were not only unfit to be speaker, but were unfit to live. ^ 
 
 Mr. Sherman regarded this debate as thrown into the house to pre- 
 vent organization. He caused to be read a letter addressed to him 
 by Francis P. Blair, dated the 6th instant, in which the writer says 
 that Helper brought him his book, after examining which, he in- 
 formed Helper of the objectionable parts. Helper replied he would 
 make the alterations ; and it is in consequence of such an assurance, 
 
SLAVERY DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. 1013 
 
 that members of Congress gave their recommendation. He did not 
 sign the paper. He had never read Helper's book or compendium nor 
 seen a copy. He desired to say he had always cultivated courteous 
 and friendly relations. He had never expressed such language as 
 had been used to-day. He appealed to his public record. He would 
 say now there was not a single question agitating the mind of the 
 country relative to politics — not a single topic involving sectional 
 controversy, that was not thrust in by Democrats. The Republicans 
 had preserved a studied silence. It was their intention to organize 
 the house quietly and decently, without vituperation ; and he trusted 
 it could be shown that the party could administer the affairs of the 
 house and the government without trespassing on the rights of 
 any section. 
 
 Mr. H. F. Clark, of N. Y., (Anti-Lecompton Democrat,) in reply to 
 Mr. Millson, said he could not, in justice to the North, maintain 
 silence. He had not spoken before, because nobody had seriously 
 charged on the people of the North, complicity in, or approval of 
 Brown's conduct in Virginia. They never dreamed of it. Having 
 never read Helper's book, he knew not bow he should vote on the 
 pending resolution ; but for Mr. Gilmer's proposition he would vote 
 with pleasure. The northern people were conservative and Union- 
 loving men. The slavery' agitation sprung up with the repeal of the 
 Missouri Compromise. If it had been carried out in good faith, there 
 would have been no disturbance. If fraud had not invaded Kansas, 
 as foul as that which was recently practiced on Virginia ; if an at- 
 tempt had not been made in the last Congress to force her into the 
 Union with a constitution violative of the feelings and interests 
 of the people, the country would not now be in this state of 
 excitement. 
 
 This was the beginning of a debate between the Anti-Lecompton 
 and the administration Democrats, in which the former were charged 
 with having deserted their party, and joined their opponents. 
 
 Mr. R. Davis, of Miss., was in favor of a continuation of harmony. 
 He believed the government wanted saving. He insisted on a strict 
 observance of the constitution, in order to secure to every section of 
 the country its just equality and rights. It was the duty of all con- 
 servative and patriotic men to rally to the support of the Democracy, 
 the only national party, to put down the abolition spirit. He appealed 
 to all patriots to put down treasonable designs. In alluding to re- 
 marks heretofore made by Republicans, he said that armed men had 
 been sent to the South to kill their people, and deprive them of their 
 property. Could the South be patient under these circumstances ? 
 and could they be blamed for taking means for their defense ? We 
 
1014 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the South want peace. Let the North stand by the compact of our 
 fathers. He said, Seward is a traitor, and deserves the gallowa. 
 Virginia has hung the traitor Brown, and if they get hold of Seward, 
 they will hang him. 
 
 Mr. Morris, of Pa., said he was opposed to all unnecessary agita- 
 tion of the subject of slavery, and did not wish to discuss it until it 
 came before them in a legitimate way. This wicked administration 
 countenanced every act of violence and fraud on the people of Kan- 
 sas, and brought into Congress a constitution fraudulent from begin- 
 iiing to end, and which would not stand the test of examination. His 
 friend (Mr. Sherman) here stood nobly and firm for the rights of the 
 people against the government, standing up for law, order, and 
 peace ; and for thi.s the gentleman should have his vote. An objec- 
 tion has been urged that Mr. Sherman signed the recommendation of 
 Helper's book. He (Morris) had not signed the recommendation, nor 
 had he read the book. He understood that it was written by a native 
 of a southern state, addressed to southern men, and showed the ex- 
 perience of southern men as to the value of southern labor. What 
 had the house to do with Helper's book ? It was a most extraordi- 
 nary proceeding, and lifted Helper into a consequence he never 
 dreamed of obtaining. Who repealed the Missouri Compromise, and 
 broke the bonds of peace ? The Democratic party. Who got up the 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill ? The Democratic party. Who refused to 
 carry out the provisions of the Kansas bill, deluding Kansas by 
 promising her a free expression of her will, and then denying it ? 
 The Democratic party. Who brought the slavery question here ? 
 The Democratic party. And yet gentlemen were to sit in this hall, 
 and hear the whole North accused of acts of conspiracy against the 
 southern states ? His constituents were eminently loyal, and he in- 
 sisted that they should not be made particeps criminis ; and it was a 
 libel and calumny to hold them and the North i-espousible tor the 
 actions of a band of bad men. It might as reasonably be charged 
 that the whole South were responsible for the ordinance passed by 
 South Carolina, nullifying the laws of the United States, and provid- 
 ing for armed resistance. He never would despair of making the con- 
 stitution and the Union perpetual, and hoped that they would all live 
 together as a band of brothers. But they never could live peaceably 
 so long as gentlemen came into this house, and, by misrepresenta- ' 
 tions, involve innocent people in the acts of criminals. 
 
 Mr, Moore, of Ala., in reply to Mr. Morris, said such a charge as 
 the gentleman mentioned had never been made by the South on the 
 entire people of the North. There were men in the North as true to 
 the constitution as in the South. But to say that there was in the 
 
SLAVERY DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. 1015 
 
 • 
 
 North no sympathy for John Brown, was a libel. So far as he knew 
 the sentiments of those he represented, it was his deliberate convic- 
 tion, that the success of a purely sectional party would virtually be 
 a dissolution of the Union. If the Republican party could be de- 
 feated, the Union woiild be preserved. But if such a party were to 
 succeed, the sooner the Union is dissolved the better. The South 
 were on the defensive ; and if they could not get their rights in the 
 Union and under the constitution, they were prepared to have their 
 rights out of it. 
 
 The debate having continued several days, Mr. Hickman, of Pa., 
 offered (December 10,) a resolution proposing to elect a speaker by 
 plurality. As this mode of election would be likely to result in the 
 choice of the Republican candidate. Democrats imputed to him the 
 design of enabling men " to vote indirectly for a Black Republican, 
 when they would not come up manfully and vote for him directly," 
 Mr. H. said the remark did not apply to him. He should vote for a 
 Republican in preference to any gentleman who sustains this admin- 
 istration. He had never concealed what his ultimate action would 
 be. He preferred tlie election of a sound Democrat, an Anti-Lecomp- 
 ton Democrat. After a week's trial he feared such a one would not 
 be elected. Either a friend of the administration or a Republican 
 would be elected ; and he was frank to say that in such case he 
 chose the latter. He did not ccmsider those to be Democrats who had 
 abandoned the Cincinnati platform. 
 
 Mr. Curry said : This excitement and profound agitation of the 
 public mind does not arise simply from the question of the organiza- 
 tion of the house, nor from the question relating to the circulation of 
 incendiary pamphlets, nor from the murderous incursion recently 
 made into Virginia. These are but incidents to the great principles 
 which are at stake. The real cause of the agitation arises from the 
 question which has arisen here, " that property in man is a crime ; 
 that the African is the equal of the white man ; that he is a citizen 
 of the United States, and entitled to the privileges and immunities 
 of other citizens." There is the secret of the difficulty. * * * In 
 the spirit of that charity which rejoices in the truth, I do not hold the 
 Republican party responsible for the excesses committed by men 
 holding anti-slavery opinions. I acquit that party of all supposed 
 or assumed complicity in the raid recently made into Virginia. I go 
 further, and say I accept the plea interposed and placed upon record, 
 and that I am willing to allow tho mantle of ignorance to cover the 
 act of signing the recommendation of an incendiary pamphlet. But 
 I make this averment, that the ideas, and principles, and politics, of 
 the Republican party are necessarily hostile to the constitution and 
 
1016 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to the rights and interests of the South. The arguments adduced 
 assume an antagonism between the sections ; and the ideas put forth 
 in your school-rooms, through your public lectures, through your 
 political addresses, through your legislative resolves and your con- 
 gressional speeches, imply this antagonism. If slavery be a crime 
 against God and against humanity ; if it be a curse to society, if it 
 contains the fruitful seeds of irremediable woes, it is as vain to talk 
 of moderation and the constitution, and non-interference with the 
 rights of the South, as it wonld be to propel a skiff up the surging 
 cataract of Niagara The ideas advanced, the principles avowed, 
 the doctriues preached, must have their logical development and 
 result. 
 
 Mr. C. then undertook to show the change which had taken place 
 in tho norlhern states as the result of anti-slavery teachings ; and 
 then proceeded : 
 
 It is a poor argument to advance that there are no more territories 
 to the people, and therefore the question of slavery or no slavery in 
 the territories is not up for discussion. But was not the Republican 
 party organized avowedly and solely to prevent the extension of 
 slavery into the territories ? If you do not mean to insult us, or if 
 you do not mean to interfere with slavery, dissolve your organization, 
 and put it out of j'our power, in that respect, to do us an injury. The 
 animating principle of the Republican party is opposition to the ex- 
 tension of slavery into the territories. This is the ligament which 
 binds the heterogeneous mass together. 
 
 He then referred to a speech of Gov. Chase, recently delivered at 
 Boston, in which he had suggested that every government oflBcial 
 should be a person imbued with anti-slavery doctrines. He also re- 
 ferred to Mr. Fillmore's Albany speech in 1856, as justifying the 
 position which the South now assumes. He said, further : If the 
 North elected Mr. Seward or Mr. Chase, or any other member of the 
 Republican party on a sectional platform, such an election was to be 
 resisted to the destruction of every tie which binds together the great 
 confederacy. The election of such men would indicate hostility to us 
 that would be an assurance of our subjugation and deprivation of all 
 security in the future. That would be a calamity, indeed ; and to 
 submit to it would be a calamity embittered by disgrace. Referring 
 to the recent Union demonstrations at the North, he said they were 
 gratifying, yet they amounted to nothing. The true test of public 
 opinion was through the ballot-box ; and looking to this test, he found 
 New England here arrayed in solid phalanx against the constitutional 
 rights of the South ; New York with but four or five representatives 
 disposed to befriend the South ; and the same was true, in a greater 
 
SLAVERY DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. 1017 
 
 or less extent, in regard to Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states. 
 When he looked at these indications, he was not to be lulled into 
 security by demonstrations of Union meetings. If they were in earn- 
 est in these declarations, let them give to the South something prac- 
 tical, substantial, and tangible. Let them repeal their personal 
 liberty bills, their habeas corpus acts. Let them execute the fugitive 
 slave law ; let them refuse contributions of money to circulate incen- 
 diary pamphlets at the South ; let them turn out of this hall and the 
 senate the men who come to insult and stigmatize the South, These 
 would be indications of public opinion and tests of returning 
 justice. 
 
 Mr. C. said his constituents looked solely to the Democracy of the 
 North as the natural allies of the constitution and the South, Admit- 
 ting that bad men had sometimes used the prestige of Democracy for 
 ill, and had abused its confidence, still they must recollect that it had 
 been fruitful of great names and great deeds. In war it had been its 
 country's friend ; in peace it had contributed largely to the country's 
 prosperity ; its disbandment now would be a serious calamitj'. In 
 the critical period of the country's history, it had been the savior of 
 the constitution and the defending of the country's honor. Its pi'in- 
 ciples had become part of our mental habitudes, and he trusted it 
 would be adequate to the stupendous conflict ahead of us. If, said he, 
 the Democrats and our American friends should not be able to inter- 
 pose for the security of the South and the protection of the constitu- 
 tion, I shall counsel the people of my state to offer the most effectual 
 resistance, and shall urge them to fling themselves back upon their 
 reserved rights, and upon the inalienable sovereignty of the state to 
 which I owe my first and last allegiance. 
 
 Mr. Singleton, of Miss., said, if the Republicans elect Mr. Sherman, 
 they would do it at the peril of severing the ties which bind us to- 
 gether. He inquired whether it was not the design of Republicans 
 to exclude the South from the territories. 
 
 Mr. Curtis, of Iowa, said they were opposed to the extension of 
 slavery, and by every constitutional power and act would oppose its 
 extension. It was not his purpose to injure the right of the people of 
 the South to hold slaves. 
 
 Mr. Singleton replied that this was all intended to lull the suspi- 
 cion of the South, with a view to further aggressions, and to bind 
 them hand and foot, and deliver them over to the tormentor. Did 
 not the gentleman believe that Congress had the power to exclude us 
 from the territories, and would he not vote for such a law ? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. We would give you the same rights we ask for.' We 
 would vote to exclude slaves, not freemen, from the territories. 
 
1018 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Singleton. In other words, you will never let us have 
 another foot of slave territory while we remain with you. Is that 
 the idea ? 
 
 Mr. Curtis. That is the idea, 
 
 Mr. Singleton sai(3, if you exclude slavery from us, h will prove the 
 disruption of every tie. We will have expansion of slavery in the 
 Union, or outside of it if we must. If you wish to know my advice 
 to Mississippi, I say the sooner we get out of the Union the better ; 
 for the longer we stay in, the worse for us. The South have made 
 up their minds to sustain slavery. We don't intend to be circum- 
 scribed by present limits ; and it will not be in the power of the 
 North to coerce the three millions of freemen of the South with arms 
 in their hands, and prevent their going into the surrounding territo- 
 ries. Gentlemen must remember that a gallant son of the South, 
 Jefferson Davis, led our forces in Mexico, and, thank God, he still 
 lives, perhaps to lead a southern army. Mr. S. I'eviewed " squatter 
 sovereignty," and said, Mr. Douglas holding to this, he would never 
 vote for him if he were nominated by the Charleston Convention. Ho 
 said the South could expand to Mexico, that country being without 
 government, and they could administer the estate for themselves. 
 Whenever a man like Mr. Seward or Mr. Hale is elected to preside 
 over the destinies of the South, there may be expected an undivided 
 front in that section ; and all parties will be united in resistance to 
 aggression. The only way to preserve the Union is to reopen the 
 territories to the South on equal terms with the North ; if the people 
 make slave states, permit them to come into the Union as such ; ex- 
 ecute the fugitive slave law, and give the South assurance for the 
 recovery of their slaves. He held that every state has the right to 
 judge of its manner of redress. 
 
 On the 21th of December, the house_ being yet unorganized, the 
 President's message was sent to both houses. 
 
 The President alluded to the invasion, by John Brown, into the state 
 of Virginia, at Harper's Ferry, whose execution had recently taken 
 place. These events, he said, " derive their chief importance from 
 the apprehension that they are but symptoms of an incurable disease 
 in the public mind, which may break out in still more dangerous out- 
 rages, and terminate in an open war by the North to abolish slavery 
 in the South." Although he himself entertained no such apprehen- 
 sion, he " implored his countrymen, North and South, to cultivate the 
 ancient feelings of mutual forbearance and good will toward each 
 other, and strive to allay the demon spirit of sectional hatred and 
 strife now alive in the land." 
 
 He again congratulates congress " upon the final settlement, by 
 
president's message, 1019 
 
 the supreme court of the United States, of the question of slavery in 
 the territories. . . . The right has been established of every citi- 
 zen to take his property of any kind, including slaves, into the com' 
 mon territories belonging equally to all the states of the Confederacy, 
 and to have it protected there under the Federal Constitution. Neither 
 congress, nor a territorial legislature, nor any human power has any 
 authority to annul or impair this vested right. . . . The settle- 
 ment of the new territory will proceed without serious interruption, 
 and its progress and prosperity will not be endangered or retarded by 
 violent political struggles." 
 
 He said he had employed and should continue to employ all lawful 
 means at his command, to execute the laws against the African 
 slave trade. 
 
 There had been no improvement in the affairs of Mexico, To insure 
 redress for the wrongs which we have suffered from tliat country, 
 and to protect our citizens in the future, he repeats his request for 
 authority to employ the naval force of the nation. 
 
 To meet the apprehended deficiency in the treasury, he recom- 
 mended an increase of the duties on imports rather than a resort to 
 loans ; and he repeated his recommendation of a change, in laying 
 duties, from ad valorem duties to specific duties. 
 
 The Kansas question, which had been a prominent topic of former 
 messages, was passed over without notice. 
 
 The reception of the message did not stop the slavery discussion 
 In the house, it was voted to lay it on the table until the house should 
 be organized ; and the debate proceeded without any apparent 
 abatement of hostility between the two divisions of the Democratic 
 party. 
 
 Mr. Morris, of 111., said : The doctrine of popular sovereignty is in 
 peril. The Democratic party is divided upon it. Some of the south- 
 ern representatives have abandoned it. It is not disputed that the 
 Cincinnati platform, the only authoritative exposition of the Democra- 
 tic doctrine, recognizes it ; but that seems to make no difference. 
 The President and the ultra Democrats have seized these planks, 
 torn them up, and interpolated new ones, and are driving the Demo- 
 cratic car over the precipice. The Lecompton constitution inaugu- 
 rated this suicidal policy at the last congress. Twenty-two Demo- 
 crats from the free states planted themselves against it, but were 
 pursued and persecuted as never men were before. They were 
 hunted down socially and politically, especially in Illinois, He would 
 cherish, as the proudest recollection of his life, his resistance to the 
 Lecompton swindle. Under all this pressure, the Anti-Lecompton 
 party dwindled to twelve men. But where are the Lecompton men 
 
1020 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 from tbe free states who were then in this house ? In the last con- 
 gress there were forty Lecompton 'Democrats ; now we have fifteen 
 at most, while there are eighteen Anti-Lecompton Democrats ; show- 
 ing' a gain of five or six. 
 
 The Democracy of the North-West recognize all southern rights, 
 but that of carrying slaves into the territories under the constitution 
 -in defiance of the people. They would say to the southern ultras in 
 the Cbarleston Convention, on the 23d of April next, that they came 
 from the free states, where the Democratic vote doubled that of the 
 South in 1866 ; that they met tbem in all kind, brotherly feeling ; 
 but at tbe same time we don't intend to declare in the platform the 
 principle that the constitution carries slavery into the territories in 
 defiance of the inhabitants ; that it is the duty of the territorial legis- 
 latures to pass laws for or against slavery if congress requires it, or 
 of ccnigiess to protect slavery in the territories by legislation. But 
 we do intend to declare for the Cincinnati platform ; and we will 
 admit no test except one that will recognize no man as a Democrat 
 wbo is not in favor of the Union, and of fighting its battles insi'de 
 and not out of it. Not a delegate in tliat convention from the free 
 states, not even I'rum Pennsylvania, will approve the President's doc- 
 trine, that the constitution carries slavery into the territories. We 
 shall noniinate the right man on the right platform, a man that can 
 be elected — and we have many such — and we shall go on, shoulder 
 and shoulder with you into the contest. Tlie American Union has ful- 
 filled its destiny. Disunion can never come peaceabl3^ It will bring 
 with it darkness and despair, crackling flames of cities, lighting the 
 pathway of death — a land drenched in fraternal blood, and dressed 
 in weeds of mourning. Wo unto us when that day cometh ! 
 
 But this voluminous debate in the house can not be further pur- 
 Bued Enough — perhaps more than enough — has been given to show 
 tlie state of parties and party feeling. The debates in both houses 
 disclose the purpose of the southern members, for slight cause, to 
 dissolve the Union ; showed the irreconcilable hostility between the 
 two divisions of the Democratic party ; and gave early indications 
 of the disruption of the Charleston convention. 
 
 Frequent ballots for speaker were taken with nearly the same re- 
 sults. The Democrats and Americans were unwilling to unite ; and 
 the Anti-Lecompton or Douglas Democrats would not vote for an ad- 
 ministration man. Mr. Sherman received generally from 103 to 106 
 votes, lacking from 8 to 6 of a majority. The Democratic candidate 
 (a new one being tried from time to time) received less than 90 ; 
 and the American seldom so many as 20. The two la&t united with 
 the scattering, would have defeated Mr. Sherman ; or, a majority 
 
OPPOSITION TO ELECTING SPEAKER BY PLURALITr. 1021 
 
 of the 1 or 8 Anti-Lecompton Democrats voting for him, might 
 have elected him, 
 
 A strong motive to effect an organization was the failure, at the 
 last session, to provide for the payment of mail contractoi's, whose 
 claims amounted to about $2,000,000, and who were subjected to 
 great embarrassment. This was also made a subject of controversy, 
 each party charging the failure upon tl e other. 
 
 It was repeatedly urged by members, that these debates, before 
 the house was duly organized, were a violation of parliamentary law ;- 
 and that it was the duty of the house to vote upon the various propo- 
 sitions without debute. 
 
 On the 19th of January, 1860, the fact was fully developed in the 
 house, that a secret combination had been formed to resist, by factious 
 proceedings, an organization by the plurality rule. Apprehending, 
 probably, the adoption, ultimately, of this mode of electing a speaker, 
 a number of Democrats, upwards of forty, it was said, chiefly or 
 wholly southern men, pledged themselves in writing to prevent its 
 adoption. In answer to inquiries by Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, several 
 members acknowledged the fact, among whom was Mr. Burnett, of 
 Ky., who said, in reference to the resolution to elect by plurality, I 
 hold that the resolution of Mr. Hutchius is not properly before the 
 bouse, and I am ready to defeat its adoption by resorting to all tactics^ 
 known to parliamentary law, by dilatory motions, such as to adjourn, 
 and calls of the house, and by consuming time in debate. I will do 
 this to defeat the minority, and prevent them from placing in that 
 chair a man who indorses the doctrines of the Helper book, and who 
 has neither aflSrmed nor disavowed them. I repeat, to prevent such 
 a disgrace on my section and constituents, I will resort to all parlia- 
 mentary and legitimate means, so help me, God, so long as I have a 
 seat on this floor. 
 
 In reply to the argument that the election by plurality was uncon- 
 stitutional, Mr. Colfax, of Ind., said : The constitution authorizes the 
 states to elect representatives to congress ; and, in compliance with 
 that constitution, those representatives sit here to-day. Now, it is a 
 fact, that every gentleman who sits here is elected, not by the ma- 
 jority, but by the plurality rule. Only Rhode Island requires a 
 majority vote ; and there, on a second vote, a plurality is sutficient 
 to elect. AVhen gentlemen come here and draw their salaries from 
 the treasury by virtue of the plurality rule, it is a far-fetched argu- 
 ment for them to insist that the constitution will not permit us to 
 elect a speaker by this rule. Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, and Mr. Banks, 
 of Massachusetts, have both been elected under the plurality rule ; 
 and although questions have arisen in regard to the constitutionality 
 
1022 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of laws passed under their administration, and signed by them, yet 
 no man, no lawyer, has ever, before a court of justice, insisted that 
 those laws were invalid because the speaker had been elected by 
 plurality. The election of representatives by plurality has been 
 provided for in order that the people in none of the districts may be 
 unrepresented. The law says to the people, " You may scatter your 
 votes if you please ; but the man who receives the highest number 
 shall be elected." It is a wise provision ; and we should do well to 
 copy that example to put an end to the present dead lock. 
 
 On the 26th of January, Mr. Smith, of N. C, (American) received 
 the votes of some of the Democrats ; and on the 2Tth, he received 
 almost the entire Democratic vote. The ballot gave, for Sherman, 
 106 ; Smith, 112 ; Corwin, 4 ; scattering, 6. On the 30th, when the 
 house was about to proceed to another ballot — 
 
 Mr. Sherman arose, and addressed the house, and, in the course of 
 his remarks, said : I should regret extremely, and I believe it would 
 be a national calamit}'^, to have any one who is a supporter of this 
 administration, elected to occupy any position of control in the house. 
 That would be a fatal mistake. And it would seem equally a fatally- 
 mistaken policy to trust the powers of this house in the hands and 
 under the control of any gentlemen who have proclaimed that in any 
 event, and under any circumstances, they would dissolve the Union 
 of these states. I proclaimed here a few days ago, and I have 
 always stood upon that position, that whenever I believed that any 
 one of my political friends could combine more votes than I could, I 
 would retire and give him the honor, if honor there be, in the position 
 I occupy. I believe that that time has now arrived. I believe that 
 a combination can be made upon another gentleman to give him a 
 greater number of votes than I can receive myself, a combination by 
 those outside of the Republican organization. Therefore, I respect- 
 fully withdraw my name as a candidate. 
 
 Mr. Piuinington, of N. J., having been adopted as a candidate by 
 the Republicans, he received on three successive ballots, 115, and 
 Mr. Smith, 113. Each time a few scattering ; and Mr. P. lacking 2 
 votes of a majority. 
 
 On the 31st, the Democrats having substituted Mr. McClernand, of 
 111., for Mr. Smith, Mr. Pennington received 116 votes ; Mr. McClern- 
 and, 91 ; Scattering 26. The next day, (Feb. 1,) the contest waa 
 ended ; Mr. Pennington having received 117 votes, the number neces- 
 sary to a choice ; Mr. McClernand, 85 ; Mr. Gilmer, 16 ; Scattering, 
 16. Of the Anti-Lccompton Democrats, Adrain, of N. J. ; Haskin, 
 of N. Y. ; and Hickman and Schwartz, of Pa., and of the Americans, 
 Briggs, of N. Y., and Davis, of Md., voted for Mr. Pennington. Mr. 
 
MR. Douglas' " sedition law." 1023 
 
 Briggs, who had voted for McClernand, changed his vote, and con- 
 summated an election. 
 
 Mr. Douglas, on the 23d of January, addressed the senate on a 
 resolution previously offered by him, instructing the judiciary com- 
 mittee to report a bill for the protection of the states and territories 
 against invasion by the inhabitants of others ; also for the suppres- 
 sion and punishment of conspiracies and combinations in any state 
 ■with intent to invade, assail, or molest the government, inhabitants, 
 property, or institutions of any other state. This resolution was sug- 
 gested by John Brown's invasion of Virginia. 
 
 Mr. Douglas wished to raise the inquiry whether it was not in the 
 power, and was not the duty of congress to enact all laws necessary 
 to protect each state from foreign or domestic foes. The perpetuity 
 of the Union was involved in this question. He argued that the 
 Government had a right to protect against domestic as well as against 
 foreign foes. And after the experience of last year, congress could 
 not be justified in longer neglecting this duty. The next question 
 was, what legislation was necessary. It would be agreed to that it 
 was right to place the military arm at the disposal of the President. 
 But that was not enough. It was necessary to employ the judicial 
 arm to suppress conspiracies before the actual outbreak. He would 
 make it a crime to form conspiracies to invade a territory or a state 
 to control elections, whether such conspiracies took the form of Emi- 
 grant Aid Societies 'or Blue Lodges of Missouri. He recommended 
 that the United States courts in the several states have the power to 
 punish offenses. The causes which produced the Harper's Ferry out- 
 break still existed. That outrage was the natural, logical, and 
 inevitable result of the doctrine and teachings of the Republican 
 party, as expressed in the party platform, by the party presses, and 
 in the speeches of the party leaders. The great idea underlying that 
 organization, was unceasing war against slavery until it was extin- 
 guished. The source of their power consisted in exciting the 
 passions of the northern people against the South. 
 
 Mr. D. attacked Mr. Seward's " irrepressible conflict" speech, and 
 denied that the two sections of the Union, with different domestic in- 
 stitutions, could not live together in harmony. If they only con. 
 formed to the principle of the constitution, that the people may have 
 just such institutions as they choose, there need be no conflict. He 
 wanted congress to carry out vigorously its power to repress con- 
 spiracies ; and he would show the senator from New York, that it 
 was the constitutional mode of repressing the irrepressible conflict. 
 He would open the prison doors, and show the conspirators the cells 
 in which they would drag out their miserable existence. It was not 
 
1024 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 enough for the Republicans to disavow the Harper's Ferry outbreak ; 
 they must disavow the doctrines which produced it. 
 
 This speech of Mr. Douglas caused considerable remark. The in- 
 ference drawn from his language was, that anti-slavery organizations 
 and discussions were to be made and held unlawful, and suppressed. 
 Hence the law he recommended was not unfrequently spoken of as 
 the senator's proposed " sedition law," from its resemblance to that 
 of 1798, enacted under the administration of John Adams. It was 
 also insinuated that the speech had some reference to the Charleston 
 convention. 
 
 Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, in reply, said a committee had already 
 been appointed to inquire into the matter of the Harper's Ferry in- 
 vasion, and to suggest a remedy. But the senator from Hlinois 
 seemed to distrust their ability, and assumed to instruct the :om- 
 mittee. But was that all the object of the senator ? Was there noi 
 something beyond ? He (Mr. F.) was inclined to agree with him on 
 the constitutional right to make laws to suppress invasion. But it 
 is said the Republican party is responsible for this outrage, and that 
 it is due to the teachings of that party. We have heard this be- 
 fore — in the senate, in the other house, and in the newspapers. This 
 is now a dogma of the Democratic party — a portion of the creed, and 
 a part of the scheme for the campaign in reference to the fall election, 
 to make the Republican party responsible for that invasion. But the 
 senator will allow me to say, that the true solution of that difSculty 
 is to be found elsewhere. Before 1854, the country was quiet, 
 but then the flame of this eternal slavery question was again lighted, 
 and the gentleman himself applied the torch. It was continued by 
 the aggression of the slave power in the attempt to force slavery into 
 a free territory by the power of the government. Every crime was 
 there perpetrated on freemen, and the lesson was taught them from 
 which many John Browns might practice. He (Mr. F.) believed the 
 senator counseling aggression when he advocated the repeal of the 
 Missouri restriction in order to extend slavery. 
 
 Mr. F. said, members of the Republican party are said to have pro- : 
 claimed that there was an antagonism between certain principles 
 with regard to this doctrine. We are surprised that gentlemen of 
 intelligence, who know the meaning of words, should say that free 
 states and slave states can not exist together in this Union. But 
 there is no such an idea in any speech of either of the gentlemen 
 (Lincoln or Seward) to whom the senator imputes it. They said if 
 free labor and slave labor came together they must necessarily antago- 
 nize. That is all. No one claims that free and slave states can not 
 exist in the same Union. 
 
PROPOSED ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 1025 
 
 Mr. Davis asked what he meant exactly. 
 
 Mr. Fessenden. Free labor is independent, and tends to promote 
 the wealth and manliness of the laborer ; while slave labor tends to 
 degrade and impoverish the laborer, to diminish, his comfort, and be- 
 little his charactei-. Where slave labor exists, it tends to degrade 
 the free labor on the same soil. I understood the senator to say that 
 the Republican party desires to make war upon slavery In the states. 
 T deny the charge ; and there is nothing in his speech to substantiate 
 it. We hold, as we have always held, that the slaveholder has no 
 right to go with his slaves into free territory, unless, there is some 
 law there to authorize it. The northern Democracy were the ones 
 who really inflamed the South against the North. The men or papers 
 that asserted that the Republican party were warring against any 
 rights of the South, were guilty of calumny. We hold to the 
 opinions of the fathers, and can not be warring on their rights. The 
 early men of the Republic thought that, by restricting slavery, it 
 would die out. They wanted it to die. That is the position of the 
 Republican party. We have been told, if we elect a man of our 
 views President, the Union will be dissolved. While the senator was 
 devising means to repress the invasion of one state by another, he 
 might have suggested a provision for the threatened contingency. 
 
 About the time threats to dissolve the Union were so frequently 
 made by southern members of congress, the legislature of South 
 Carolina appointed a Mr. Memminger a commissioner to visit the 
 legislature of Virginia, which he addressed at great length on the 
 subject of his mission ; the object of which, as stated by himself, 
 was : 1. To express the cordial sympathy of South Carolina with 
 Virginia in the existing circumstances ; 2. To communicate the de- 
 sire of South Carolina to unite with Virginia in measures for their 
 common defense ; 3. To request Virginia to appoint a conference of 
 the southern states, and to send delegates to the same. 
 
 This movement probably contemplated a dissolution of the Union — ■ 
 a measure which South Carolina hesitated to undertake alone. Mr. 
 Memminger suggested, in his address, a change in the Federal Gov- 
 ernment as a means of rendering a continuance in the Union toler- 
 able to the South ; a plan said to have been once suggested by Mr. 
 Calhoun. • The proposed alteration of the constitution was the elec- 
 tion either of two Presidents, or two Senates, one in the slave states 
 and the other in the free states, and each was to have a negative or 
 veto upon the acts of the other. The framers of the constitution 
 deemed a single executive indispensable to a prompt and an eflScient 
 administration. Divided in opinion as they would probably be, not 
 only upon the slavery question, but upon others, disputes would 
 
 65 
 
1026 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 arise, and the administration of the government would be subject to 
 injurious delays, or perhaps to total obstructions. No arrangement 
 could be devised more likely to produce discord between the two 
 sections of the Union ; and it can hardly be presumed that Mr. Mem- 
 minger, or those who appointed and commissioned him, believed such 
 a proposition would be accepted by any considerable number of 
 states, North or South, unless with the view to a dissolution of the 
 Union. When it is considered that the Federal Government had for 
 many years acceded to the demands of the southern states, and that 
 all its branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, were still favor- 
 ably disposed to southern interests, it may be fairly presumed that 
 the project was prompted by the apprehension of a loss of power, in- 
 dicated by the rapid growth of the Republican party ; or, having 
 been made an alternative to the dissolution of the Union, to which 
 there was not the least probability that other states would assent, its 
 general rejection would afford a pretext for secession ; or it may have 
 been hoped that a convention would frighten the North, and prevent 
 the election of a Republican President. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXTII. 
 
 BILL FOR THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS. — HOMESTEAD BILL OF 1860. INVES- 
 TIGATION OF GOVERNMENT FRAUDS. REPORT ON JOHN BROWn's INSUR- 
 RECTION. 
 
 In the house, February 15, Mr. Grow, of Pa., introduced a bill for 
 the admission of Kansas under the Wyandotte constitution, which was 
 referred to the committee on territories. On the 29th of March, the 
 majority of the committee, through Mr. Grow, reported in favor of 
 admission. On the 11th of April, he demanded the previous question 
 on the passage of the bill, which having beeu seconded, and the main 
 question ordered, the bill was passed : Yeas, 134 ; nays, 73. 
 
 Of those who voted in the aflBrmative, there were 103 Republicans ; 
 22 Democrats, (all from free states ;) 6 Anti-Lecompton Democrats ; 
 8 Americans. Of those who voted in the negative, there were 
 55 Democrats, (3 from free states ;) 18 Americans, all from slave 
 states. 
 
 In the senate, February 21, Mr. Seward introduced a bill for the 
 admission of Kansas under the Wyandotte constitution. On the 29th, 
 he addressed the senate in support of the bill. 
 
 On the 5th of June, the bill was taken up. 
 
BILL FOR THE ADMISSION OP KANSAS, 1027 
 
 Mr. Green, of Mo., opposed the bill. He objected that Kansas had 
 not tbe requisite population, denying that she had one hundred thou- 
 sand. He objected also on the ground of boundaries, Kansas had 
 made herself into a state in defiance of the action of congress and 
 had net so demeaned herself as to justify their winking at her course. 
 He proposed to change the boundaries, and submit the question to a 
 vote of the people. 
 
 Mr. Collamer, of Yt., thought there was no ground for the sweep- 
 ing remarks of the secator against the people of Kansas, and that his 
 history of their actions was fallacious. The facts showed that she 
 had about one hundred thousand people. He thought this attempt to 
 change the boundaries, and present an entirely new issue, was in- 
 tended as a way of getting rid of the question. 
 
 [It may be proper here to state, that the Western part of the ter- 
 ritory embracing Pike's Peak, is separated from that portion which 
 composes the present state, by a woodless, waterless desert of one 
 hundred miles or more in breadth, almost, if not altogether uninhab- 
 itable ; on account of which the people of the West were opposed to 
 being included in the state of Kansas, as it would be impossible to 
 participate with the people of the Eastern part in the government. 
 The opponents of admission asked also to annex a portion of Nebras- 
 ka, up to the river Platte, thus taking about one-third of the breadth 
 of that territory.] 
 
 Mr. Wigfall, of Texas, declared he would not vote for the admission 
 of this so-called state, under any circumstances. He objected to the 
 moral character of the people, and was unwilling Texas should asso- 
 ciate with such a state. 
 
 Mr. Wade, of Ohio, in opposition to Mr. Green's amendment to 
 change the boundary (taking in Pike's Peak,) said the effect of the 
 amendment would be to defeat the bill. 
 
 Mr. Hunter, of Va., moved to postpone the subject, and take up the 
 army bill. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, of HI., opposed the motion. He should keep the 
 Kansas bill before the senate till it was finally disposed of, . It was 
 more important than the appropriation bills, which appeared to be 
 kept back in order to interrupt other important business,. 
 
 Mr Seward, of N. Y„ hoped the friends of Kansas wonld let a vote 
 be taken, so that the responsibility might lie where it belonged. 
 
 The vote to postpone and take up the army bill was then taken : 
 leas, 33 ; nays, 27. A strict party vote, except that Messrs. Pugh, 
 of Ohio, and Latham, of Cal., both Democrats, voted with the 
 ■Republicans. 
 
 Mr, Trumbull called attention to the fact, that Mr, Bigler, of Pa., 
 
1028 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 had desired to postpone the Kansas bill, because the senate was not 
 full. It appeared tliat sixty votes had been cast, with two paired oflf, 
 (Doug-las and Clay,) showing the fullest vote of the session The 
 effect of the vote just taken was equivalent to the defeat of the Kan- 
 sas bill, and the senator must have known the effect of his vote. 
 
 Mr. Wigfall desired to call attention to the fact that the house had 
 once defeated the army bill, because it did not want the army used 
 against the Black Republican thieves and murderers in Kansas. 
 
 On the 7th of June, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, moved to take up the Kan- 
 sas bill : Yeas, 27 ; Bigler and Pugh, Democrats, voting with the 
 Republicans ; nays, 32 — all Democrats. 
 
 Both houses adjourned, leaving Kansas still in the condition of a 
 territory. 
 
 A few months previous to the defeat of the Kansas bill, the legis- 
 lature of Kansas passed a bill for the abolition of slavery in the ter- 
 ritory. The bill was vetoed by Gov. Medary. Certain newspaper 
 editors having expressed a desire for the passage of the bill " to test 
 Gov. Medary," and advised, if he should veto it, " to pass it over his 
 head," he said, in his message returning the bill : " The bill appears 
 to be more political than practical ; more for the purpose of obtain- 
 ing men's opinions than for any benefit or injury it can be to any one. 
 Always willing to &ccommodate political opponents as well as friends 
 on politics or any other subject, I accept the invitation with pleasure, 
 and offer this as an apology for the extent I may go in satisfying so 
 generous a demand." 
 
 The attempt, several times defeated, to pass a Homestead bill, 
 was repeated at this session. A few days after the organization of 
 the house, Mr. Grow, of Pa., introduced a bill similar to that which 
 was defeated at the previous session. It was reported to the house 
 on the 6th of March, 1860, by Mr. Lovejoy, from the committee on 
 public lands, and committed to the committee of the whole. 
 
 The bill proposed to give to any head of a family, or to any citizen, 
 or to any one having declared his intention to become a citizen, one 
 hundred and sixty acres of land, upon which said person may have 
 filed a preemption claim, or which may be subject to preemption at 
 |1 25 per acre, or eighty acres at $2 50 per acre. 
 
 The vote to refer the bill to the committee of the whole was, on 
 motion of Mr. Lovejoy, reconsidered, March 12tb, under the operation 
 of the previous question, 106 to 67. Mr. Lovejoy moved that the bill 
 be engrossed and read a third time. Mr. Branch, of N. C, moved to 
 lay the bill on the table. Lost, 62 to 112 ; the yeas being all from 
 the South, except Mr. Montgomery, Democrat, of Pa., and the nays all 
 
HOMESTEAD BELL OF 1860. 1029 
 
 from the North, except Mr. Craig, Democrat, of Mo. The bill was 
 then read a third time and passed, 115 to 65. • Of the yeas, 87 were 
 Eepublicans ; 22 Democrats ; 5 Anti-Lecompton Democrats ; 1 
 American — all from free states, except Mr. Craig, Dem., of Missouri. 
 Of tlie nays, 48 were Democrats, and 17 Americans — all from slave 
 jitates, except Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 The bill was sent to the senate, and referred to the committee on 
 public lands. Mr. Johnson, of Tenn., the chairman, reported a sub- 
 stitute for the house bill, granting homesteads to actual settlers, at 
 25 cents per acre, but not including preemptors then occupying pub- 
 lic lands. Mr. Wade moved to amend by substituting the house bill, 
 which was lost, 26 to 31. The yeas were all Republicans, except 
 Douglas, Rice, and Toombs. The nays were all Democrats. 
 
 On the 10th of May, Mr. Johnson's bill was passed, 44 to 8, The 
 house refused to concur, and the senate refused to recede. A com- 
 mittee of conference of the two houses agreed upon some slight 
 amendments. The senate bill was so amended as to protect settlers 
 for two years from land sales, and allowing them to secure their homes 
 at one-half the government price, or 62| cents per acre. The bill re- 
 stricted settlers to land subject to private entry ; that is, land 
 remaining from that which had been exposed to public sale, after 
 speculators have taken what they were pleased to purchase. This 
 provision was so altered as to add to these refuse lands om-half oi ihe 
 surveyed public lands which had not been open to public sale ; this 
 half to consist of the odd-numbered sections, so as to leave section 
 sixteen of every township, which is reserved for school purposes. 
 The bill restricted the benefit of its provisions to heads of families, 
 who, after having occupied the land five years, might purchase at 25 
 cents an acre ; single men over 21 years of age being excluded. One 
 or two other provisions were modified. In this shape it was accepted 
 by the friends of the house bill, on the principle, as Mr. Grow said, 
 that " half a loaf is better than no bread." 
 
 The house then agreed to the report of the committee, 115 to 5 , 
 The nays were all from the slave states. 
 
 The senate agreed to the report, 36 to 2 ; more than one-third of 
 the senators being absent or not voting. 
 
 The bill was sent to the President, who, on the 23d, returned the 
 bill to the senate with his veto. 
 
 One of the President's objections to the bill was its supposed un- 
 constitutionality. Allowing the settler to pay 25 cents an acre at 
 the end of five years — being equal only to about 18 cents at the time 
 of taking possession — was but little better to the government than a 
 gratuity. But the bill provided, that lands unsold after having been 
 
1030 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 subject to sale at private entry for thirty years, were to be ceded to 
 the states in which they lie. He thought the constitution did uot 
 authorize congress to give the lands away. 
 
 Another objection was, that the bill will prove unequal and unjust 
 to the settlers. The old settlers are public benefactors. Having" 
 paid the government price, $1 25 per acre, 3,nd constructed roads, 
 Bchool-houses, &c., is it just that new settlers should come in and re- 
 ceive their lands at 25 or 18 cents per acre ? 
 
 A third objection was, that the bill would do injustice to the old 
 soldiers who had received land warrants for their services in war 
 These warrants would suffer further depreciation. 
 
 Fourthly, the bill was confined to one class of our people — the cul- 
 tivators of the soil. Mechanics who emigrate to the West must 
 labor long before they can purchase a quarter-section of land. 
 
 Fifthly, the bill was unjust to the old states, because it would 
 deprive them of their just proportion of the revenue arising from 
 the sales. 
 
 A sixth objection was, that the bill opened a vast field for specular 
 tion. Large numbers of actual settlers would be carried out by cap- 
 italists upon agreements to give them half of the laud for improving 
 the other half. 
 
 Seventh objection : The bill would proclaim to all nations that 
 whoever should arrive in this country from abroad, and declare his 
 intention to become a citizen, should receive a farm of 160 acres at a 
 cost of 25 or 20 cents per acre. 
 
 Eighth objection :' The bill reduced the price of the land to 621 
 ceiits per acre, while future preemptors would be compelled to pay 
 double this price. 
 
 Ninth and last objection : It would materially diminish the 
 revenue ; reducing the receipts to little more than the expense of 
 survey and management. 
 
 On the question, in the senate, Shall this bill pass notwithstanding 
 the objections of the President ? the vote was, Yeas, 28 ; 19 Republi- 
 nans, 9 Democrats. Nays, 18 ; all Democrats, from the South, except 
 Mr. Crittenden, American, of Kentucky. The majority being less 
 than two-thirds, the bill was lost. 
 
 As this question of Homesteads, to actual settlers on the public 
 lauds, has for several years past engaged much of the public atten- 
 tion, and as it had become in some measure a party question, it may 
 be both proper and interesting to many readers to present to them 
 some of the views of the friends and advocates of this policy, and 
 some statistics relating to the public lands ; the most of which are 
 taken from the speech of Mr. Grow in favor of the bill introduced by 
 
HOMESTKAD BILL OF 1860. 1031 
 
 bim at this session, (February, I860,) and which provided that any 
 person twenty-one years of age, or the head of a family, might enter 
 160 acres of land, on the payment of the usual fees of the land-oflSce, 
 and $10 to cover the cost of surveying and managing. 
 
 Mr. Grow said, the land policy as now conducted, permits the Pre- 
 sident to expose to public sale, by proclamation, all survej-ed lands. 
 Every settler on lands so advertised, must, before the day fixed for 
 the sale, pay for his lands, or they will be liable to be sold to any 
 bidder offering $1 25, or more, per acre. During the days of sale 
 fixed by the President, any one can purcliase at $1 25 per acre, as 
 many acres not before preempted as he desires, selecting his own 
 location. The lands that remain unsold at the expiration of these 
 days of sale, are subject to private entry ; that is, any person may 
 enter at the laud-oflBce any or all of the lands remaining unsold, at 
 $1 25 per acre, if the same have not been offered for sale more than 
 ten years ; if for a longer period, then at a less price, according to 
 the length of time they have been in the market. Thus, under the 
 existing policy, there is no restraint on land monopoly. The Roths- 
 childs, Barings, or any other of the world's millionaires, may become 
 the owners of untold acres of our public domain, to be resold to the 
 settler, or to be held as an investment for future speculation. 
 
 Congress, as the trustee of the whole people, is vested, by the con- 
 dition of the grants from the states, and by the constitution itself, 
 with the sole discretionary power of disposing of these lands. But 
 it is its duty to dispose of them in a way that will best promote the 
 greatness and glory of the Republic. And how can this be accom- 
 plished so well as by a policy that will secure them in limited quan- 
 tities to the actual cultivator, at the least possible cost, and thus 
 prevent the evils of a system of land monopoly, one of the direst, 
 deadliest curses that ever paralized the energies of a nation or pal- 
 sied the arm of industry ? It needs no lengthy dissertation to por- 
 tray its evils. Its history in the Old World is written in sighs and 
 tears. Under its influence, you behold there the proudest and most 
 splendid aristocracies side by side with the most abject and debased 
 people ; vast pianors hemmed in by hedges as a sporting ground for 
 the nobility, while men are dying beside the inclosure for the want 
 of land to till. Under its blighting influence, you behold industry in 
 rags, and patience in despair. Such are some of the fruits of land 
 monopoly in the Old World. Shall we permit its seeds to vegetate 
 in the virgin soil of the New ? Our present system is subject to like 
 evils, not so great in magnitude, but similar in kind. 
 
 Of the 388,858,325 acres disposed of by the government to Sep- 
 tember 30, 1859, 147,088,273 acres wore sold for cash ; 241,777,052 
 
1032 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 acres were donated in grants to individuals, corporations, and 
 states. 
 
 The government had received from sales, $180,619,638 ; while the 
 entire cost, including purchase money, extinguishing Indian title, sur- 
 veying and managing, has been $91,994,013, leaving a net revenue 
 to the government of $88,625,625 ; with 136,910,941 acres surveyed 
 but unsold, of which 80,000,000 are subject to private entry. 
 
 Assuming one-half of the 147,088,273 acres sold by the government 
 to have been bought at government rates by the cultivator, the other 
 half must have cost the cultivator, on an average, at least $4 an acre 
 over the government price ; which would amount in the aggregate, 
 on this half, to $294,176,044 extra. On the 241,770,052 acres donated 
 to individuals, companies and states, 70,000,000 for school purposes, 
 and 50,000,000 for railroads and internal improvements, the cultivator 
 would probably pay at least $5 per acre, or $1,208,850,260. If this 
 estimate of prices be correct, the cultivator must have paid to the 
 government and the speculator $1,683,646,442 ; of which $88,625,- 
 625 has been paid in net revenue into the treasury of the United 
 States — the remainder having been absorbed by the speculator. 
 
 The struggle between capital and labor, said Mr. Grow, is an un- 
 equal one at best. It is a struggle between the bones and sinews of 
 men and dollars and cents. And in that struggle is it for the gov- 
 ernment to stretch forth its arm to aid the strong against the weak ? 
 Shall it continue, by its legislation, to elevate and enrich idleness on 
 the wail and thevvo of industry ? For if the rule be applicable to 
 governments as well as to individuals, that whatever a person per- 
 mits another to do, having the right and the means to prevent it, he 
 does himself, then is the government responsible for all the evils that 
 may result from speculation and land monopoly in your public do- 
 main. For it is not denied that congress has the power to make any 
 regulation for the disposal of these lands not injurious to the gen- 
 eral welfare. 
 
 Now, when a new tra.ct is surveyed, and you open your land-oflSce, 
 and expose it to sale, the man with most money is the largest pur- 
 chaser. The most desirable and available locations me seized upon 
 by the capitalists who seek that kind of investment. Your settler 
 who chances not to have a preemption right, or who is not there at 
 the time of sale, when he comes to seek a home for himself and 
 family, must pay the speculator 300 or 400 per cent, on his invest- 
 ment, or encounter the trials and hardships of a still more remote 
 border life. 
 
 Mr, Maynard asked Mr. Grow whether he was in favor, or not, of 
 
HOMESTEAD BILL OF 1860. 1033 
 
 allowing the old soldier or his assignee to locate his land- warrant on 
 the public domain 
 
 Mr. Grow. I do not see the applicability of the gentleman's ques- 
 tion, and must therefore pass it by, as I do not wish to be diverted 
 from my argument. 
 
 Mr. Maynard. The gentleman is mistaken about the object of my 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Grow. I would provide in our land policy for securing home- 
 steads for actual settlers ; and whatever bounties the government 
 should grant to the old soldiers, I would make in money and not in 
 land-warrants, which are bought in most cases by the speculator as 
 an easier and cheaper mode of acquiring the public lands. So they 
 only facilitate land monopoly. If rewards or bounties are to be 
 granted for true heroism in the progress of the race, none is more 
 deserving than the pioneer who expels the savage and the wild-beast, 
 and opens in the wilderness a home for science, and a pathway for 
 civilization. For purifying the sentiments, elevating the thoughts, 
 and developing the noblest impulses of man's nature, the influences 
 of a rural fireside and an agricultural life are the noblest and the 
 best. In the obscurity of the cottage, far removed from the seductive 
 influences of rank and affluence, are nourished the virtues that coun- 
 teract the decay of hunian institutions, the courage that defends the 
 national independence, and the industry that supports all classes of 
 the state. 
 
 Let us adopt the policy cherished by Jackson, and indicated in his 
 annual message to congress in 1832, in which he says : 
 
 " It can not be doubted that the speedy settlement of these lands 
 constitutes the true interest of the Republic. The wealth and the 
 strength of a country are its population, and the best part of the 
 population are the cultivators of the soil. Independent farmers are 
 everywhere the basis of society, and true friends of liberty." • * • • 
 " To put an end forever to all partial and interested legislation on 
 the subject, and to afford to every American citizen of enterprise the 
 opportunity of securing an independent freehold, it seems to mo, 
 therefore, best to abandon the idea of raising future revenue out of 
 the public lands." 
 
 Said Mr. G., the prosperity of states depends not on the mass of 
 wealth, but on its distribution. That country is most glorious in 
 which there is the greatest number of happy firesides. And if you 
 would make the fireside happy, raise the fallen from their degrada- 
 tion, elevate the servile from their groveling pursuits to the rights 
 and dignity of men, you must first place within their reach the means 
 
1034 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 for supplying their pressing physical wants, so that religion can ex- 
 ert its influence on the soul, and soothe the weary pilgrim in his 
 pathway to the tomb. 
 
 But as a question of revenue merely, it would be to the advantage 
 of the govern rnont to grant these lands in homesteads to actual culti- 
 vators, if thereby it was to induce the settlement of the wilderness, 
 instead of selling them to the speculator without settlement. This 
 Mr, G, endeavored to show from the fact, that the interest on the 
 money received for the quarter section is $12 ; and the amount of the 
 duties on the imported goods consumed hj an average family is $20. 
 So the government would be the gainer of $8 a year on each quarter 
 section, by giving it to a settler instead of selling it without settle- 
 ment. In addition as you cheapen the necessaries and comforts of 
 life, or increase men's means to pay for them, you increase their con- 
 sumption ; and in the same proportion as you increase the means 
 to pay for imports, you increase the consumption of home products 
 and manufactures ; so that the settlement of the wilderness by a 
 thriving population is as much the interest of the old states as the 
 new. The amount now received by the government of the settler for 
 the land, would enable him to furnish himself with the necessary 
 stock and implements to commence its cultivation, 
 
 Mr. G. presented other arguments in favor of the bill, but the want 
 of space forbids their insertion here. 
 
 Not every reader may be aware of the cause of the sectional oppo- 
 sition to the Homestead bill ; the southern members having uniformly 
 and almost unanimously voted against the measure. One ground — 
 perhaps the only one — on which the bill was opposed, was in the sen- 
 ate expresslj' stated to be, that it was calculated to increase the 
 number of free states. The debate in that body clearly shows that 
 leading representatives of the Democratic party resisted the 
 passage of the bill on the ground that it was unfavorable to the 
 extension of slavery. 
 
INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT FBAUD3. 1035 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXIY. 
 
 nrVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT FRAUDS. REPORT OF THE JOHN BROWN 
 
 INVESTIGATING COMMIITEE. NOMINATING CONVENTION OF 1860, AND THE 
 
 ELECTION. 
 
 Among the more prominent subjects which engaged the attention 
 of congress at this session, was the investigation of alleged frauds 
 of government oflBcers. 
 
 On the 5th of March, 1860, Mr. Covode, of Pa., asked leave to offer 
 the two following resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed by the 
 speaker, for the purpose of investigating whether the President of the 
 United States, or anj' other officer of the government, has by money, 
 patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence the action of 
 congress, or any committee thereof, for or against the passage of any 
 law appertaining to the rights of any territory ; and also to inquire 
 into and investigate whether any officer or officers of the government 
 have, by combination or otlierwise, prevented and defeated, or at- 
 tempted to prevent or defeat the execution of any law or laws now 
 on the statute book, and whether the President has failed or refused 
 to compel the execution of any law thereof. That said committee 
 shall investigate and inquire into the abuse at the Chicago and other 
 post-offices, and at the Philadelphia and other navy-yards, and into 
 any abuses in connection with the public buildings and other public 
 works of tlie United States. 
 
 Resolved further. That, as the President in his letter to the Pitta- 
 burgh Centenai-y Celebration committee of November, 1858, speaks 
 of " The employment of money to carry elections," said committee 
 shall inquire into and ascertain the amount so used in Pennsylvania, 
 or any other state or states, &c., &c. 
 
 The introduction of the resolutions was objected to by several 
 Democrats ; but they were adopted. 
 
 The next day, (March 6,) Mr. Hoard, of X. Y., offered a similar re- 
 solution, reciting in the preamble the declaration of Messrs. Hickman, 
 of Pa., Haskin, of N. Y., and Adrain, of N. J., Anti-Lecompton Demo- 
 crats, made by them in debate, that attempts had been made by the 
 President, by improper influences, to " draw true men from the path 
 of duty," &c., &c. 
 
1036 THE AMERICAN STATESMA!?. 
 
 The resolution was objected to on the ground that a committee had 
 the day before been appointed for a similar purpose. After consider- 
 able opposition, the resolution was adopted. 
 
 On the 29th of March, the President sent to the house a message 
 protesting against the first two clauses of the first of the two resolu- 
 tions adopted on the 5th, (those offered by Mr. Covode.) He com 
 plains that " the constitutional rights and immunities of the Execu- 
 tive have been violated in the person of the President." He assumes 
 the position that the house of representatives has no power under the 
 constitution, except as an impeaching bodj', to accuse the President 
 or any other ofiBcer of the government ; and that the first resolution 
 is an accusation of crime and misdeuieanor, and makes his accuser 
 one of the judges. 
 
 The message was referred to the committee on the judiciary. On 
 the 9th of April, the committee, through Mr. Haskin, presented a 
 report on the subject of the protest. The report denies that the Presi- 
 dent is entitled to any exemption that is not enjoj'^ed by the humblest 
 citizen ; or that the house has, as the President asserts, " no power, 
 no jurisdiction, no supremacy whatever, over the President," except 
 the power of impeacljment. He affirms that " as a coordinate branch 
 of the government, he is their equal." The report refers to the pro- 
 vision of the constitution which exempts members from liability to 
 arrest during the session of congress. No such exemption is made 
 in behalf of any other ofiBcer. The conduct of the President is always 
 subject to the constitutional supervision and judgment of congress ; 
 while he has no such power over either branch of that body. The 
 members of the house may claim a privilege, whether right or 
 wrong, which he can not ; and the executive or law-executing power 
 must alwa3's be inferior to the legislative or law-making power. His 
 ofiBce affords him no plea which is denied to any other citizen ; and 
 he is subject to the same scrutiny, trial, and punishment, with the 
 proceedings, hazards, and penalties of impeachment super-added. 
 
 The President assumes that he is charged with high crimes and 
 ■misdemeanors, for which, if true, he would be impeachable ; and that 
 the house is moving to pass upon them through a form not authorized 
 by the constitution. Herein lies the fallacy, and that which, if unex- 
 posed, might operate as the deception of the plea. There is no 
 charge made of any grade of offense calling for trial of any kind. And 
 if no criminality is alleged, but a mere inquiry is proposed, what has 
 the house to do with the law of impeachment ? 
 
 But admit that charges proper for impeachment were made, would 
 the house be bound to submit the matter to anj' particular committee, 
 and allow the accused a cross-examination, as the President seems 
 
INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT FRAUDS. 103 1 
 
 to suppose ? By no means. The constitution prescribes no rules for 
 the house ; but it is left perfectly free to adopt its own. 
 
 The resolution of the senate of the 28th of March, 1834, upon which 
 the president seemingly had his eye in the preparation of his protest, 
 presents a case very diflferent from the present one. [See Clay's re- 
 solution, page 607.] That body declared, 
 
 " That the President, in the late executive proceedings in relation 
 to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power 
 not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of 
 both." 
 
 The complaint made by President Jackson was, that the acts 
 charged upon him constituted one of the highest crimes which that 
 officer can commit, impeachable from its very nature. It is proper 
 also to remark, that the protest of 1834 was not presented to the 
 senate during the consideration of the resolution. It was not till 
 after a formal determination against him that he remonstrated. Here 
 the interposition comes to prevent all investigation. 
 
 The committee discuss other points embraced in the message, and 
 conclude with the following resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That the house dissents from the doctrines of the spe- 
 cial message of the President of the United States of March 28, 1860 ; 
 that the extent of power contemplated in the adoption of the resolu- 
 tions of inquiry of March 5, 1860, is necessary to the proper discharge 
 of the constitutional duties devolved upon congress ; that judicial 
 determinations, the opinions of former Presidents, and uniform usage, 
 sanction its exercise ; and that, to abandon it would leave the exe- 
 cutive department of the government without supervision or respon- 
 sibility, and would be likely to lead to a concentration of power in 
 the hands of the President dangerous to the rights of a free people." 
 
 On the — of June, 1860, the Covode investigating committee made 
 their report to the house. The first part of the report relates to the 
 Kansas policy. The committee say : 
 
 " The facts revealed by the testimony prove conclusively, 
 
 " First : The emphatic and unmistakable pledges of the President, as 
 well before as after the election, and the pledges of all his cabinet, 
 to the doctrine of leaving the people of Kansas * perfectly free to 
 form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.' 
 
 " Second : The deliberate violation of this pledge, and the attempt to 
 convert Kansas into a slave state by means of forgeries, frauds, and 
 force. 
 
 " Third : The removal of and the attempt to disgrace the sworn 
 agents of the administration who refused to violate this pledge. 
 
 "Fo7irth: The open employment of money in the passage of tl:o 
 
J 
 
 1038 THE AMJIEICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Lecompton and English bills throug-h the congress of the United 
 States. 
 
 " Fifth : The admission of the parties engaged in the work of 
 electioneering those schemes, that they received enormous sums for 
 this purpose, and the proof of the checks upon which they were paid 
 by an agent in the administration. 
 
 " Sixth : The offer to purchase newspapers and newspaper editors 
 by offers of extravagant sums of money. 
 
 " Seventh : And finally, the proscription of Democrats of high stand- 
 ing who would not support the Lecompton and English bills." 
 
 Several of these facts are clearly proved by the testimony of Hon. | 
 R. J. Walker, Mr. Buchanan's first governor of Kansas, who was 
 especially instructed to secure to the electors of Kansas a fair oppor- 
 tunity of voting at the elections. Ip his letter to Gov. Walker he 
 said : " On the question of submitting the constitution to the bona | 
 fide residents of Kansas, I am willing to stand or fall. It is the prin- 
 ciple of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the principle of popular sovereignty, | 
 and the principle at the foundation of all popular government." Hia 
 Biibseo[uent removal of both acting-Governor Stanton, and the virtual 
 removal of Gov. Walker, for their efforts to effect this object have 
 been briefly stated in preceding chapters. [See pages 983-4, 986.] 
 
 Mr. Wendell, who, the committee say, had " borne the closest re- 
 lations" to the President and his cabinet ministers, and had been 
 taken "into their secrets in 1857, after he had made himself univer- 
 sally known as a daring and somewhat reckless operator in the jobs , 1 
 and contracts of the departments," admitted that he had expended 1 1 
 between $30,000 and $40,000 to carry the Lecompton and English |i 
 bills through congress. This expenditure is proved also by the 
 books and other records of the bank of the Metropolis at Washington, 
 through which the parties conducted their operations. And the com- 
 mittee say, " The conclusion is irresistible that he (Wendell) acted 
 throughout with the consent, if not the knowledge of the President.'' • I 
 
 Mr. Forney, a newspaper editor in Philadelphia, as appears from 
 his testimony, " was offered the printing of the post-office blanks, 
 worth at least $80,000, as the condition that he should, by an editor, 
 ial no longer than a man's hand, promise snbserviency to the admin- 
 istration on its Kansas policy." The committee say further : 
 
 " It has always been charged that the war in Utah was gotten up 
 for the purpose of fastening slavery upon Kansas, To most minda 
 the letter of the President to Gov. Walker, of July 12, 1857, will fur- 
 nish satisfactory proof of the allegation : 'Gen. Harney has been se- 
 lected to command the expeditiian to Utah. But we must contrive to 
 have him with you, at least until you are out of the woods. Kansas 
 
INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT FRAUDS, 1039 
 
 is vastly more important at the present moment than Utah.' Upon 
 this administration shall hereafter rest the awful responsibility of 
 delaying the removal of the army from Kansas until the winter of 
 1857, which was the cause of the fearful loss and suffering occasioned 
 by the inability of the army to reach Salt Lake." 
 
 [The troops above mentioned were kept in Kansas, and voted in 
 violation of law, to sustain the Lecompton fraud, and to intimidate 
 legal voters who were opposed to it.] 
 
 In addition to the alleged " abuses at the Philadelphia custom-house 
 and other public oflBces," the committee present evidence to prove — 
 
 " First : The improper combinations among the federal officers with 
 a view to control the sentiments and preferences of the people in 
 their primary political movements. 
 
 " Second: The improper and corrupt use of the public moneys in 
 the employment of persons in the public service," &c. 
 
 " The executive binding," the committee say, " was continued in 
 the hands of Cornelius Wendell in violation of the statutes of 1858, 
 chap. 154, sec. 14, statutes at large, vol. 11, page 327, at a loss to 
 the government of at least $50,000 per annum, or whatever the gov- 
 ernment might choose to make it, as Mr. Alexander offered to do the 
 work at 33 per cent, less than the government was then paying." 
 
 Respecting "the employment of money to carry elections," the 
 committee do not condemn the use of money in the distribution of 
 tracts, speeches, and public documents, but its use for corrupting the 
 freedom of elections, buying votes, &c. They say : 
 
 " It appears by the testimony of George Plitt, that over $10,000 
 was distributed by him as the treasurer of the Democratic central 
 committee of Pennsylvania, in 1856, to carry that state for Mr. Bu- 
 chanan. Of this sum, nearly $20,000 was received from what is 
 known as the New York Hotel Fund, and $10,000 from W. C. N. 
 Swift, of New Bedford, Mass., and was afterward repaid to him 
 through the famous as well as infamous live oak contracts. The re- 
 mainder was derived from different sources, quite a large sum being 
 collected in the shape of assessments upon the employees of the gov- 
 ernment in the offices at Washington, and the custom-house and navy- 
 yard at Philadelphia." 
 
 It appears further, that the President himself was knowing to these 
 facts. Mr. Wendell testified that he had frequent interviews with 
 him on this subject, on Sundays as well as on other days. The as- 
 sessments on clerks receiving salaries of $1,095, was from $30 to 
 $33 each, for the Presidential election, and from $5. to $7 for the state 
 election. Others paid less or more in proportion to their salaries. 
 The committee say, also, that officers were allowed to be absent, foi 
 
1040 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 months, employed in electioneering for the party, without any deduc« 
 tion from their salaries. They say it is not surprising that the Presi 
 dent, in his letter to the Pittsburgh Centenary Celebration committee, 
 should use the following language : 
 
 " I shall assume the privilege of advancing years to speak in reference 
 to another growing and dangerous evil. In the last age, although our 
 fathers, like ourselves, were divided into political parties, which often 
 had severe conflicts with each other, yet we never heard, until with- 
 in a recent period, of the employment of money to carry elections. 
 Should this practice increase until the voters and their representa- 
 tives in the state and national legislatures shall become infected, the 
 fountain of free government will then be poisoned at its source ; and 
 we must end, as history proves, in a military despotism. A Demo- 
 cratic republic, all agree, can not long survive, unless sustained by 
 public virtue ; when this is coiTupted, and the people become severed, 
 there is a canker at the root of the tree of liberty, which must cause 
 it to wither and die." 
 
 The committee proceed : 
 
 " It is well known to the American people, that tremendous frauds 
 were perpetrated in the election of 1856, in Pennsylvania, by means 
 of forged and fictitious naturalization papers. It will be seen by the 
 testimony, that these papers were first prepared and obtained in 
 Philadelphia, some of them having the seal and the signature of a 
 prothonotary deceased about the year 1850, and others with forged 
 seals and signatures, or genuine ones obtained in some manner from 
 the proper ofBcers. These were distributed over the state by hun- 
 dreds, and probably by thousands." The committee name one man 
 then receiving a salary of $2,000 in the custom-house at Philadelphia, 
 who was connected with this transaction. 
 
 For the testimony in these several cases, the reader is referred to 
 the report of the investigating committee published by order of the 
 house — a volume of more than 1,000 pages. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing facts elicited by the investigating 
 committee, it will suffice to show what means were resorted to in 
 order to secure the election of certain Democratic candidates for con- 
 gress. Less than three months before the President wrote his letter 
 to Pittsburgh, in which he alluded to the corrupt use of money in 
 carrying elections, he received the following letter from a confidential 
 partisan in Philadelphia : 
 
 "Philadelphia, Sept. 13, 1858. 
 
 " Dear Sib : — I venture to suggest to you the importance of award- 
 ing the contracts for the machinery of the sloop now building at the 
 navy-yard at this time, and if it can be done without prejudice to the 
 
INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT FRATTDS. 1041 
 
 public service, to Merrick and Sons Theirs is the only establishment 
 in the 1st district which employs a large number of mechanics ; at 
 this time, 390 ; when in full work, 450. 
 
 " The managing partners (Mr. M. sen., being absent in badhealth,J 
 are full of energy, straining every nerve to keep their force during 
 this depression, and, in so far as I know, the only old Whigs of any 
 influence in that district who are in favor of the reelection of Col. 
 Florence. 
 
 " I know, from former experience, the value of that influence, and 
 feel persuaded that it is the interest of the Democratic party to in- 
 crease it. 
 
 " The 1st district will, I hope, be carried in any event ; but with 
 that shop at work, full-handed, two weeks prior to the election, the 
 result would, I think, be placed beyond all doubt. 
 
 With much respect, W. C. Patterson. 
 
 " The President." 
 
 This letter was sent to the secretary of the navy, (Mr. Toucey,) by 
 the President, with his indorsement : 
 
 " Sept. 15, 1858. 
 " The enclosed letter, from Col. Patterson of Philadelphia, is sub- 
 mitted to the attention of the secretary of the navy. J. B." 
 
 The contract was accordingly given to Merrick & Sons, in prefer- 
 ence to bidders outside of the 1st congressional district, who offered 
 to do the work for about $4,000 less than was obtained by the 
 former. 
 
 Another instance of interference in the election of a member of con- 
 gress was found in the means employed to defeat Mr. Howard, of 
 Michigan, who had been a member of the committee that investigated 
 the Kansas frauds. The administration had entered into a contract 
 for the building of a custom-house at Detroit. The bonds were signed 
 and delivered ; when the government violated the engagement ; 
 took the job into its own hands ; sent out an agent who employed a 
 large number of imported hands, whose votes, with other illegal votes, 
 from Canada, were used to turn the scale against Mr. Howard, who, 
 in his contest in recovering his seat in the house, exposed the trans- 
 action. The enhanced cost of the custom-house was alleged to be 
 $60,000. 
 
 Of the extra compensation for printing jobs at Washington, as ap- 
 peared from the testimony before the Covode committee, a large por- 
 tion was given to uphold weak presses supporting the adrainistra- 
 
 '^°"- 66 
 
1042 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 On the 15th of June, the senate committee to investigate the in- 
 surrection at Harper's Ferry, made their report. It was quite vol- 
 uminous. It inculpated no one in the transaction but the active par- 
 ticipators. It said : 
 
 " On the whole testimony, there can be no doubt that Brown's plan 
 was to commence a servile war on the borders of Virginia, which he 
 expected to extend, and which he believed his means and resources 
 were sufficient to extend through that state and the entire South 
 It does not seem that he intrusted even his intimate friends with his 
 plans fully, even after they were out for execution. The invasion . . , 
 was simply an act of lawless ruffians, under the sanction of no pub- 
 lic authority." 
 
 The report was signed by Messrs. Mason, Davis, and Fitch. 
 
 A minority report was made by Messrs. Collamer and Doolittle, in 
 which the following facts were stated : 
 
 On the night of the 16th day of October, 1859, John Brown, with 
 sixteen white men and five negroes as conspirators, took armed pos- 
 session of the United States armory at Harper's Ferry, in Virginia, 
 killed four of the inhabitants, and were dislodged by armed forces 
 which they resisted ; and in the action seven of the white conspira- 
 tors and three of the negroes were killed, John Brown was wound- 
 ed and taken prisoner ; and he, with four others of the white con- 
 spirators and two of the negroes, were tried, convicted, and execu- 
 ted ; and five escaped. 
 
 The conspiracy was commenced in Kansas by John Brown and 
 most of his associates, in the latter part of 1857 or beginning of 1858. 
 They were young men, entirely under the influence of Brown, and had 
 been, as well as Brown, deeply engaged in the conflicts in Kansas in 
 1855, 1856, and 1857. From Kansas they passed into Iowa, and 
 thence they were led by Brown to Chatham, in Canada "West. Here, 
 with a number of negroes, they formed a secret organization, with 
 written articles of association, drawn up by Brown, having for its 
 object the raising of a slave insurrection in the slaveholding states, 
 and subverting the government thereof. 
 
 They had 200 Sharp's carbines and 200 revolver pistols, and about 
 1,000 pikes, and a quantity of clothing and ammunition. The car 
 bines and revolvers had been procured by contributions in Massachu- 
 setts in 1856, and forwarded to Iowa, to be sent into Kansas for the 
 aid of the free state people, and, with the ammunition, had been in- 
 trusted to Brown for that purpose. In 1857, the troubles in Kansas 
 in a great degree subsided . The associations and committees who 
 bad made contributions ceased operations ; and these arms and mu- 
 nitions in the hands of Brown came to be almost overlooked until the 
 
NOMINATING CONVENTIONS OF 1860, AND THE ELECTION. 1043 
 
 Buramer of 1858, when a suggestion came to the persons at Boston 
 having control of them, that Brown was about to make some impro- 
 per use of them : and he was then particularly charged to make no 
 ase of them but for the purpose for which they had been furnished. 
 This, with the want of money, and the fear of exposure, prevented 
 him from executing his purpose for that year. 
 
 In 1859, he procured the completion, in Connecticut, of 1,000 pikes, 
 for which he had contracted and partly paid in 1856 or 1857, for ser- 
 vice in Kansas ; and then, in 1859, he procured these pikes, and the 
 carbines and revolvers and ammunition to be privately conveyed and 
 secreted at or near Harper's Ferry, without the knowledge of those 
 who had contributed them for use in Kansas. 
 
 The political excitement produced, in great part, by the discussion 
 of the anti-slavery question in congress, was materially increased by 
 the presidential nominations, of which there were not less than four, 
 in the year 1860. 
 
 The Democratic National Convention assembled at Charleston, S. 
 C, on the 23d of April. Some diflSculty was experienced from there 
 being double delegations from the states of New York and Illinois, 
 contesting each others' seats in the convention. It was voted that 
 no ballot should be taken till after the adoption of a platform. On 
 the next day, the convention was permanently organized by the 
 choice of Caleb Cushing, of Mass., as president, with one vice-presi- 
 dent and one secretary from each state. On the day follovving, the 
 conflicting claim for seats was settled by confirming the sitting dele- 
 gates, the " Softs" from New York, and the Douglas men from Illinois, 
 to the great dissatisfaction of the delegates from the cotton states, who 
 manifested a disposition to bolt unless their views in regard to a plat- 
 form should be adopted. 
 
 On the 27th, several platforms were reported by different portions 
 of the committee. The report of the majority was in accordance with 
 the views of the extreme southern delegates on the slavery question. 
 After having been recommitted and amended, it was again reported 
 to the convention. It aflSrmed the platform of 1856, adopted at Cin- 
 cinnati, with the following explanatory resolutions : 
 
 First. That the government of a territory organized by an act of 
 congress, is provisional and temporary ; and during its existence, all 
 the citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with 
 their property in the territory without their rights, either of person or 
 property, being destroyed or impaired by congressional or territorial 
 legislation. 
 
 Second. That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its 
 departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of person and 
 
1044 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 property in the territories, and wherever else its constitutional au- 
 thority extends. 
 
 Third. Tliat when the settlers in a territory have an adequate 
 population to form a state constitution, the right of sovereignty com- 
 mences ; and, being' consummated by admission into the Union, they 
 stand on an equal footing with the people of other states ; and the 
 states thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, 
 whether its constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of 
 slavery. 
 
 Fourth. That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition 
 of the Island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves 
 and just to Spain, at the earliest practicable moment. 
 
 Fifth. That the enactments of state legislatures to defeat the faith- 
 ful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, sub- 
 versive of the constitution, and revolutionary in their efiect. 
 
 Sirth. That the Democracy of the United States recognize it as 
 the imperative duty of this government to protect the naturalized 
 citizen in all his rights, whether at home or in foreign lands, to the 
 same extent as its native-born citizens. 
 
 To the foregoing is added a resolution pledging the efforts of the 
 party to secure the passage of a bill for the construction of a railroad 
 from the Mississippi river to the Pacific ocean. 
 
 Mr, Douglas having, at a date long anterior to that of the assem- 
 bling of the convention, declared his unwillingness to accept a nomi- 
 nation from a convention adopting as a platform the principles 
 asserted by the ultra southern Democrats, his friends being in the 
 minority on this committee, reported resolutions reaflSrming the Cin- 
 cinnati platform ; declaring that all rights of property are judicial in 
 their character ; and that the Democracy pledge themselves to defer 
 to the decisions of the supreme court on the subject. Among their 
 other resolutions, they also declare in favor of the acquisition of 
 Cuba, of ample protection to citizens, native and naturalized, at home 
 or abroad, and of a Pacific railroad ; and declare state resistance to 
 the Fugitive Slave Law to be revolutionary and subversive of the 
 constitution. 
 
 Series of resolutions were offered by several delegates, with a view 
 to harmonize the convention, which, however, failed of their object. 
 A long, and, at times, vehement debate ensued ; the advocates of 
 the majority report maintaining that the Cincinnati platform did not 
 mean popular sovereignty. Their views were expressed in debate by 
 Mr. Avery, of N. C, who had made the majority report, as follows : 
 " We, of the South, want no more doubtful platforms upon this or any 
 other question. What do the minority of the committee propose ? 
 
NOmyATING CONVENTION OF 1860, AND THE ELECTION. 1045 
 
 Their solution is to leave the question to the decision of the supreme 
 court, and agree to abide by any decision that may be made by that 
 tribunal between the citizens of a territory upon the subject. Why, 
 gentlemen of the minority, you can not help yourselves. That is uo 
 concession to us. There is no necessity for putting that in the plat- 
 form. I take it for granted, that you are all law-abiding citizens. 
 Every gentleman here fi'om a non-slaveholding state is a law-abiding 
 citizen ; and when there is a decision of the supreme court, even ad- 
 verse to his views, he will submit to it. 
 
 " You say that this is a judicial question. We say that it is not. 
 But if it be a judicial question, it is immaterial to you how the plat- 
 form is made, because all you will have to say is, ' This is a judicial 
 question ; the majority of the convention were of one opinion ; I 
 maj' entertain my O'-vn opinion upon the question ; let the supreme 
 court settle it.' " 
 
 The minority report was made by Mr. Payne, of Ohio, who, in re- 
 ply, said : " The question of slavery had distracted the courts and the 
 party since 1820 ; and we hoped by the compromise measures of 
 1850, the Kansas law of 1854, and the platforms of 1852 and 1856, 
 that the policy of the Democratic party was a settled policy in respect 
 to African slavery. The Democracy of the North have, throughout, 
 stood by the South in vindication of their constitutional rights ; and, 
 though some southern senators may rise in their places, [alluding, 
 probably, to a recent debate in the senate,] and stigmatize us as un- 
 sound and rotten, we say we have done it in good faith, and we chal- 
 lenge contradiction. We have supposed that this doctrine of popular 
 sovereignty was a final settlement of the slavery difficulty. You so 
 understood it at the South. 
 
 " What was the doctrine of 1856 ? Non-intervention by congress 
 with the question of slavery, and the submission of the question of 
 slavery in the territories, under the constitution, to the people. 
 
 " It is said that one construction has been given to the platform at 
 the South, and another at the North. He could prove from the con- 
 gressional debates, that irom 1850 to 1856, there was not a dissent- 
 ing opinion expressed in congress on this subject." 
 
 Mr. Payne then quoted from the speeches of Howell Cobb and A. H. 
 Stepliens, of Georgia, John 0. Breckinridge, of Ky., and James L. 
 Orr, of S. C, in which it was expressly declared that " fciie great 
 point npon which the Democratic party at Cincinnati rested was, that 
 the government of the territories had been transferred from congress, 
 and carrying out the spirit and the genius of our institutions, had 
 been given to the people of the territories." The language of the 
 
1046 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 platform was also cited, which declared explicitly the same doctrine* 
 And Mr. Buchanan, in his letter of acceptance, in 1856, in relation to 
 the recent legislation of congress, said : " This legislation is founded 
 on principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance 
 with them has simply declared, that the people of a territory, like those of 
 a state, shall decide for themselves, whether slavery shall or shall not exist 
 within their limits^ 
 
 After much debating and voting upon platforms and amendments, 
 the platform reported by the minority was adopted, 165 to 138. 
 Delegates of southern states then began to withdraw from the con- 
 vention, and continued to secede, until the delegations, in whole or in 
 part, from each of the following states had retired : Alabama, 
 Mississippi, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Georgia, and 
 Louisiana. 
 
 The convention then proceeded to ballot for President. It had long 
 been the rule of Democratic national conventions to require majorities 
 of two-thirds to nominate. A full convention consisted of 303 dele- 
 gates ; and, although nearly 50 had retired, it was moved that two- 
 thirds of the whole number should be necessary to a nomination ; 
 which motion, after much discussion and confusion, was adopted, 
 141 to 112. 
 
 After 57 ballotings, in which Mr. Douglas received from 145| to 
 152| votes, and Mr. Guthrie, of Ky., who had the next highest num- 
 ber, 60|, the convention, on the 3d of May, adjourned to meet again 
 at Baltimore, on the 18th of June. 
 
 The seceders, having met in another hall, and adopted a platform 
 of principles, alter a session of four days, adjourned to meet in Rich- 
 mond on the second Monday (11th) of June. 
 
 A Constitutional Union Convention, composed of delegates from 
 twenty states, and claiming to represent the " Constitutional Union 
 Party," met at Baltimore on the 9th of May, and nominated John 
 Bell, of Tennessee, for President, and Edward Everett, of Massachu- 
 setts, for Vice-President. 
 
 The platform of this convention consisted of a single resolution, 
 " That it is both the part of patriotism and of duty to recognize no 
 political principle other than the Constitution of the Country, the Union 
 of the States, and the Enforcement of the Laws," &c. 
 
 Tlie Republican National Convention assembled at ChicagO; on 
 Wednesday, May 16, 1860, in which all the free states, and the slave 
 states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Missouri, were repre- 
 sented, and the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and the District 
 of Columbia. George Ashmun, of Mass., was chosen president of the 
 
NOMINATING CONVENTION OF 1860, AND THE ELECTION. 104t 
 
 conventioQ, with a vice-president and secretary from each state and 
 territory represented. 
 
 Before proceeding to ballot for candidates, a platform was adopted, 
 comprising seventeen distinct declarations, some of which are the 
 following : 
 
 That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Decla- 
 ration of Independence and the Federal Constitution, is essential to 
 the preservation of our Republican institutions ; and that the Federal 
 Constitution, the rights of the states, and the Union of the states, 
 must and shall be preserved. 
 
 That we congratulate the country that no Republican member of 
 congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often 
 made by Democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from 
 their political associates ; and that we denounce those threats of dis- 
 union, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency, as denying 
 the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of con- 
 templated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant 
 people sternly to rebuke and forever silence. 
 
 That the present Democratic administration has far exceeded our 
 worst apprehensions, in its measureless subserviency to the exactions 
 of a sectional interest, as especially evinced in its desperate exertions 
 to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting 
 people of Kansas ; in construing the personal relation between mas- 
 ter and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons ; in its 
 attempted enforcement every where, on land and sea, through the 
 intervention of congress and the Federal courts, of the extreme pre- 
 tensions of a purely local interest ; and in its general and unvarying 
 abuse of the power intrusted to it by a confiding people. 
 
 That the new dogma that the constitution, of its own force, carries 
 slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a 
 dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions 
 of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with 
 legislative and judicial precedent ; is revolutionary in its tendency, 
 and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country. 
 
 Other declarations denounce " the lawless invasion, by armed force, 
 of the soil of any state or territory ;" condemn the "frauds and cor- 
 ruptions at the Federal metropolis" recently developed ; " deny the 
 authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, 
 to give legal existence to slavery' in any territory of the United 
 States ;" declare the right of Kansas to immediate admission as a 
 state ; recommend such discriminating duties on imports as shall 
 " encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole 
 
1048 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 country ;" " demand the passage, by congress, of the complete and 
 eatisfactoiy Homestead measure which has already passed the 
 house ;" " oppose any change in the naturalization laws abridging 
 the rights of citizenship ;-' declare that appropriations by congress 
 for river and harbor improvements of a national character, required 
 for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are 
 authorized by the constitution, and justified by the obligations of 
 government to protect the lives and property of its citizens ; declare 
 in favor of a railroad to the Pacific ocean ; and, lastly, " invite the 
 cooperation of all citizens, however differing on other questions, who 
 substantially agree with us, in their affirmance and support." 
 
 On Friday, the 18th of June, the convention proceeded to the bal- 
 loting for candidates. On the first ballot, the number of votes was 
 465. Necessary to a choice, 233. Mr. Seward received 113| ; Mr, 
 Lincoln, 102 ; Mr. Cameron, 50i ; Mr. Chase, 49 ; Mr. Bates, 48 ; 
 Judge M'Lean, 12 ; Mr. Dayton, 14 ; Mr, Collamer, 10 ; Scattering, 6. 
 On the second ballot, Mr. Cameron's name having been withdrawn, the 
 vote was, for Seward, 184| ; Lincoln, 181 ; Bates, 35 ; Chase, 42| ; the 
 rest scattering. On the third ballot, Seward, 180 ; Lincoln, 2311 ; 
 Bates, 22 ; Chase, 24^. Scattering, 1. Mr. Lincoln lacked 2i of a 
 nomination ; but before the result was announced, delegates from 
 several states changed their votes to him, making the result of the 
 third ballot, 354 for Lincoln. Necessary to a choice, 234. 
 
 On the second ballot for Vice-President, Mr. Hamlin received 36t 
 votes, and was nominated. 
 
 The seceders from the Charleston Convention, pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment, met at Richmond on the 11th June, On the next day, they ad- 
 journed to the 21st. They reassembled on that day ; but, without 
 doing any business, they adjourned from day to day, awaiting the 
 action of the Baltimore Convention, when such of the delegates as 
 had not joined the seceders in Baltimore, adopted the candidates and 
 platform of the Breckenridge party, and adjourned sine die. 
 
 According to the adjournment at Charleston, the National Demo- 
 cratic Contention reassembled at Baltimore, on Monday the 18th of 
 June. A contest soon arose respecting the admission of delegates 
 claiming seats made vacant by the secession at Charleston. Reports 
 on contested seats were made and debated ; and after a dispute of 
 several days, without any prospect of agreement, delegates from 
 several states again withdrew, and the president, Mr. Cushing, re- 
 signed the chair, which was taken by Gov. Tod, of Ohio. 
 
 On the first ballot, Mr. Douglas received ll3i votes ; Mr. Brecken- 
 ridge, 5 ; Mr. Guthrie, 10. On the second ballot, Douglas, 181^ ; 
 
NOMINATING CONVENTION eF 1860, AND THE ELECTION. 1049 
 
 Bieckenridge, 1| ; Guthrie, 5|. Mr. Douglas was declared duly 
 nominated. 
 
 Benj. Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, was nominated ; but declining the 
 nomination, several days afterwai'ds, the National Committee sup- 
 plied the vacancy by the nomination of Herschel V. Johnson, of 
 Georgia, for vice-president. 
 
 The seceders at Baltimore, together with delegates who were re- 
 fused admission, met on the 18th of June. Twenty -one states were 
 either fully or partially represented. The states not represented at 
 all were Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New 
 Jersey, South Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, 
 and Iowa. Mr. Gushing was chosen president of the convention. 
 
 The i:>latform reported by the majority of the committee at Charles- 
 ton was adopted. 
 
 John C. Breckenridge, of Ky., received the votes of all the dele- 
 gates present (105) as candidate for President. Joseph Lane, of 
 Oregon, received the unanimous vote of the delegates for Vice- 
 President. 
 
 The election resulted in the choice of electors as follows ; 
 
 For Lincohi and Hamlin : California, 4 •, Connecticut, 6 ; Illinois, 
 11 ; Indiana, 13 ; Iowa, 4; Maine, 8 ; Massachusetts, 13 ; Michigan, 
 6 ; Minnesota, 4 ; New Hampshire, 5 ; New Jersey, 4 ; New York, 
 35 ; Ohio, 23 ; Oregon, 3 ; Pennsylvania, 27 ; Rhode Island, 4 ; Ver- 
 mont, 5 ; Wisconsin, 5. Total, 180. 
 
 For Breckenridge and Lane : Alabama, 9 ; Arkansas, 4 ; Delaware, 
 3 ; Georgia, 10 ; Louisiana, fi ; Maryland, 8 : Mississippi, 7 ; North 
 Carolina, 10 ; South Carolina, 8 ; Texas, 4. — Total, 72. 
 
 For Bell and Everett : Kentucky, 12 ; Tennessee, 12 ; Virginia, 
 15.— Total, 39. 
 
 For Douglas and Johnson : New Jersey, 3 ; Missouri, 9. — 
 Total, 12. 
 
 The cause of the division of the electoral vote of New Jersey was 
 the fusion of the three parties opposed to Lincoln, a portion of the 
 electors of each party having been placed on the ticket. 
 
1050 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXV. 
 
 SECESSION SENTIMENT AT THE SOUTH. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ON SLAVERY 
 
 AND SECESSION. ATTORNEY-GENERAL BLACK's OPINION. GEN. SCOTT'a 
 
 VIEWS. 
 
 Immediately after the result of the election had been ascertained, 
 the secession movement was commenced by South Carolina. The 
 alleged causes of secession were the election of a sectional President, 
 infringements by the North upon the rights of the South, and viola- 
 tions of the Constitution already committed, or anticipated under the 
 new administration. These, however, are believed to have been 
 merel}' the ostensible, and not the real causes. All parties at the 
 North, not excepting the Abolition party, had uniformly conceded to 
 the states in which it existed, the exclusive control of slavery there- 
 in, and only claimed the right, and declared their intention, to pre- 
 vent its extension into free territory. Mr. Lincoln himself had 
 repeatedly declared it to be his purpose to maintain the constitutional 
 rights of the South ; and much as he m.ay have desired the restric- 
 tion of slavery, he could have effected nothing, as both houses of 
 congress and the Federal Judiciary were opposed to such restriction, 
 and as there was not the least probability that their political charac- 
 ter would be changed before the expiration of his official term. 
 Besides, the seceding states were not those whose citizens suffered 
 essentially from the escape of slaves, and therefore had no just ground 
 of complaint against the North for obstructing the recapture of fugi- 
 tives. Moreover, members of congress from these states, before their 
 retirement, had the frankness to admit, that these were not the causes 
 of secession. Hence it may be inferred, that the election of Mr. Lin- 
 coln was a cause of rebellion onl}' as being indicative of the ultimate 
 transfer, frvin the South to the North, of the control of the government, 
 which had been so long held by the former. 
 
 Tliere is conclusive evidence of a long existing purpose, on the 
 part of southern men, to secede whenever it should become apparent 
 "that the political supremacy of the South should be permanently lost. 
 Nothing had so excited their alarm, as the effects of the repeal of the 
 Missouri Compromise. This measure brought into existence the Ee- 
 publican party, which was formed for the purpose of resisting the 
 
SECESSION SENTIMENT AT THE SOUTH. 1051 
 
 attempt to extend the area of slave territory, and was composed, in 
 great part, from the Democratic party which had faithfully sustained 
 the southern interest. The rapid growth of this new party, which 
 had carried, at the late election, everj free state, with a single ex- 
 ception, excited serious apprehensions in the southern mind for the 
 safety of a cherished and favorite institution, and impelled the slave- 
 holders to seek its extension and security in a separate national 
 existence. 
 
 The spirit of rebellion in South Carolina had only been temporarily 
 pacified, rather than subdued, in 1832-3. It continued to manifest 
 itself, at short intervals, in menaces against the Union, until its hos- 
 tile demonstrations came to be generally regarded, at the North, as 
 mere threats to extort further concessions to slavery. Few, however, 
 are longer disposed to doubt, that the purpose had not been aban- 
 doned, ot seceding from the Union whenever the interests of slavery 
 should appear to demand the measure. 
 
 The following extracts from the proceedings of conventions, from 
 public speeches, and from the writings of southern men, show, that 
 for more than ten years, at least, before the event, disunion had been 
 contemplated. 
 
 In 1856, threats of disunion, in case of the election of Fremont, 
 were uttered in most of the southern states. Senator Butler, of South 
 Carolina, said : 
 
 " When Fremont is elected, we must rely upon what we have — ■ 
 a good state government. Every governor of the South should call 
 the legislature of his state together, and have measures of the South 
 decided upon. If they did not, and submit to the degradation, they would 
 deserve the fate of slaves. I should advise my legislature to go at the tap of 
 the drumV 
 
 Mr. Keitt, of S. C, in a speech at Lynchburg, Va., in 1856, said : 
 
 " I tell you now, that if Fremont is elected, adherence, to the Union is 
 treason to liberty. I tell you now, that the southern man wIjo will sub- 
 mit to his election is a traitor and a coward." 
 
 Mr. Preston S. Brooks, member of congress from S, C, the assailant 
 of senator Sumner, at a complimentary festival got up in his behalf 
 by his constituents, said in his speech on that occasion : 
 
 " We have the issue upon us now ; and how are we to meet it ? 
 I tell you, fellow-citizens, from the bottom of my heart, that the only 
 mode which I think available for meeting it is just to tear the consti- 
 tution of the United States, trample it under foot, and form a South- 
 ern Confederacy, every state of which will be a slaveholding state. 
 (Loud and prolonged cheers.) I believe it as I stand in the face of 
 my Maker ; I believe it on my responsibility to you as your honored 
 
1052 THE AMERICAN STATESMAK. 
 
 representative, that the only hope of the South is in the South, and 
 that the only available means of making that hope effective, is to cut 
 asunder tJie bonds that tie us together, and talce our separate position among 
 th£ family of nations. These are my opinions. They have always 
 been my opinions. I have been a diaundonist from the time I could think. 
 
 " If Fremont be elected President of the United States, I am for 
 the people in their majesty rising above the law and leaders, taking 
 the power into their own hands, going by concert, or not by concert, 
 and laying the strong arm of southern freemen upon the treasury and 
 archives of the government." (Applause.) 
 
 Gov. Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, in 1856, told the people of that 
 state, that — 
 
 " The South could not, without degradation, submit to the election 
 of a Black Republican President. To tell me that we should submit 
 to a Black Piepublican, under circumstances like these, is to tell me 
 that Virginia and the fourteen slave states are already subjugated 
 and degraded, (cheers ;) that the southern people are without spirit, 
 and without purpose to defend the rights they know and dare not 
 maintain. (Cheers.) If you submit to the election of Fremont, you 
 will prove what Seward and Burlingame said to be true — that the 
 South can not be kicked out of the Union." 
 
 Charles J. Faulkner, formerly a representative in congress from 
 Virginia, and minister to France under Mr. Buchanan, said, in ad " 
 dressing a Democratic meeting : 
 
 " When that noble and gallant son of Virginia, Henry A. Wise, de- 
 clared, as was said he did, in October, 1856, that if Fremont should 
 be elected, he [ Wise^ would seize the national arsenal at Harper^ Ferry, 
 how few would, at that time, have justified so bold and decided a 
 measure ! It is the fortune of some great and gifted minds to see 
 far in advance of their contemporaries. Should William H. Seward 
 be elected in 1860, where is the man now in our midst, who would 
 not call for the impeachment of a governor of Virginia who would 
 silently suffer that armory to pass under the control of such an ex- 
 ecutive head ?" 
 
 The Richmond Enquirer, an old and influential Democratic paper, 
 commenting on Brooks' assault on senator Sumner, said : 
 
 '* Sumner, and Sumner's friends, must be punished and silenced. 
 Either such wretches must be hung or put in the penitentiary, or the 
 South should prepare at o%ce to quit the Union.. 
 
 " If Fremont is elected, the Union will not last an hour after Mr. 
 Pierce'.s term expires. 
 
 "If Fremont is elected, it will be the duty of the South to dissolix 
 the Union, and form a Southern Confederacy. Let the South present a 
 
SKCESSIOK SENTIMENT AT THE SOUTH, 1053 
 
 compact and undivided front. Let her, if possible, detach Pennsyl- 
 vania and southern Ohio, southern Indiana, and southern Illinois, 
 from the North, and make the highlands between the Ohio and the 
 lakes the dividing line. Let the South treat with California ; and, if 
 necessary, ally herself with Russia, with Cuba, and Brazil." 
 
 The Charleston Mercury, a leading Democratic paper in South Caro- 
 lina, said : 
 
 " Upon the policy of dissolving the Union, of separating the South 
 from her northern enemies, and establishing a Southern Confederacy, 
 parties, presses, politicians, and people, are a unit. There is not a 
 single public man in her limits, not one of her present representatives 
 or senators in congress, who is not pledged to the lips in favor of 
 disunion." 
 
 Senator Iverson, of Georgia, addressing his constituents in 1860, 
 said : — 
 
 " Slavery must be maintained — in the Union, if possible ; out of it, 
 if necessary ; peaceably, if we may, forcibly, if we must. 
 
 " In a confederated government of their own, the southern states 
 would enjoy sources of wealth, prosperity, and power, unsurpassed by 
 any nation on earth. No neutrality laws would restrain our adven- 
 turous sons. Our expanding policy would stretch far bej'ond present 
 limits. Central America would join her destiny to ours, and so 
 would Cuba, now withheld from us by the voice and votes of abolition 
 enemies." 
 
 Tlie same senator advised, during the protracted contest for speaker, 
 that if John Sherman, the Republican candidate, should be elected, 
 that southern representatives and senators should leave the capitol ; 
 and he " would counsel his constituents instantly to dissolve all poli- 
 tical ties with a party and a people who thus trample on our rights." 
 And in a speech delivered in the senate, he said : 
 
 " Sir, there is but one path of safety to the South ; but one mode 
 of preseirving her institution of domestic slavery ; and that is a con- 
 federacy of states having no incongruous and opposing elements — a 
 confederacy of slave states alone, with homogeneous language, laws, 
 interests, and institutions. ........ 
 
 " Sir, with these views, and with the firm conviction which I have 
 entertained for many years, and which recent events have only 
 seemed to confirm, that the ' irrepressible conflict' between the two 
 sections must and will go on, and with«accumulated speed, and must 
 end, in the Union, with the total extinction of African slavery in the 
 southern states, that I have announced my determination to approve 
 and urge the southern states to dissolve the Union upon the election 
 of a Black Republican to the Presidency of the United States, by a 
 
1054 THB AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Bectional northern party, and upon a platform of opposition and hos- 
 tility to southern slavery." 
 
 Senator Brown, of Miss., said in a speech to his constituents : 
 
 " I want Cuba ; I want TaniauHpas, Potosi, and one or two other 
 Mexican states ; and I want them all for the same reason — for the 
 planting and spreading of slavery. And a footing in Central America 
 will powerfully aid us in acquiring those other states. Yes ; I want 
 these countries for the spread of slavery. I would spread the bless- 
 ings of slavery like the religion of our Divine Master, to the utter- 
 most ends of the earth ; and rebellious and wicked as the Yankees 
 have been, I would even extend it to them. 
 
 " Whether we can obtain the territory while the Union lasts, I do 
 not know ; I fear we can not. But I would make an honest eSbrt ; 
 and if we failed, I would go out of the Union, and try it there. I 
 speak plainly — I would make a refusal to acquire territory because it 
 was to be slave territory, a cause for disunion, just as I would make 
 the refusal to admit a new state because it was to be a slave state, a 
 cause for disunion." 
 
 Jefferson Davis, United States senator from Mississippi, in an ad- 
 dress to the people of that state, in July, 1859, said : 
 
 " For myself, I say, as I said on a former occasion, in the contin- 
 gency of the election of a President on the platform of Mr. Seward's 
 Kochester speech, let the Union be dissolved. Let the ' great, but 
 not the greatest of evils,' come." 
 
 Mr. Clay, of Alabama, in a speech in the senate, contemplating 
 the possible defeat of his party in the approaching presidential con- 
 test, said : 
 
 " I make no predictions, no promises for my state ; but, in conclu- 
 sion, will only say, that if she is faithful to the pledges she has made 
 and principles slie has professed ; if she is true to her own interest 
 and her own honor ; if she is not recreant to all that state pride, in- 
 tegrity and duty demand ; she will never submit to your atithority. 
 I will add, that unless she and all the southern states of this Union, 
 with perhaps but two, or, at most, three exceptions, are not faithless 
 to the pledges they have given, thoy will never submit to the gov- 
 ernment of a President professing your political faith, and elected by 
 your sectional majority." 
 
 Mr. Toombs, of Georgia; said, in 1856, if Fremont should be elect- 
 ed, " the Union icould be dissohed, and ought to be dissolved." In 1860, in 
 a speech in the senate, he said : 
 
 " My state has spoken for herself. Nine years ago a convention 
 of her people met and declared that her connection with this govern- 
 ment depended upon the faithful execution of the fugitive slave law, 
 
SECESSION SENTIMENT AT THE SOUTH. 1065 
 
 and ber full enjoyment of equal rights in the common territories. I 
 have shown that the one contingency has already arrived ; the other 
 awaits only the success of the Republican party at the approaching 
 presidential election. . . . When that time comes, freemen of 
 Georgia, redeem your pledge ; I am ready to redeem mine. Your 
 honor is involved — your faith is plighted. I know you feel a stain as 
 a wound ; your peace, your social system, your firesides are involved. 
 Never permit this Federal Government to pass into the traitorous hands of the 
 Black Republican pariyj' 
 
 William L. Yancy, a distinguished citizen and politician of Ala- 
 bama, and a representative of the Confederate States in Europe, 
 (since deceased,) wrote to a friend in 1858 : 
 
 " No national party can save us ; no sectional party can ever do 
 it. But if we could do as our fathers did — organize committees of 
 safety all over the Cotton states, (and it is only in them that we can 
 hope for any effective movement,) — we shall fire the southern heart, 
 instruct the southern mind, give courage to each other, and at the 
 proper moment, by one organized, concerted action, we can precipitate the cotton 
 states into a revolution.'' 
 
 In the Charleston Convention which passed the ordinance of seces- 
 sion, Mr. Parker said : 
 
 " It is no spasmodic effort that has come suddenly upon us ; but it 
 has been gradually culminating for a long series of years, until at last it 
 has come to that point when we may say the matter is entirely 
 right." 
 
 Mr. Inglis, concurring with Mr. Parker, said : 
 
 " As my friend has said, most of us have had this matter under consider- 
 ation for the last twenty years ; and I presume we have by this time 
 arrived at a decision upon the subject." 
 
 Mr. Keitt said : 
 
 " 1 have been engaged in this movement ever since I entered political life. 
 I am content with what we have done to-day, and content with what 
 will take place to-morrow. We have carried the body of this 
 Union to its last resting place, and now we will drop the flag over 
 its grave." 
 
 Hon. Mr. Rhett said ; 
 
 " The secession of South Carolina is not an event of a day. It is 
 not any thing produced by Mr. Lincoln's election, or by the non-exe- 
 cution of the fugitive slave law. It has been a matter which has been 
 gathering head for thirty years." 
 
 These numerous citations have been given — and the number might 
 be indefinitely multiplied — in order to show, not only that secession 
 
1056 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 had been long meditated, but that the purpose was not confined to a 
 Rmall portion of the South. 
 
 It is often remarked, and extensively believed, that the harmonious 
 nomination and united party support of Mr. Douglas, would have in- 
 sured his election ; and that the disruption of the party by the ultra 
 southerners was designed to effect the election of Mr. Lincoln, which 
 was to serve as a pretext for secession. That the seceders from the 
 Charleston Convention intended thus to give the election to Mr. Lin- 
 coln, either for the purpose alleged, or from special hatred to Mr. 
 Douglas, is probable. But it is not clear that the latter would have 
 been elected by a united vote. A published statement of votes given 
 in the different states at the election of 1860, shows the aggregate 
 number of votes cast for the Lincoln electors, to have been 1,857,610 ; 
 for Douglas electors, 1,365,976 ; for Breckenridge electors, 847,953 ; 
 for Bell electors, 590,631. Although the united vote for the three 
 other candidates exceeded the popular vote for Mr. Lincoln, 946,950, 
 yet the entire opposition vote cast for a single candidate, would not 
 have changed the electoral vote of a sufficient number of states to 
 elect him. 
 
 The election of Mr. Lincoln threw the whole South at once into a 
 state of intense excitement ; and the leading men in about one-half of 
 the southern states immediately declared themselves in favor of joining 
 South Carolina in a Southern Confederacy. It is believed that, if the 
 question of secession had been directly and fairly submitted to the 
 people of the South, a majority in nearly every state would have 
 voted against the measure. But they were overborne by the more 
 powerful and tyrannical minorities ; and in many places prohibited, 
 under severe penalties, from even an expression of their Union 
 sentiments. 
 
 On the 10th of November, 1860, a bill was reported in the legisla- 
 ture of South Carolina for the enrolment of 10,000 volunteers ; and 
 within a few days, the resignations of the two senators from that 
 state ill congress, Hammond and Chesnut, were accepted ; and a bill 
 was passed calling a state convention, the delegates to be chosen the 
 6th of December, and the convention to meet on the 17th. Some of 
 the states, especially Virginia, considered the movement too precipi- 
 tate. This state desired first to endeavor to obtain the necessary 
 guaranties to southern rights, viz., the enforcement of the fugitive 
 slave law ; the acknowledgment of the constitutional right to carry 
 slaves into the territories, and of the right of slaveholders to protec- 
 tion for their slave property therein ; and an assurance that the gov- 
 ernment shall not interfere with slavery in the states or territories. 
 There were, even in the extreme southern or cotton states, many dis- 
 
president's message on slavery and secession. 105T 
 
 tinguished men who were opposed to disunion ; and a general con- 
 vention of the slave states for consultation was proposed. 
 
 But all hope of a southern conference was soon abandoned ; and 
 it was found impossible to check the tide of secession. Before 
 the end of November, calls for meetings of the legislatures were 
 issued in the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, 
 Virginia, Florida, and Louisiana ; and their legislatures assembled in 
 December and January. The legislature of Arkansas met in regular 
 session November 13th ; but the governor, in his message, took no 
 notice of our national troubles. The legislature of North Carolina 
 took no definite action on the subject, although a resolution was in- 
 troduced declaring that, if any state should withdraw from the Union, 
 the people ought to resist any attempt at coercion on the part of the 
 general government. Gov. Hicks, of Maryland, declined to comply 
 with a request to convene the legislature, and declared his purpose 
 to maintain the Union. He said : " Mr. Lincoln being elected, I am 
 willing to await further results. If he will administer the govern- 
 ment in a proper manner, we are all bound to submit to his adminis- 
 tration, much as we have opposed his election." 
 
 Before the meeting of congress, the movement for immediate seces- 
 sion was confined to the cotton and Gulf states. The withdrawal of 
 Tennessee was for a time delayed by the efforts of Andrew Johnson, 
 U. S. senator, and Emerson Etheredge, representative in congress. 
 And but for John J. Crittenden, Rev. Dr. Breckenridge, Joseph Holt, 
 and others of similar views, in Kentucky', this state could scarcely 
 have been retained in the Union. 
 
 Congress met December 3d, 1860. A large portion of the Presi- 
 dent's message related to the occurrences at the South. As in pre- 
 vious messages, the President again represents the anti-slavery 
 people of the North as the guilty authors of the troubles at the South. 
 He says : 
 
 " The long-continued and intemperate interference of the northern 
 people with the question of slavery in the southern states, has at 
 length produced its natural effects. The different sections of the 
 Union are now arrayed against each other ; and the time has arrived, 
 so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, when hostile geo- 
 graphical parties have been formed. I have long foreseen and often 
 forewarned my countrymen of the now impending danger. This does 
 not proceed solely from the claim, on the part of congress or the ter- 
 ritorial legislatures, to exclude slavery from the territories, or from 
 the efforts of different states to defeat the execution of the fugitive 
 slave law. All or any of these evils might have been endured by 
 the South without danger to the Union, as others have been, in the 
 
 67 
 
1058 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy. The immedi- 
 ate peril arises, not sc^much from these causes, as from the fact that 
 the incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question throughout 
 the North for the last quarter of a century, has at last produced its 
 malign influence on the slaves, and inspired them with vague notions 
 of freedom. Hence a sense of security no longer exists around tke 
 family altar. 
 
 " It can not be denied that, for five and twenty years, the agitation 
 at the North against slavery in the South has been incessant. In 
 1835, pictorial handbills and inflammatory appeals were circulated 
 extensively throughout the South, of a character to excite the passions 
 of the slaves ; and, in the language of General Jackson, ' to stimulate 
 them to insurrection, and produce all the horrors of a servile war.' 
 This agitation has ever since been continued by the public press, by 
 the proceedings of state and county conventions, and by abolition 
 sermons and lectures. The time of congress has been occupied in 
 violent speeches upon this never-ending subject ; and appeals in 
 pamphlet and other forms, indorsed by distinguished names, have 
 been sent forth from this central point, and spread broadcast over the 
 Union. 
 
 " How easy would it be for the American people to settle the 
 slavery question forever, and to restore peace and harmony to this 
 distracted country 1 They, and they alone, can do it. All that is 
 necessary to accomplish the object, and all for which the slave states 
 have ever contended, is to be let alone, and permitted to manage 
 their domestic institutions in their own way." * # * 
 
 " And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our 
 fellow-citizens to the office of President, does not of itself afford just 
 cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true if his 
 election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a majority, of 
 the people, and which has resulted from transient and temporary 
 causes, which may probably never again occur. In order to justify 
 a resort to revolutionary resistance, the Federal Government must be 
 guilty of a ' deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise' of powers 
 not granted by the constitution. The late Presidential election, how- 
 ever, has been held in strict conformity with its express provisions 
 Now, then, can the result justify a revolution to destroy this very 
 constitution ? Reason, justice, a regard for the constitution, all re- 
 quire that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous act on the 
 part of the President-elect before resorting to such a remedy." * * * 
 
 " It is alleged as one cause for immediate secession, that the south- 
 ern states are denied equal rights witli the other states in the com- 
 mon territories. But by what authority are these denied ? Not by 
 
 
pbesident's message on slavery and secession. 1059 
 
 congress, which has never passed, and I believe never will pass, any 
 act to exclude slavery from these territories ; and certainly not by 
 the supreme court, which has solemnly decided that slaves are pro- 
 perty, and like all other property, their owners have a right to take 
 them into the common territories, and hold them there under the pro- 
 tection of the constitution. 
 
 " The most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have 
 yet been committed, consist in the acts of different state legislatures 
 to defeat the execution of the fugitive slave law. It ought to be re- 
 membered, however, that for these acts neither congress nor any 
 President can justly be held responsible. Having been passed in 
 violation of the federal constitution, they are therefore null and void. 
 • * * Let us trust that the state legislatures will repeal 
 their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless this shall 
 be done without unnecessary delay, it is impossible for any human 
 power to save the Union." » # # 
 
 " I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, 
 because it has been claimed within the last few years, that any state, 
 whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede 
 from the Union, in accordance with the constitution, and without any 
 violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the 
 Confederacy ; that as each became a party to the Union by the vote 
 of its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may 
 retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a 
 convention. 
 
 " In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must 
 be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary 
 association of states, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the 
 contracting parties. * * * In this manner our thirty -three states 
 may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile re- 
 publics, each one retiring from the Union, without responsibility, 
 whenever any sudden excitement may impel them to such a 
 course." 
 
 After adverting to the conflicting views of advocates and opponents 
 of the constitution when it was before the people for ratification, the 
 one party contending that it conferred powers dangerous to the rights 
 of the states ; the other, that there was no foundation for such ap- 
 prehensions, without any intimation from an individual of either 
 party, that any state feeling herself aggrieved might obtain relief by 
 Beceding from the Union, the President adds : 
 
 " What a crushing argument would this have proved against those 
 who dreaded that the rights of the states would be endangered by 
 the constitution ! The truth is, that it was not until many years 
 
1060 . THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 after the origin of the Federal Government, that such a proposition 
 was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive 
 arguments of General Jackson, who, in his message of 16th January, 
 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to con- 
 gress, employs the following language : ' The right of the people of 
 a single state to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent 
 of the other states, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard 
 the liberty and happiness of the millions composing this union, can 
 not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly re- 
 pugnant both to the principles upon which the general government is 
 constituted, and to the objects which it was expressly formed to 
 attain.' " 
 
 After presenting some further arguments against the right of se- 
 cession, and showing that the Union was designed by its framers to 
 be perpetual ; and that the ouly remedy against the tyranny and 
 oppression of the Federal Government was in the right of resistance 
 on the part of the governed, which exists independently of all consti- 
 tutions — in other words, the right of revolution, aoserted in the 
 Declaration of Independence, not a voluntary secession by virtue of 
 an inherent constitutional right, he says : " In short, let us look the 
 danger fairly in the face : Secession is neither more nor less than re- 
 volution. It may, or it may not be a justifiable revolution ; but still 
 it is revolution." 
 
 * He then proceeds to discuss the question as to the power and the 
 duty of the executive in the matter, and concludes that he has not 
 power in the present case to see the laws executed. The Federal 
 oflBcers, executive and judicial, within the state of South Carolina, 
 have all resigned ; and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to sup- 
 ply their places. Congress alone, he said, had the power to decide 
 whether the present laws could or could not be so amended as to 
 carry out the objects of the constitution. The revenue still continued 
 to be collected at the custom-house in Charleston ; and if the collector 
 should resign, a successor might be appointed. 
 
 The property of the United States in South Carolina — the forts, 
 arsenals, magazines, &c., was expressly confided to congress by the 
 constitution ; and if an attempt should be made to expel the United 
 States from this property — which, however, he believed would not be 
 attempted — the officer in command of the forts had received orders 
 to act strictly on the defensive. The responsibilities for consequences 
 would then rest upon the heads of the assailants. 
 
 The President asks : " Has the constitution delegated to congress 
 the power to coerce a state into submission which is attempting to 
 withdraw, or. has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy?" and 
 
president's message on slavery and secession. 1061 
 
 eays : " After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclu- 
 sion that no such power has been delegated to congress or to any 
 other department of the Federal Government." Supposing a state to 
 have been conquered by war, he asks : " How are we to govern it 
 afterwards ? Shall we hold it as a province, and govern it by des- 
 potic power ?" He says : " In the nature of things we could not, by 
 physical force, control the will of the people, and compel them to 
 elect senators and representatives to congress, and to perform all 
 the other duties depending upon their own volition, and required from 
 the free citizens of a free state as a constituent member of the Con- 
 federacy. 
 
 " But, if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it 
 under existing circumstances ? The object wuuld doubtless be to 
 preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual 
 means of destroying it ; but would banish all hope of its peaceable 
 reconstruction. * * * The fact is, that our Union rests upon pub- 
 lic opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens 
 shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it 
 must one day perish. Congress possess many means of preserving it 
 by conciliation ; but the sword was not placed in their hand to pre- 
 serve it by force." 
 
 The President then invokes his countrymen " to pause and delib- 
 erate before they determine to destroy this, the grandest temple which 
 has ever been dedicated to human freedom since the world began 1" 
 And he recommends to congress the proposing to the legislatures of 
 the stales, of an explanatory amendment of the constitution, which 
 might be confined to the final settlement of the true construction of 
 the constitution on three special points : 
 
 1. An express recognition of the right of property in slaves in the 
 states where it now exists, or may hereafter exist. 
 
 2. The duty of protecting this right in all the common territories 
 throughout their territorial existence, and until they shall be admitted 
 as states into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitu- 
 tions may prescribe. 
 
 3. A like recognition of the right of the master to have his slave, 
 who has escaped from one state to another, restored and delivered up 
 to him, and of the. validity' of the fugitive slave law enacted for this 
 purpose, together with a declaration, that all state laws impairing 
 or defeating this right, are violations of the constitution, and are con- 
 sequently null and void. 
 
 Although this construction had already been settled by the supreme 
 court, the decision was still contested, and an explanatory amend- 
 ment would terminate dissension, and restore peace and harmony 
 
1062 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 among the states. And it ought to be tried before any of these states 
 should separate themselves from the Union. 
 
 The foregoing abstract comprises nearl}' all the material points 
 noticed in that part of the message which relates to our southern 
 diflSculties. The President had said in a preceding paragraph that, if 
 the Federal Government could be dissolved at pleasure by any state, 
 the Confederacy was " a rope of sand." Admitting the correctness of 
 the President's doctrine, that " physical force" is not to be employed 
 against a state, it is difficult to see how the Union can be any thing 
 else than a rope of sand. The simple denial of the right to secede 
 can add nothing to its strength in the absence of coercive power. 
 The general government can not, it is true, " compel the people to elect 
 senators and representatives to congress, nor would it be desirable 
 to compel them to do so. If a state shall refuse to be represented, the 
 loss is her own. But does this deprive the general government of the 
 power to lay and collect taxes direct and indirect, and of the power 
 to enforce their collection ? If a state should take possession of the 
 national forts, arsenals, and custom-houses, has the general govern- 
 ment no power, or would it be inexpedient, to employ " physical 
 force" to expel the usurpers and repossess itself of the public prop- 
 erty ? If it could not, there never was any cohesive power in the 
 Union, and the framers could never justly claim the wisdom which 
 has been universally accorded to them. 
 
 The argument of the President against the power to coerce a state 
 seems to have been based upon the oflScial opinion of Attorney-Gen- 
 eral Black, which was by the President laid before congress. The 
 following is the substance of the views of that officer on the more 
 prominent points discussed : 
 
 To enable the President to execute the laws, the land and naval 
 forces are subject to his orders. But his power is to be used in the 
 manner prescribed by the legislative department. Where the law 
 directs a thing to be done, without saying how, that implies the 
 power to use the means necessary to the end. But where the par- 
 ticular mode of doing it is pointed out by statute, that mode must be 
 followed. The law requires goods imported within certain collection 
 districts, to be entered at the proper port, and the duties to be re- 
 ceived by the collector for that port. But he may exercise his func- 
 tions at any place within the port ; he is not confined to the custom- 
 house, nor any other particular spot. If he keeps within the port, he 
 is within the law. 
 
 The executive has the right to take such measures as may seem 
 necessary to protect the public property. It results from the propri- 
 etary rights of the government as owner of the forts, arsenals, maga- 
 
ATTORNEY-GENERAL BLACK's OPINION. 1063 
 
 zines, dock-yards, &c. Besides, the constitution gives the general 
 government exclusive power over them. If any one of an owner's 
 rights is plainer than another, it is that of keeping possession and 
 repelling intrusion. The right of defending the public property 
 includes the right of recapturing it after it has been unlawfully 
 taken. 
 
 By the act of 1795, the militia may be called forth " whenever the 
 laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof 
 obstructed in any state by combinations too powerful to be sup- 
 pressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the 
 power vested in the marshals." This imposes upon the President the 
 sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen.which 
 requires the use of military force. Tlie laws referred to in the act of 
 1795 are those which are made to protect the rights claimed under 
 the Federal constitution and laws, and to enforce such obligations as 
 come within the cognizance of the Federal judiciary. Obedience to 
 these laws is to be compelled through the courts. These are the or- 
 dinary means provided ; and they must be used until their incapacity 
 shall plainl}^ appear. It is only upon clear evidence that a military 
 can be called into the field. Even then its operations must be purely 
 on the defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are 
 founc^ directly opposing the laws and obytructing their executiou. 
 On such occasions, especially, the military power must be kept in 
 strict subordination to the civil authority. 
 
 But what if the Federal ofiScers (judges, district attorneys, and 
 marshals,) should resign their places ? Appoint others in their stead, 
 if others can be got to serve. This might be impossible. In that 
 event tr(.ops would certainly be out of place, and their use illegal. If 
 they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts 
 and marshals to be aided. To send a military force into a state with 
 orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon 
 them. The existing laws put and keep the government strictly on 
 the de'ensive. Force can be used only to repel an assault ou the 
 public property, and aid the courts in the performance of their duty. 
 If the means to collect the revenue and execute the other laws are 
 insufficient for that purposfe, congress may extend them and make 
 them more effectual to that end. 
 
 In case a state should declare her independence, the attorney-gen- 
 eral advised that the President should execute the laws to the extent 
 of the defensive means placed in his hands, and act upon the assump- 
 tion that the constitutional relations between the states and Federal 
 Government continue to exist, until a new order of things shall be 
 established, either by law or force • 
 
1064 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN 
 
 Whether congress has the constitutional right to make war against 
 one or more states, and require the Federal executive to carry it on 
 by means of force drawn from the other states, is a question fur con- 
 gress to consider. The power to " declare war" has respect to war 
 against foreign enemies. The power " to provide for calling forth 
 the militia" for use within the limits of a state, can be exercised only, 
 1. To execute the laws of the Union ; that is, to aid the Federal 
 oflScers, in their duties. 2. To suppress insurrections against the 
 states, when a state shall herself apply for assistance against her own 
 people. 3. To repel the invasion of a state by enemies from abroad 
 These provisions are made to protect the states, not to authorize an 
 attack by one part of the country upon another. Those who framed 
 and ratified the constitution doubtless thought a military force would 
 not only be useless but pernicious as a means of holding the states 
 togetlier. 
 
 If war can not be declared, nor general hostilities carried on by 
 the central government against a state, then it seems to follow that 
 an attempt to do so would be ipse facto an expulsion of such state from 
 the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be 
 compelled to act accordingly. And if congress shall thus break up 
 this Union, will not all the states be absolved from their Federal ob- 
 ligations ? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their 
 money or blood to carry on such a contest ? The right of the gen- 
 eral government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor, 
 by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its 
 officers can not be denied. But this is a different thing from an 
 ofiensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of state 
 governments, or to prevent a threatened violation of the constitution, 
 or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United 
 States is supreme. The states are colleagues of one another ; and if 
 some of them shall conquer the rest and hold them as subjugated 
 provinces, it would destroy the whole theory upon which they are 
 now connected. If this view of the subject be as correct as I think 
 it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when con- 
 gress shall arm one part of the people against another for any pur- 
 pose beyond that of merely protecting the general government in the 
 exercise of its proper constitutional functions. 
 
 It is extensively believed that timely precautionary measures on 
 the part of the President, would have prevented secession. It may 
 be proper here to present the suggestions of Gen. Scott communicated 
 to the President, Oct. 29, 1860, a few days previous to the election. 
 The reader will hai'dly fail to discover the sagacity and the wisdom 
 of •their author. The portion of the letter relating more particu* 
 
GENEKAL SCOTT's VIEWS. 1065 
 
 laily to the means of preventing secession, embraces the following 
 paragraphs : 
 
 " From a knowledge of our southern population, it is my solemn 
 conviction that there is some danger of an early act of rashness pre- 
 liminary to secession, viz., the seizure of some or all of the following 
 posts : Forts Jackson and St. Philip in the Mississippi, below New 
 Orleans, both without garrisons ; Fort Morgan, below Mobile; with- 
 out a garrison ; Forts Pickens and McRea, Pensacola harbor, with an 
 insuflBcient gai-rison for one ; Fort Pulaski, below Savannah, without 
 a garrison ; Forts Moultrie and Sumter, Charleston harbor, the former 
 with an insuflBcient garrison, the latter without any ; and Fort Mon- 
 roe, Hampton Roads, without a sufficient garrison. In my opinion, 
 all these works should be immediately so garrisoned as to make any 
 attempt to take any one of them by surprise or co%ip de main, ridiculous. 
 
 " With the army faithful to its allegiance, and the navy probably 
 equally so, and with a Federal executive, for the next twelve months, 
 of firmness and moderation, which the country has a right to expect — 
 vwdcration being an element of power not less than firmness — there is 
 good reason to hope that the danger of secession may pass away 
 without one conflict of arms, one execution, or. one arrest for treason. 
 
 " In the mean time it is suggested that exports should remain as 
 free as at present ; all duties, however, on imports, collected (outside 
 of cities,") as such receipts would be needed for the national debt, 
 invalid pensions, &c., and only articles contraband of war be refused 
 admittance. But even this refusal would be unnecessary, as the fore- 
 going views eschew the idea of invading a seceded state." 
 
 Despatching, the next day, to the secretary of war, a copy of his 
 " views, &c.," he adds several paragraphs, among which are the 
 following : 
 
 " It is his (Gen. Scott's) opinion that instructions should be given 
 at once, to the commanders of the Barrancas, Forts Moultrie and Mon- 
 roe, to be on their guard against surprises and coup de main. As to 
 regular approaches, nothing can be said or done, at this time, without 
 volunteers. 
 
 " General Scott is all solicitude for the safety of the Union. He is, 
 however, not without hope that all dangers and diflSculties will pass 
 away without leaving a scar or painful recollection behind. 
 " The secretary's most obedient servant, 
 
 October 30th, 1860. W. S" 
 
 ° In forts, or on board ships cf war. The great aim and object of this plan is 
 to gain time — say eight or ten months — to await expected measures of concilia- 
 tion on the part of the North, and the subsidence of angry feelings in the oppo- 
 eite quarter, 
 
1066 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXVI. 
 
 president's message on KANSAS. HOUSE COMMITTEE OF THIRTY-THREE ON 
 
 THE CRISIS. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THIRTEEN. DEBATES ON THE SLAVERY 
 
 QUESTION. 
 
 The Kansas question, on which the President was silent in his last 
 annual message, (December, 1859,) was again noticed, and in a man- 
 ner similar to that in which he had treated it in former messages. 
 He alluded to the " revolutionary government" under the Topeka 
 constitution; the object of which was "to subdue the territorial 
 government by force." He said: "Under these circumstances, it 
 became my imperative duty to exert the whole constitutional power 
 of the executive to prevent the flames of civil war from again raging 
 in Kansas, which, in tlie excited state of the public mind, both North 
 and South, might have extended into the neighboring states." 
 
 To aid the civil magistrates in enforcing the laws, a strong de- 
 tachment of the army had been stationed in the territory ; but " the 
 troubles in Kansas could not have been permanently settled without 
 an election by the people." Accordingly " every proper effort had 
 been employed to induce the hostile parties to vote at the election of 
 delegates to frame a state constitution, and afterwards at the election 
 to decide whether Kansas should be a slave or a free state. The in- 
 surgent party refused to vote at either, lest this might be considered 
 a recognition on their part of the territorial government established 
 by congress." A better spirit afterwards prevailed, and at the third 
 election, held on the first Monday in January, 1858, both parties met 
 to elect members of the legislature and state officers under the Le- 
 compton Constitution. The result was the triumph of the anti slavery 
 party at the polls. Since that time, he said, little had been heard of 
 the Topeka government ; and all serious danger of revolutionary 
 troubles in Kansas was then at an end. He then proceeds : - 
 
 " The Lecompton constitution which had been thus recognized at 
 this state election by the votes of both political parties in Kansas, 
 was transmitted ta «ie with the request that I should present it to 
 congress. This I could not have refused to do without violating my 
 clearest and strongest convictions of duty. The constitution, and all 
 the proceedings which preceded and followed its formation, were fair 
 
HOUSE COMMITTEE OF THIRTY-THREE ON THE CRISIS. 106T 
 
 and regular on their face. * * * If, at the first two elections the 
 majority refused to vote, it can not be pretended that this refusal to 
 exercise the elective franchise could invalidate an election fairly held 
 under lawful authority, even if they had not subsequently voted at 
 the third election '' 
 
 [As the foregoing statements in the message are at variance with 
 the history of the Lecompton constitution, and especially with the 
 statements of both Gov. Walker and Gov. Stanton, the reader is re- 
 ferred to pages 97*7-8, 981-4, 985-8. See also the views of senators 
 Douglas, Collamer, and Wade, p. 990.] 
 
 After the message had been read, Mr. Boteler, of Va., moved a re- 
 solution, which, after a slight amendment, was adopted : " Resolved, 
 That so much of the President's message as relates to the present 
 perilous condition of the country, be referred to a special committee 
 of one from each state." The vote on its adoption was 145 to 38. 
 The delegation of South Carolina, and most of the delegations from 
 Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, did not vote, for the 
 reason that their states had ordered conventions to consider and set- 
 tle the question of Federal relations. This may be regarded as an 
 indication that they were opposed to all compromise. 
 
 A full committee of thirty-three, one from each state, was appointed 
 — Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, chairman. 
 
 In the senate, after the message had been read — 
 
 Mr. Clingman made the usual motion for its being printed, and fol- 
 lowed the motion with a speech, in which he admitted that the mes- 
 sage was patriotic ; but it failed in stating the case before the 
 country. It was not merely that a dangerous man had been elected 
 to tlie presidency. That might occur by accident, and he be power- 
 less ; but he had been elected because he was a dangerous man. He 
 avows the principle known as the " irrepressible conflict." He may 
 be powerless now by reason of the opposition in congress, but the 
 organization that elected Mr. Lincoln, would, he feared, soon obtain 
 control of all the departments of the government. Mr. C, deprecated 
 the rule of a " sectional party," whose guiding principle was hostility 
 to the southern states. 
 
 Mr. C. thought that the occurrences for the last fifteen years in this 
 country, if they had been done by a foreign nation, would have in- 
 volved us in war. He did not agree with those who said some states 
 were too precipitate in their preparations for resistance. There was 
 under oui' system of government no redress against northern legisla- 
 tion to prevent the recapture of southern property. Instead of being 
 precipitate. South Carolina and the whole South had been wonder- 
 fully patient. The South did not, in 1850, get a fair settlement in 
 
1068 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 reference to the territories. The border slave states abandoned the 
 general cause of the South for the right to recover their fugitive 
 slaves. When, last winter, South Carolina sent her commissioner to 
 Virginia seeking a conference, we had not only from the Black Re- 
 publican press, but from the southern Union press, a great clamor 
 about the Union ; and Virginia was called upon not to go into 
 " South Carolina's disunion schemes." The President had said there 
 ought to be new constitutional guaranties. He, Mr. C, believed that 
 unless something of that kind occurred, most of the southern states 
 would be seen in motion at an early day ; and it would be best for 
 all sections, that a peaceable division of the public property should 
 take place. It had been said that the laws to which he had referred 
 (Personal Liberty bills) ought to be repealed ; but the. mere repeal 
 of these laws would not satisfy the section from which he came ; 
 because the fugitive slave law was rendered a nullity by the action 
 of mobs, 
 
 Mr. C. said he did not know that he understood the message ex- 
 actly about collecting the revenue. He agreed with the President that 
 this government had no power or right to coerce a state back into the 
 Union ; but if a state should secede, and become a foreign state, it 
 seemed clear that the general government had no right to collect 
 taxes in it. If it should be attempted, he had no doubt collision 
 would occur. He adverted to the idea of gentlemen's waiting for 
 overt acts. Lincoln would not have the folly to resort to overt acts 
 in the first instance ; but would probably be conservative in his 
 declarations ; and when " safely in the saddle, would apply whip 
 and spur." 
 
 Mr. Crittenden, of Ky., said, the gentleman had hardly uttered a 
 sentiment or an opinion in which he did not disagree with him. He 
 had hopes that this Union, which was the glory of our fathers, would 
 not become the shame of their children. He hoped they would not 
 become involved in angry debate. The grave questions thrust upon 
 them should receive solemn consideration. The Union was estab- 
 lished by great sacrifices, and it was worthy of great sacrifices 
 and concessions for its maintenance. He trusted every senator 
 was willing to yield and to compromise much to preserve the gov- 
 ernment and the Union. He recommended calmness and con- 
 ciliation. He would not now allude further to the questions 
 which the gentleman had presented. He would not discuss the 
 question whether Mr. Lincoln's election was good cause for resist- 
 ance. He did not believe there was a man in Kentucky who agreed 
 with the gentleman on that question. They were all a Union-loving 
 people, and desired that a remedy be applied to their grievances of 
 
SENATE DEBATE ON THE MESSAGE. 1069 
 
 which they had a right to complain. He did not agree that there is 
 no power in the President to preserve the Union. If we have a 
 Union at all, said Mr. C, and if, as the President thinks, there is no 
 right to secede on the part of any state, (and I agree with him in 
 that,) there is a right to employ our power to preserve the Union, 
 To say that no state has a right to secede, that it is a wrong to the 
 Union, and yet, that the Union has no right to interpose any 
 obstacles to its secession, seems to me to be altogether contradictory. 
 
 Mr. Lane, (Dem.) of Oregon, said the platform upon which the op- 
 position had elected their President was in conflict with the constitu- 
 tion, and the equality of the states. Upon what principle of right 
 can a northern, sectional party set up exclusive claim to territory ac- 
 quired at such sacrifice of southern as well as northern blood ? Can 
 the Union be preserved on such terms ? I think not. As to the 
 danger apprehended from the election of Mr. Lincoln, it was because 
 he had been supported and elected by a party holding the views of 
 the senator to whom he had just referred, (Mr. Doolittle.) He is an 
 " irrepressible conflict" man ; he holds that the slave states and the 
 free states can not live together. He apprehended the result would 
 be that they would not live together. 
 
 Mr. Hale, of N. H., said : I was in hopes when the message was 
 presented, that it would commend itself to somebody — that it would 
 be one thing or another. But, sir, I have read it somewhat carefully ; 
 I listened to it as it was read at the desk ; and, if I understand it, it 
 is this : South Carolina has just cause for seceding from the Union ; 
 that is the first proposition. The second is, that she has no right to 
 secede. The third is, that we have no right to prevent her from 
 seceding. That is the President's message substantially. He goes 
 on to represent this as a great and powerful country, and that a state 
 has no right to secede from it ; but the power of the country, if I 
 understand the President, consists in what Dickens makes the Eng- 
 lish constitution to be, a power to do nothing at all. I think it was 
 incumbent on the President to point out definitely to congress some 
 rule of action. I think the country expected from him some exposi- 
 tion of a decided policy. He has utterly failed in this respect. I 
 think we may as well look this matter right in the face ; and I am 
 not going to be long in doing it. This state of affairs looks to one of 
 two things : it looks to absolute submission, not on the part of our 
 southern friends and the southern states, but of the North, to the 
 abandonment of their position. It looks to a surrender of that popu- 
 lar sentiment which has been uttei'ed through the constituted forms 
 of the ballot box ; or it looks to open war. We need not shut our 
 eyes to the fact. It means war, and nothing else ; and the state 
 
lOTO THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ■which has put herself in the attitude of secession so looks upon it. 
 She has considered it a settled question, and she has armed herself. 
 
 I do not wish to say a word that shall increase irritation ; but I 
 avow here — I do not know whether or not I shall be sustained by 
 those who usually act with me — if the issue presented is, that the 
 constitutional will of the country, expressed through the forms of the 
 constitution, will not be submitted to, and war is the alternative, let 
 it come in any form or in any shape. The Union is dissolved, and 
 can not be held together as a Union, if that is the alternative upon 
 which we go into an election. If it is determined that the voice of 
 the majority will not be submitted to, then this is not a Union of 
 equals ; it is a Union of a dictatorial oligarchy on the one side, and 
 a herd of slaves and cowards on the other. That is it, sir ; nothing 
 more ; nothing less. * ♦ * I know nothing about the policy of 
 the incoming administration. One thing is certain : if it shall quail 
 in the performance of its duty ; if its head shall hesitate, as Mr. Bu- 
 chanan has done, to look the thing clearly in the face, and to mark 
 out a policy consistent with honor and patriotism, he certainly will 
 not find me among the number of his supporters. 
 
 Mr. Brown, of Miss., asked : Docs the senator suppose that South 
 Carolina, and those states which sympathize with her, are going to 
 make war upon the North ? If he does, he is egregiously mistaken. 
 All we ask is that we be allowed to depart in peace. Shall we 
 neither have peace in the Union, nor be allowed the poor boon to 
 seek it out of the Union ? To submit to your principles would be the 
 deepest degradation that ever a free people submitted to. Submit we 
 will not ; and if, because we will not submit to your domination, you 
 choose to make war upon us, let God defend the right. 
 
 Mr. Iverson, of Georgia, said : The President may be right when 
 he asserts that no state has a constitutional right to secede from the 
 Union. I admit that the constitution has not granted that power to 
 a state. I therefore do not place the expected action of any of the 
 southern states upon the constitutional right of secession. I rather 
 agree with the President that the secession of a state is an act of 
 revolution taken through that particular means, or by that particular 
 measure. Mr. I. did not see the inconsistencies that had been 
 ascribed to it. He noticed one, however, saying : The President 
 declares that, as the states have no power to secede, the Federal 
 Government is a consolidated government ; that it is not a voluntary 
 association of states. I deny it. Every state came voluntarily into 
 the Union. But whether that be so or not, he declares that this is a 
 consolidated government to this extent : that the laws are to operate 
 directly upon each individual of the states, if not upon the states 
 
SENATE DEBATE ON THE MESSAGE. lOVl 
 
 themselves, and miist be enforced ; and yet, he says, the state which 
 secedes is not to be coerced. Individuals compose the state ; and if 
 you enforce the laws against every individual of a state, you enforce 
 them against the state. While, therefore, he says a state is not to be 
 coerced, he declares, in the same breath, his determination to enforce 
 the laws of the Union, and therefore to coerce the state if it goes out. 
 There is the inconsistency which I do not see how any body can 
 reconcile. 
 
 Mr. I. said he had not risen to discuss these questions, but to reply 
 to the senator from New Hampshire. Sir, the southern states are 
 not moving in this matter without due consideration. We believe the 
 only security for the institution to which we attach so much import- 
 ance, is secession and a southern confederacy. We are satisfied, not- 
 withstanding the disclaimers of the Black Republicans, that they 
 intend to use the Federal power, to put down and extinguish the in- 
 stitution of slavery in the southern states. Our true policy is to go 
 out of this Union now while we have strength to resist any attempt 
 on the part of the Federal Government to resist us. * * * You 
 talk about concessions. You talk about repealing personal liberty 
 bills. Repeal them all to-morrow, and it would not stop this revolu- 
 tion. It is not your personal liberty bills we dread. Those laws are 
 obnoxious tj us, not on account of their practical operation, not be- 
 cause they prevent us from reclaiming our fugitive slaves ; but as an 
 evidence of deep-seated, wide-spread hostility to our institutions which 
 must sooner or later end in this Union in their utter extinction. 
 
 We do not suppose there will be any overt acts on the part of Mr. 
 Lincoln. I do not propose to wait for them. We, intend to go out of 
 this Union. I believe that, before the 4th of March, five of the south- 
 ern states will have declared their independence ; and that three 
 others of the cotton states will follow as soon as the action of the 
 people can be had. Although there is a clog in the way of the lone- 
 star state of Texas, in the person of her governor, (Houston,) who 
 will not consent to call the legislature ; yet the public sentiment is 
 so strong that even he may be overridden ; and if he will not yield 
 to public sentiment, some Texan Brutus will arise to rid his country 
 of this hoary-headed incubus that stands between the people and 
 their sovereign will. A great many threats have been thrown out. 
 But there is to be no war. The northern states are controlled by sa- 
 gacious men, like the distinguished senator from New York, (Mr. 
 Seward.) Where public opinion and action are controlled by men of 
 common sense, who know well that they can not succeed in a war 
 against the southern states, no such attempt at coercion will be made. 
 All may not go out immediately ; but they will,, in the end, join Sonth 
 
1072 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Carolina ; and we shall, in the next twelve months, have a confed- 
 eracy of the southern states, and a government of the greatest pros- 
 perity and power that the world has ever seen. The northern states 
 can not succeed in coercing us. If they allow us to form our govern- 
 ment without difficulty, we shall he very willing to look upon them as 
 a favored nation, and give them all the advantages of commercial 
 and amicable treaties. Both of us — certainly the southern states — - 
 would live better, more happily, more prosperously, and with greater 
 friendship, than we live now in this Union. 
 
 Mr. Wigfall, of Texas, spoke at length in favor of disunion, and in 
 review of the President's message. The President says there is no 
 power in the government to keep the Union together ; and yet he 
 says he will collect the revenues in the port of Charleston even after 
 the state has seceded. 
 
 Mr. Lane. I do not understand the President to say that he will 
 collect duties after South Carolina shall secede. 
 
 Mr. Wigfall. I confess, sir, I do not understand it ; and the more 
 I read it, the less do I comprehend it. Mr. W. proceeded in his criti- 
 cisms on the message at some length. 
 
 Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, said : I rise simply to say, in the pre- 
 sence of the representatives of the different states, that my state, 
 having been the first to adopt the constitution, will be the. last to do 
 or to countenance any act tending to a separation of the states of this 
 glorious Union. She has shared too much of its blessings ; her peo- 
 ple have performed too much service in achieving the glorious liber 
 ties we enjoy, and in establishing the constitution under which we 
 live, to cause any son of hers to raise his hand against that Union. 
 When that Union shall have been destroyed by the madness and 
 folly of others, if, unfortunately, it shall be destroyed, it will be time 
 enough then for Delaware and her representatives to say what will 
 be her course. 
 
 A resolution was offered in the senate, by Mr. Powell, of Ky., to 
 refer to a committee of thirteen, that part of the President's message 
 which related to the agitated 9nd distracted condition of the country, 
 with instructions to report by bill or otherwise. After much debate, 
 the resolution was adopted, (Dec. 18th.) 
 
 Mr. Sumner, of Mass., in the course of the debate, read a letter from 
 President Jackson to Rev. A. J. Crawford, about two months after the 
 pacification of South Carolina ; the President having been placed in 
 a situation similar to that in which Mr. Buchanan now stood. The 
 object of the senator probably was to present the contrast between 
 the action of the President and that of one of his illustrious prede- 
 cessoris. 
 
SENATOR Crittenden's proposition. 1013 
 
 "Washington, May 1, 1833. 
 
 " My Dear Sir :" * * * " I have had a laborious task here, but 
 nullification is dead ; and its actors and courtiers will only be re- 
 membered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to 
 sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that 
 prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the 
 world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious 
 men, who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils 
 in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds, and 
 direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, 
 and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take 
 care of your nullifiers ; you have them among you; let tliem meet 
 with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The 
 tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext — its burden was on your 
 coarse woolens. * * * Therefore the tariff was only the pretext, 
 and disunion and a southern confederacy the real object. Thi next 
 frelext will be ike negro or slavery question." * * * * 
 
 " I will always be glad to hear from you. 
 
 "Andrew Jackson. ' 
 
 " The Rev. Andrew J. Crawford. 
 
 Numerous propositions were made in both houses, for the adjust- 
 ment of the national difficulties, by legislation and by resolutions pro- 
 posing amendments to the constitution ; only a few of which can be 
 noticed. The most prominent, perhaps, was that of Mr. Crittenden, 
 of Ky., embraced in a series of proposed amendments, the substance 
 of which is as follows : 
 
 First. In all the territories now or hereafter acquired north of 36 
 deg. 30 min., slavery was to be prohibited ; south of that latitude to 
 be recognized and not to be interfered with by congress, but to be 
 protected as property by the territorial governments. States were to 
 be admitted from all territories, with or without slavery, when 
 they should contain a population necessary for a member of 
 congress. 
 
 Second. Congress should not have power to abolish slavery in the 
 states. 
 
 Third. Congress should not abolish slavery in the District of 
 Columbia, while it exists either in Maryland or Virginia, nor prohibit 
 members of congress or officers of the government from holding slaves 
 there while in the public business. 
 
 Fourth. Congress should not hinder the transportation of slaves 
 from one state to another by land, rivers, or sea. 
 
 Fifth. Congress should have the power to pay the owner of a 
 
 68 
 
]0T4 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 fugitive slave rescued by force after his arrest : the owner to have 
 power to sue the county in which the rescue was made, and the 
 county to have power to sue the individuals committing the 
 wrong. 
 
 Sixth. No further amendments should affect the preceding articles ; 
 nor should congress ever have power to interfere with slavery in the 
 states where it is now permitted. 
 
 These proposed amendments to the constitution were followed by a 
 resolution declaring that the southern states have a right to the 
 faithful execution of the fugitive slave law, which law should not be 
 made loss efiScient, And it should not be improper for congress to 
 ask the repeal of all laws in conflict with that law, which ought to be 
 so altered as to give the commissioner the same fee when he decides 
 against, as when in favor of the claimant. 
 
 These resolutions were referred to the committee of thirteen. 
 
 Senator Johnson, of Tenn., in a speech on resolutions offered by 
 himself, proposing amendments to the constitution, took decided 
 ground against the right of secession, and in favor of the power to 
 enforce the laws in South Carolina. She could not by her ordinances 
 absolve herself from allegiance to the Union, The Federal Govern- 
 ment had a right to reestablish the courts, to carry the mails, collect 
 the revenue, and protect and recover the property of the government, 
 within that state ; and if she secedes, and attempts to drive the gov- 
 ernment from that property, she levies war, which is treason. So 
 also would be the attempt to resist the collection of the revenue, stop 
 the mails, or drive the Federal courts from her borders. Mr. John- 
 son entreated the South to pause and consider, and the North to come 
 with propositions of peace and concession ; and he exhorted all to 
 stand by the constitution and the Union. 
 
 Mr. Nicholson, of Tenn., in reply to his colleague, and especially to 
 Mr. Wade, of Ohio, held the Republican party responsible for the 
 hostile feelings of the South toward the North. He entirely acquit- 
 ted northern Democrats from all blame, and complimented them for 
 their fidelity to the interests of the South. The first fatal stab, he 
 said, was given to the Union in 1856, at Philadelphia, in constructing 
 the Republican platform. The platform of the Republican party was 
 sectionalism in its length and breadth, and largely impregnated with 
 fanaticism. He complimented Mr. Fillmore, from whose speech at 
 Albany, in 1856, he read that part in which he asked his hearers 
 whether the South would submit to the injustice of having both the 
 President and Vice-President in the North, and predicted, as a conse- 
 quence, the dissolution of the Union. The South took exception to 
 that principle in the platform which recognizes all men as being ore- 
 
DEBATE ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 1075 
 
 ated equal. Though the party do not apply the principle to the states, 
 but confine its application to places over which congress has juris- 
 diction, and concede to the people of the South the right to hold slave 
 property, a principle is avowed which fixes a stigma upon every 
 owner of a slave. Mr. N. apprehended that this principle would be 
 applied in the forts, arsenals, dock yards, in abolishing slavery in the 
 District of Columbia, in the territories, and in the case of new states 
 applying for admission, which might lead to the extinguishmcKt of 
 slavery in the states where it now exists. The South could not con- 
 sider their rights safe without constitutional guaranties recognizing 
 them as well outside as within the states. Without such guaranties, 
 the South would choose secession or revolution rather than submis- 
 sion to the domination of sectionalism. South Carolina had absolved 
 her citizens from all allegiance to the United States ; and the gov- 
 ernment could not rightfully make war upon them. 
 
 Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, addressed the senate at length in 
 reply to southern senators. A few only of the many topics discussed 
 in it can be given. Mr. D. said it was not decided by the supreme 
 court in the Dred Scott case, that the constitution, of its own force, 
 enters a territory where slavery has been abolished by the sovereign 
 power of whom we acquired it, and establishes or guaranties the 
 right to take and hold slaves there in violation of the law which had 
 abolished slavery there. A majority of the judges held that the act 
 of congress abolishing slavery in a portion of Louisiana territory was 
 void, on the ground that the constitution gives no power to legislate 
 on that subject. But they do not assert the right to take and hold 
 slaves in all the territories, including those acquired from Mexico, 
 wherein slavery had been abolished, not by congress, but by Mexico 
 before their acquisition. 
 
 Mr. D. admitted, that a majority of the judges had given their 
 opinion on the power of congress to abolish slavery in a territory, 
 and in a territory in which slavery existed at the time of its acquisi- 
 tion, by the law of France. But Justice Catron denied the power 
 upon the ground that the exercise of it was in violation of the treaty 
 with France. Judge Grier concurred in the opinion that the compro- 
 mise law of 1820 was unconstitutional and void ; but did not give his 
 reason. Judge Nelson concurred in the judgment of the court upon 
 the ground that the question had been disposed of by the law of Mis 
 souri ; that, whatever might have been the effect of the law of con- 
 gress on the territory north of 36 deg. 30 min. upon Dred Scott, on 
 his return to ^[issouri, by the law of that state and the decisions of 
 its courts, he returned to the condition of a slave. He concurred in 
 the opinion of the court, but not in that of the chief-justice Justices 
 
10T6 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 M'Lean and Curtis dissented altogether ; and it was a remarkable 
 fact, that but one judge (justice Wayne) concurred in the opinion ot 
 Judge Taney, " without any qualification of its reasonings or its con- 
 clusions," With the exception of one or two sentences in the opinion 
 of the chief-justice which may be tortured into that, there is nothing 
 in the Dred Scott case to justifj' one in saying that the constitution 
 enters the territory we have acquired from Mexico, repeals the Mexi- 
 can law against slavery, and guaranties the right to take and hold 
 slaves there. All the world knows, said Mr. D., that, by the laws of 
 nations and judicial decisions, the laws of a ceded territory remain in 
 full force until changed by the sovereign power to whom the cession 
 is made. The law of Louisiana territory, as ceded by France, was 
 the law of slavery until the passage of the act abolishing it north of 
 36 deg. 30 min., and west of Missouri. Suppose we should acquire 
 Canada ; would the constitution enter it and guaranty or establish 
 slavery in violation of existing law ? 
 
 In reference to the alarm which, it was said by Mr. Nicholson, pre- 
 vails throughout the South in respect to the ulterior designs of the 
 Republican party, Mr. D. asked, why did he not embrace in his 
 speech, which is to circulate among his constituents, the language of 
 the Republican platform, expressly denouncing interference with 
 slavery in the states ? Mr. Lincoln, too, had made similar 
 declarations. 
 
 . Mr. D. alluded to the complaint that laws had been enacted in cer- 
 tain northern states which made it difficult to reclaim fugitive slaves. 
 The senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Powell,) had said it was annoying. 
 So it was exceedingly annoying that the free negroes of Ohio and 
 Indiana could be kidnapped and carried into slavery in Kentucky or 
 elsewhere. First, in regard to the refusal of governors of the free 
 states to deliver, on the requisition of governors of slave states, fugi- 
 tives from justice charged with stealing slaves. Mr. D. cited autho- 
 rities — some of them, southern — to show that a governor is not bound 
 to deliver up a person charged with an act which was not recognized 
 as a crime in his state. He then spoke of that other cause of irrita- 
 tion, the alleged non-rendition of fugitive slaves. He admitted that 
 the states had not the power to discharge fugitives ; but he held that 
 according to a strict construction of the constitution, it belonged to 
 the states, and not to congress, to provide by law for delivering up 
 fugitives. He admitted that this was not the common opinion ; but 
 the opinion had been expressed by Daniel Webster and by Mr. Rhett, 
 of South Carolina, when members of that body. It had also been ex- 
 pressed by a majority of the supreme court of Wisconsin. Mr. Lin- 
 
 Jl 
 
SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA. lOTT 
 
 coin, he said, held to the opinion generally entertained, which gives 
 the power to congress. 
 
 In relation to the execution of the fugitive slave law, Mr. D. con- 
 tended that the number of captured slaves who had been rescued or 
 had escaped were very few. The senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) 
 had said that the annual loss of Virginia by the escape of slaves was 
 $100,000. [Of course he did not mean rescued slaves.] Mr. D. here 
 made a calculation, showing that this was but equal to about one- 
 fourth of one per cent, on the aggregate value of the slaves of that 
 state — or one-fourth of a mill on a dollar. The loss on this property 
 which was subject to a peculiar risk, growing out of the fact that it 
 had a will and a disposition to run away, was less than the risk in- 
 curred on any other species of property in the United States. But 
 what will you gain by breaking the bond of the Union which now 
 compels us to surrender your fugitives ? How much risk will you 
 then incur ? Would one per cent., five per cent., ay, sir, would 
 ten per cent, secure you against the loss from the escape of your 
 slaves ? 
 
 Mr, D. also combated the doctrine of secession ; but his argument 
 can not be here given. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXVII. 
 
 SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA. MAJOR ANDERSOn's OCCUPATION OF SUMTER. 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSIONERS AT WASHINGTON. ATTITUDE OF THE RE- 
 MAINING SLAVE STATES. DESIGNS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. PRESIDENT'S 
 
 MESSAGE, AND ACTION THEREON. 
 
 The South Carolina Convention, on the 21st of December, 1860, 
 elected three commissioners " to treat with the United States" for a 
 peaceful settlement of the relations between the United States and 
 South Carolina. On the 24th, the Declaration of the causes of seces- 
 sion was adopted. It aflSrms the Calhoun doctrine, that the general 
 government is a compact between the states ; and that when one of 
 the contracting parties fails to perform any part of the agreement, 
 the other is released from its obligation. It asserts that fifteen of the 
 states have for years deliberately refused to fulfill their constitutional 
 obligations. One of these obligations is that imposed by the fugitive 
 slave law. The reader will perhaps be surprised to learn that several 
 
1078 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 members, among whom were Mossra. Rhett and Keitt, two distin- 
 guished citizens of that state, and lately members of congress, de- 
 clared the fugitive slave law unconstitutional, and Mr. Memminger 
 confessed the question to be legally embarrassing. On the same 
 day, (December 24th,) Gov. Pickens, by proclamation, declared South 
 Carolina to be " a separate, sovereign, free, and independent state, 
 having a right to levy war, conclude peace, negotiate treaties," &c. 
 
 The intelligence of the passage of the secession ordinance of this 
 state, on the 21st, caused great rejoicing throughout a large portion 
 of the South, which was manifested by the firing of guns, the display- 
 ing of flags, the ringing of bells, by processions, bonfires, illumina' 
 tions, speeches, and other demonstrations. When the announcement 
 was made in congress, except the clapping of the hands by a few 
 southern members, little notice was taken of it. The two remaining 
 members of the house from that state now retired, leaving the state 
 without a representative. At the North, the news was received more 
 calmly ; the excitement being confined chiefly to those who had acted 
 politically with the South. Numerous public meetings were held by 
 this class of citizens in several of the northei'n states, and resolutions 
 passed against any coercive m.easures on the part of the general gov- 
 ernment against any seceding state. 
 
 A remarkable fact in the history of the Rebellion is, that southern 
 members of congress and of the cabinet, remained in their seats while 
 engaged in the conspiracy, and under the obligation of their official 
 oaths to support the constitution ! Under the pretext of greater 
 safet}', the arsenal at Charleston had been, early in December, put in 
 the care of the governor of the state. There had been placed in the 
 arsenal the quotas of muskets to be assigned to several of the south- 
 ern states ; by which means about 70,000 stand of arms had been 
 got into the hands of the conspirators themselves. This is but one 
 of numerous acts showing the complicity of secretary Floyd in the 
 treason. Mr. Cobb, secretary of the treasury, resigned the 10th of 
 December, for the alleged reason, of a " difference with the Presi- 
 dent's views ;" but really, as some supposed, because he found him- 
 self unable to relieve the treasury from its embarrassed condition. 
 He was soon found united with the leaders of secession in his state, 
 (Georgia.) Mr. Thomas, of Maryland, was soon after Mr. Cobb's re- 
 tirement appointed in his place, Mr. Toucey, secretary of the navy, 
 having in the mean time performed the duties of the treasury 
 department. 
 
 Mr. Cass, secretary of state, on the 14th, resigned his seat in the 
 cabinet. The President had, in a cabinet meeting, on the preceding 
 evening, opposed the reenforcement of Fort Moultrie, in Chai'leston 
 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE OF THIRTY-THREE. 10*19 
 
 harbor, saying that he had assurances that the fort would not be 
 attacked if no re6nforcenients were attempted. Messrs. Cass and 
 Toucey, it was said, were both in favor of fully strengthening Major 
 Anderson. The unwillingness on the part of the President to resort, 
 in any case, to coercion, even to protect the public property, is 
 generally understood to have been the cause of Mr. Cass's re- 
 signation. 
 
 Mr. Thompson, secretary of the interior, while in oflSce, visited 
 North Carolina to induce the legislature of that state to join in the 
 secession movement. Being a citizen of Mississippi, he had been 
 appointed by the state authority as a commissioner for this purpose. 
 
 In the latter part of December, a considerable excitement was pro- 
 duced by an order from the war department to ship from tl]e arsenal 
 at Pittsburgh 78 guns to Newport, Texas, and 46 guns to Ship Island, 
 near the mouth of the Mississippi river. As the fortresses at these 
 places were unfinished, it was apprehended that the guns were in- 
 tended for the secessionists. The fact was immediately communi' 
 cated to Washington. It was said that leading Democrats tele- 
 graphed to the President, requesting him to have the order counter- 
 manded ; that the people would prevent the removal of the guns ; 
 and that a movement was in progress for a public meeting. A very 
 large meeting was held, and among the resolutions ado'pted was one 
 which deprecated any interference with the shipment of arms under 
 government orders. Another advised the President to see that the 
 public receive no detriment at his hands. Also, it behooved him to 
 dismiss from his cabinet all who countenanced the revolt of any state 
 against the constitution and laws of the Union. 
 
 The making and discussing of propositions to settle the national 
 difficulties continued in both houses, and in the special committees. 
 Mr. Rusk, of Ark., in the house committee of thirty-three, proposed, 
 as the least that would satisfy the South, the extension of the Mis- 
 souri compromi.se line to the Pacific, slavery to be recognized and 
 protected south of it. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Md., in the same committee, proposed, that the several 
 states be requested to cause a revision of their laws to ascertain 
 whether any of them were in conflict with, or tended to hinder the 
 execution of the fugitive slave law ; and if so, to repeal the same. 
 This resolution was unanimously adopted by the committee. The 
 " Liberty Bills" of northern states were, after a careful examination by 
 the committee, confessed by southern members, as was said, to be 
 less objectionable than they had been represented to be. It was 
 stated by Mr. Adams, of Mass., in committee, as the sentiment of the 
 Republicans, that they could not con.-;ent to any proposition requiring 
 
1080 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the protection of slavery in the territories, or to au amendment of the 
 constitution recognizing- it. 
 
 In the senate committee of thirteen, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, stated 
 that the Republicans, having done nothing unconfctitutionally, not 
 having been in power, had no compromises to make. Mr. Lincoln 
 had been elected according to the constitution, and ought to have the 
 same chance as others had had to develop his policy. The assump- 
 tion that the Republicans were going to do wrong, was an insult, and 
 came with bad grace from a party that had wrought mischief to the 
 country. 
 
 Mr. Douglas was ready to unite in recommending such amendments 
 to the constitution as would take the slavery question out of congress. 
 In view of the dangers of disunion, revolution, and civil war, he 
 was prepared to act without regard to his previous action. 
 
 Mr. Crittenden hoped that, at least, nothing might result from the 
 acts of the committee that savored of a disinclination to adjust differ- 
 ences, and thus to court the calamities of disunion. 
 
 Those of the committee opposed to the Republicans were in favor 
 of a dividing line between free and slave territory, with a view to the 
 taking of the question of slavery out of congress, and of separating 
 it from the popular elections in the North, as essential to permanent 
 peace. The Republicans, regarding the elections as having decided 
 the question of slavery in the territories, had no concessions to make 
 or to offer. Some of the propositions received the votes of a major- 
 ity of the committee ; but a rule having been adopted, that no propo- 
 sition should be considered as adopted, and be recommended to the 
 senate, which had not received the votes of a majority of the Repub- 
 licans, and of a majority of those opposed to them, tiie resolutions 
 were all lost. 
 
 Resolutions were subsequently offered by several southern senators, 
 recognizing property in slaves, and indorsing the leading principles 
 of the platform of the supporters of Breckenridge ; but no decisive 
 action was taken on them. 
 
 Mr. Seward, in the committee of thirteen, submitted the following 
 propositiuns : 
 
 " First. No amendment shall be made to the constitution which 
 will authorize, or give to congress any power to abolish or interfere, 
 in any state, with the domestic institutions theVeof, including that of 
 persons held to service or labor by the laws of such state. 
 
 " Second. The fugitive slave law of 1850 shall be so amended as 
 to secure to the alleged fugitive a trial by jury." 
 
 The first proposition was carried, 11 to 2. The nays were Davis 
 and Toombs, two ultra southern men. The second was lost : In the 
 
MAJOR ANDERSONS OCCUPATION OF SUMTER. 1081 
 
 affirmative, 5 Republicans and Mr. Crittenden : In the negative, 7, 
 all Democrats, of whom Douglas, Bigler, and Rice were from free 
 states. 
 
 Mr. Davis offered a resolution, proposing an amendment to 
 the constitution which should recognize and protect property in 
 slaves ; which resolution, with others offered by Mr. Toombs, was 
 rejected. 
 
 Mr. Seward, on behalf of the Republican members, offered the 
 following : 
 
 " Resolved, That under the fourth section of the fourth article of the 
 constitution, congress should pass an efficient law for the punishment 
 of all persons engaged in the armed invasion of any state from 
 another by combinations of individuals, and punishing all persons in 
 complicity therewith, on trial and conviction in the state or dis- 
 trict where their acts of complicity were committed in the Federal 
 courts." 
 
 This resolution also was voted down. 
 
 The people of the North had for some time entertained serious ap- 
 prehensions for the safety of Major Anderson and his men in Fort 
 Moultrie. His garrison consisted of only sixty effective men, and the 
 fort was an indifferent and insecure one. Unsuspected by the South 
 Carolina authorities, and without the knowledge of the President, and 
 having moreover been denied reenforceraents, on the night of the 
 26th of December, he left Fort Moultrie and occupied Fort Sumter, 
 which had been prepared for him. 
 
 The evacuation of Fort Moultrie was equally a matter of surprise to 
 the South Carolinians ^nd to the President : to the former, because 
 they considered the President under a pledge to prevent such a move- 
 ment ; to the latter, because he had instructed Major Anderson to 
 preserve a course which should guard against a collision of the troops 
 with the people of that state. And he had enjoined him " not to take 
 up, without necessity, any position which could be construed into the 
 assumption of a liostile attitude ; but to hold possession of the forts 
 in the harbor, and if attacked, to defend himself to the last extremity." 
 An attack on, or an attempt to take possession of either of the forts, 
 would be regarded as an act of hostility, and he might then put his 
 command into cither of them. And he was authorized to take similar 
 steps whenever he should " have tangible evidence of a design to 
 proceed to a hostile act." 
 
 From the feelings and expressions of the people in and about 
 Cliaikston, and from the preparations for military movements, Major 
 Anderson had reason to expect either an attack in an almost defence- 
 less fort, or an early occupation of Fort Sumter. Should the latter 
 
1082 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 take place, he could not maintain his position for a single day. And 
 having- no expectation of regnforcemeuts, he regarded it his duty to 
 change his position ; and the act had received the approval of every 
 true loyalist in the country. 
 
 This movement, however, was construed into a threat of coercion, 
 and was immediately followed by active and eflfective preparations 
 for resistance. The three commissioners sent to Washington to treat 
 with the government, and who had arrived there on the 26th, were 
 forthwith instructed to demand of the President the unconditional 
 evacuation of the forts in the harbor in case of his refusal to order 
 Major Anderson back to Fort Moultrie. The post-cflSce and the tele- 
 graph offices were taken under control by the state autliorities, and 
 possession was taken of the custom-house and of Fort Moultrie and 
 Castle Pinckney by the state troops, who were readily supplied with 
 the arms and munitions which Secretary Floyd had placed in the 
 arsenal there. 
 
 The news from Charleston reached Washington before any commu- 
 nication had been received by the President from the South Carolina 
 commissioners. With their first letter, dated the 28th December, and 
 sent in the next day, they transmitted their letter of credit, which 
 authorized them " to treat with the government for the delivery of 
 the fijrts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate, within the 
 limits of South Carolina, and for an apportionment of the public debt, 
 division of property," &c., &c. They furnished him a copy of the or- 
 dinance of secession by which the state had " resumed the powers she 
 delegated to the government of the United States, and declared her 
 perl'ect sovereignty and independence." They had hoped also to in- 
 form him that they " were prepared to enter upon the negotiation 
 "with the earnest desire so to inaugurate their new relations as to se- 
 cure mutual respect, general advantage, and a future of good will 
 and harmony beneficial to all the parties concerned. But the 
 events of the past twenty-four hours render such an assurance im- 
 possible." 
 
 Tiie commissioners say the authority of their state could at any 
 time within the past sixt}' daj's have taken possession of the forts in 
 Charleston harbor, but upon the pledges given, it liad determined to 
 trust to his honor rather than to its own power. Since their arrival, 
 an (jlHcer of the United States had, against his orders, dismantled 
 one fort and occupied another, thus altering the condition of affairs 
 under which they came. Until this matter should be satisfactorily 
 explained, they were forced to suspend all discussion as to any mea- 
 sures of adjustment. They also urged the immediate withdrawal of 
 
SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSIONERS AT WASHINGTON. 1083 
 
 the troops from the harbor of Charleston. Under present circumstan- 
 ces, they were a standing menace rendering negotiation impossible. 
 
 The President, in reply, (Dec. 30,) disclaimed authority to decide 
 what should be the relations between the Federal Government and 
 South Carolina, much less to acknowledge the independence of 
 that state. This would be to exercise the power of recognizing the 
 dissolution of the Confederacy of the thirty-three states. He could 
 onlj' meet them as private gentlemen of the highest character, and 
 would communicate to congress any proposition they might have to 
 make to that body. 
 
 Respecting the alleged pledges, the President cites his message of 
 December 3, in which he asserts the right of congress "to exercise 
 exclusive legislation" over the property purchased for the erection of 
 forts, arsenals, dock-3'ards, &c., and in which he expressed the belief 
 that no attempt would be made to expel the United States from this 
 property by force ; but if he should prove to be mistaken, the oflScer 
 in command had orders to act strictly on the defensive : then the 
 responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads 
 of the assailants. On the 8th of December, four of the representatives 
 from South Carolina called upon him, with whom he had conversation 
 on the subject of the forts and the best means of preventing a col- 
 lision. He suggested that it would be best to put in writing what 
 they had said ; which they did on Monday morning, the 10th. In this 
 paper they expressed their strong convictions, that the forts would 
 not be attacked or molested previously to the act of the convention, 
 and they believed not until an offer had been made through an ao- 
 creiited representative* to negotiate for an amicable adjustment, 
 provided, tliat, no reenforcements shall be sent into those forts, and 
 their relative military sta'us shall remain as at present." 
 
 The President says he objected to the word " provided," as it might 
 be construed into an agreement, on his part, which he would never 
 make. Tiiey said they did not so consider it. They did not profess 
 to have authority to enter into an agreement, and were acting in their 
 individual character. He considered it as merely the promise of 
 honorable gentlemen to exert their influence for the purpose expressed. 
 He had not sent reenforcements to the forts, nor authorized any 
 change " in their relative military status." Major Anderson had 
 acted upon his own responsibility, and without authority, unl^^ss he 
 had "tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act on the 
 part of South Carolina, which had not yet been alleged. Still he is 
 a brave and honorable officer, and should not be condemned without 
 a fair hearing." 
 
 He (the President,) said his first promptings were to command him 
 
1084 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to return to his former position, and await the coiiting-encies present- 
 ed in his instructions. This could only have been done with safety 
 to tlie command, by the concurrence of the sta.te authorities. But 
 before any step could be taken in this direction, information was re- 
 ceived that the " Palmetto flag floated out to the breeze at Castle 
 Pinckney, and a large military force went over last night (the 2'Ith) 
 to Fort Moultrie." 
 
 Mr Buchanan also alluded to the seizure of the custom-house, post- 
 office, the resignation of the officers of the customs, and the Palmetto 
 flag over two of the three forts, and said : " It is under all these cir- 
 cumstances that I am urged to withdraw the troops from the harbor 
 of Charleston, and am informed that without this, negotiation is impos- 
 sible. This I can not do ; this I will not do. Such an idea was 
 never thought of by me in any possible contingency. * * * At 
 this point of writing, I have received information by telegraph from 
 Capt. Humphreys, in command of the arsenal at Charleston, that ' it 
 has to-day (Sunday, the 30th,) been taken by force of arms.' It is 
 estimated that the munitions of war belonging to this arsenal are 
 worth half a million of dollar?. * * # l have only to add, that 
 wiiilst it is my duty to defend Fort Sumter as a portion of the public 
 propiM'ty against hostile attacks, by such means as I possess, I do not 
 perceive how such a defense can be construed into a menace against 
 the city of Charleston." 
 
 The commissioners rejoined at great length. The reply was of a 
 strongly personal character ; and being highly ofiensive, the Presi- 
 dent refused to receive it. 
 
 In the senate, on the 31st of December, Mr. Powell, of the commit- 
 tee of thirteen, i^eported that no plan of adjustment had been agreed 
 up(m ; and at the request of Mr. Crittenden, a day was set apart for 
 the consideration of his joint resolution. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin, of Louisiana, maintained the right of secession, and 
 quoted from Webster, Madison, and John Quincy Adams, in support 
 of his doctrine. He denounced with great vehemence the Republi- 
 cans for denying that the slaves of the South, of the value of $4,000, 
 000,000, were entitled to protection as property in the territories. 
 Near the close of his speech, he said : " Our committee has reported 
 that no feasible scheme of adjustment can be devised. The day of 
 adjustment has passed. If 3'ou propose to make one now, you are too 
 late. And now, senators, within a very few weeks we part, to meet 
 again in one common council chamber of the nation, no more forever. 
 We desire, we beseech you, to let this parting be in peace. I con- 
 jure you to indulge in no vain delusion, that duty, or conscience, or 
 interest, or honor, imposes upon you the necessity of invading oar 
 
 
DEBATE ON THE SLATERT QUESTION. 1085 
 
 states, and shedding- the blood of our people. You have no possible 
 justification for it." He concluded by saying : " You never can sub- 
 jugate us ; you never can convert the free sons of the soil into vas- 
 sals, paying tribute to your power ; you never can degrade them to 
 a servile and inferior race ; never, never, never." 
 
 Mr. Baker, a new senator from Oregon, on the 2d of January, re- 
 plied to Mr. Benjamin. His speech has been pronounced one of the 
 ablest and most eloquent of the session. He denied that the consti- 
 tution was simply a compact between sovereign states. The senator 
 from Louisiana had quoted detached opinions and extracts from 
 Madison and others. Mr. Baker read the express declarations of 
 these statesmen against the right of secession. He said the senator, 
 in quoting from the address of Mr. Adams, had left out that part in 
 which he said that nullification was an idea too absurd for argument, 
 and too odious for discussion, and the right of a state to secede 
 equally absurd. Instead of the doctrine that the constitution was a 
 compact between the states, Jackson, Webster, Madison, and Adams, 
 all united in the proposition that this was a government made by t^ie 
 fcople of the United States. 
 
 Mr. B also answered the complaints of southern gentlemen of the 
 disregard of the fugitive slave law — of the personal liberty bills, &c. 
 Mr. Lincoln was in favor of a fugitive slave law. If states have 
 passed laws in violation of it, or defeating it, they ought to be re- 
 pealed. But there was great doubt whether they were unconstitu- 
 tional. Some of them were made before the fugitive slave law was 
 passed ; and were said to have been intended to secure personal 
 liberty independent of any question as to such a law. He quoted 
 from Buchanan in 1845, from Clay in 1850, and from Cass in 1854, 
 against the right to take slaves into territories : also from senator 
 Hunter, of Virginia, the admission that the opinion of the South in 
 regard to slavery had changed. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin, interrupting Mr, Baker, admitted, in the course of 
 his remarks, that he did not complain of congress, but of the states ; 
 and said it was cause for dissolution that the Republican party in- 
 tended to surround the slave states with free states, and thus force 
 emancipation. 
 
 Mr. Baker said it was a necessity for slavery in America to bo 
 circumscribed by free states to the North and West. If the institu- 
 tion was guarantied the right of extension, it would be against the 
 sentiment of a majority of the American people, and against the sen- 
 timent of the world. In answer to the question of Mr. Benjamin 
 how he would collect the revenue, he quoted the ordinance of Gen. 
 
1086 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 Jackson in regard to the collection of the revenue when South Caro- 
 lina before revolted. 
 
 Mr. Doug-las said that all agitation on the subject of slavery fol- 
 lowed its introduction into congress for legislation. It was the 
 object of compromises to keep the question out of congress ; while 
 that was done, there was peace. The result of the recent election 
 had brought the South face to face with an issue which was driving 
 it from the Union. The Republican party had in view the ultimate 
 extinction of slavery, not only in the territories, but in the states 
 This was to be done by surrounding the slave states with abolition 
 states, and force them to die of starvation. " Who are disunionists V 
 he asked. " Those who pursue a line of policy calculated to destroy 
 the Union, and refuse to arrest that policy, or disavow that purpose, 
 when they see that revolution has taken place. If such be not your 
 policy, why not say so ? . , . What harm is there in making 
 such amendments to the constitution as will render it impossible for 
 you to do so ?" 
 
 -^Ir. D. said he was for enforcing the laws to put down rebellion. 
 This must be done by civil authority, assisted by the militia as a 
 posse comitatus, when the marshal is resisted. How could this be done 
 in South Carolina ? She had passed an ordinance. He denied her 
 right to secede, but she had done it. The revolution was complete. 
 He denied the right to make war in order to regain possession, in 
 order to enforce the laws. He would not tolerate the idea of war 
 until every effort at adjustment had failed. He was for peace to save 
 the Union. Said he, " War is disunion, certain, inevitable, final, and 
 irreversible." He preferred comprom.ise to disunion. No compro- 
 mise would avail which did not carry the question of slavery beyond 
 congress. He had voted for the proposition of the senator from Ken- 
 tucky, and was ready to vote for it again. Why could not the Re- 
 publicans unite on the Missouri Compromise line ? If they do not 
 intend to interfere with slavery in the states, why not put an amend- 
 ment in the constitution so that they can not do it ? He would not 
 go to war for a political platform. He feared if this country was 
 to be wrecked, it would be done by those who preferred party to 
 their country, 
 
 Mr. Crittenden proposed to refer the question of settlement dired 
 to the people, and introduced a resolution declaring, " That provision 
 be made by law, without delay, for taking the sense of the people, 
 and submitting to them the following resolution : [His former reso- 
 lution embracing his proposed amendments.] He said something 
 must be done to avert the impending calamity. Congress would be 
 
ATTITUDE OF THE REMAINING SLAVE STATES. 108T 
 
 covered with shame if it did not offer to the country some remedy for 
 the present crisis. 
 
 The legislatures of the northern states, at their meetings in Janu- 
 ary, gave decided expressions of resistance to the revolutionary 
 scheme. Nor were the border slave states ready to give it their 
 sanction. Governor Hicks, of Maryland, in an address to the citizens 
 of the state, giving his reasons against convening the legislature, 
 said : " The people of Maryland, if left to themselves, would decide, 
 with scarely an exception, that there is nothing in the present causes 
 of complaint to justify immediate secession ; and yet, against our 
 own judgments and solemn convictions of duty, we are to be precipi- 
 tated into this revolution, because South Carolina thinks differently* 
 The men who have embarked in this scheme to convene the legisla- 
 ture, will spare no pains to carry their point ; and the resolutions 
 which the}' hope will be passed, fully committing this state to seces- 
 sion, are said to be already prepared." 
 
 Governor Letcher, of Virginia, in his message to the legislature, 
 met in extra session, opposed immediate secession, and proposed that 
 all constitutional remedies be first exhausted. A majority of the 
 legislature appeared to be differently disposed, and if the question of 
 secession had been submitted to that body, it is believed that an 
 ordinance to that effect would have been immediately passed. 
 
 The governor of Tennessee recommended that the question of call- 
 ing a convention be submitted to the people. Present evils, he 
 thought, could be remedied only by constitutional amendments. The 
 state must maintain her equality in the Union, or her independence 
 out of it ; and he recommended the organization of the militia and 
 the purchase of arms. 
 
 Governor Stewart, in his retiring message to the legislature, said : 
 " Missouri will hold to the Urion so long as it is worth the effort to 
 preserve it. She can not be frightened by the past unfriendly legis- 
 lation of the North, nor dragooned into secession by the restrictive 
 legislation of the extreme South." His successor, Jackson, however, 
 manifested a disposition to favor the secoBsion scheme, and advised 
 the calling of a state convention. 
 
 The legislature of Delaware was addressed by a commissioner from 
 Mississippi, (Mr, Thompson, secretary of the interior, whose mission 
 has been mentioned ;) but his proposition was followed by the pas- 
 sage of a resolution of the legislature, expressing their " unqualified 
 disapproval of the remedy for the existing difficulties suggested by 
 the resolutions of the legislature of Mississippi." 
 
 South Carolina continued the work of reorganizing her state gov- 
 ernment, and the prosecution of measures to form a confederacy. 
 
1088 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Commissioners were appointed to visit the several states for the piir- 
 pose of quickening their action. 
 
 The President, on the 2d of January, nominated to the senate Wm. 
 Mclntyre, of Philadelphia, for collector of revenue for the port and 
 vicinity of Charleston ; thus evincing' a purpose to compel South 
 Carolina to submit to the collection of duties. But the southern mem- 
 bers, with the aid of some of the northern Democrats, successfully 
 resisted the appointment. By adjournments and other expedients, 
 direct action upon the nomination was evaded. 
 
 No proposition before the committee of thirty-three being likely to 
 be adopted, a caucus was held, composed of one member of congress 
 from each border state, (slave and free,) to consider propositions of 
 compromise and adjustment. 
 
 In the house, a proposition by Mr. Millson, of Va., to extend the 
 Missouri compromise line, was rejected. The border state committee 
 agreed to report these propositions : To repeal all personal liberty 
 bills ; to amend the fugitive slave law for the preventing of kidnap- 
 ping ; congress not to abolish slavery in southern dock-yards, arsen- 
 als, &c., nor in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Mary- 
 land and the inhabitants of the District, nor without compensation ; 
 nor to interfere with the inter-state slave trade ; a perpetual prohi- 
 bition of the African slave trade ; and running the line of 36 deg. 30 
 min. through all existing territory, prohibiting slavery north of it, 
 and south of it neither congress nor territorial legislatures to prohibit 
 it ; but states containing 60,000 square miles and sufficient popula- 
 tion for a member of congress, to be admitted with or without slavery 
 as their constitutions might determine. This, it was hoped, was 
 sufficiently southern to satisfy the members from that section of the 
 Union ; but as the existence of slavery south of the line was left to 
 depend upon the will of the people, it failed to secure their concur- 
 rence. It was now, if it had not been before, evident that no compro- 
 mise was desired ; and that they were bent on revolution. 
 
 A general caucus of Republican members was called to consider 
 the seventh section, which proposed to extend the compromise line. 
 The expression against compromise was so general, that the caucus 
 adjourned sine die, without taking a vote on any of the propositions. 
 The Republicans resolved to stand by the constitution as it is, and 
 abide the result. It was believed that a majority would have sus- 
 tained the extension of the old line as a final settlement, had it not 
 required the recognition and protection of slavery south of it, 
 either in the present territory, or in that which might be hereafter 
 acquired. 
 
 Early in January, suspicions were entertained of a design to seize 
 
DESIGNS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. 1089 
 
 the government property at Washington. It was extensively be- 
 lieved, that the purpose of the revolutionists was only thwarted by 
 the discreet management of Gen. Scott and Secretary Holt, in the dis- 
 position of the small military force at their command. It was evident 
 from the rapidity with which the seceding states brought their forces 
 into the field, and the filling of southern arsenals with arms and munitions, 
 that the leaders had for some time been secretly maturing their plan. 
 
 These suspicions were confirmed by a communication in the Na- 
 tional Intelligencer, from a distinguished citizen of the south, form- 
 erly a representative in congress, who charged, that a caucus had 
 been held by the southern secession senators, who had resolved to 
 assume the control of the movement, and " had telegraphed to com- 
 plete the plan of seizing the forts, arsenals, and custom-houses, and 
 advised the passing of ordinances of immediate secession; but, in 
 order to thwart any operations of the government 'here, (at Washing- 
 ton,) the conventions of the seceding states are to retain their repre- 
 sentatives in the senate and the house. * * * Senators intrusted 
 with the representative sovereignty of the states, and sworn to sup- 
 port the constitution of the United States, while yet acting as privy 
 counselors of the President, . . . deliberately conceive a 
 conspiracy for the overthrow of the government through the military 
 organizations, the dangerous secret order of the Knights of the 
 Golden Circle, 'Committees of Safety,' Southern Leagues, and other 
 agencies at their command. They have instituted as thorough a 
 military and civil despotism as ever cursed a maddened country." 
 
 Subsequent events have proved the correctness of this writer. 
 Among the papers found at the taking of Fernandina, Florida, by the 
 Union forces, was the following letter from senator Yulee, of Florida, 
 giving the result of the caucus referred to, held on the evening of the 
 6th of January : 
 
 Washington, January 7, 1861. 
 
 " My Dear Sir : — On the other side is a copy of resolutions adopted 
 at a consultation of the senators from the seceding states, in which 
 Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, and 
 Florida were present. 
 
 " The idea of the meeting was that the states should go out at 
 once, and provide for the early organization of a Confederate Govern- 
 ment, not later than the 15th of February. This time is allowed to 
 enable Louisiana and Texas to participate. It seemed to be the 
 opinion that if we left here, force, loan, and volunteer bills might be 
 passed, which would put Mr. Lincoln in immediate condition for hos- 
 tilities — whereas by remaining in our places until the 4th of March, 
 69 
 
1090 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 it is thought we can keep the hands of Mr. Buchanan tied, and dis- 
 able the Republicans from effecting any legislation which will 
 strengthen the hands of the incoming administration. 
 
 " The resolutions will be sent by the delegation to the president of 
 the convention. I have not been able to find Mr. Mallory this 
 morning. Hawkins [the member from Florida] is in Connecticut. 
 I have therefore thought it best to send you this copy of the resolu- 
 tions. In haste, 
 
 " Yours truly, D. L. Yulee. 
 
 "Joseph Finegan, Esq., (Sovereignty Conference, ) Tallahassee, Fla." 
 
 The resolutions referred to in this letter read as follows : 
 
 ^^ Resolved, 1. That in our opinion, each of the southern states 
 should, as soon as may be, secede from the Union. 
 
 " Resolved, 2. That provision should be made for a convention to 
 organize a Confederacy of the seceding states, the Confederacy to 
 meet no later than the 15th of February, at the city of Montgomeiy, 
 in the state of Alabama. 
 
 " Resolved, That in view of the hostile legislation that is threatened 
 against the seceding states, and which may be consummated before the 4th 
 <&i March, we ask instructions whether the delegations are to remain 
 in congi'ess until that date, for the purpose of defeating such legislation. 
 
 " Resolved, That a committee be and are hereby appointed, consist- 
 ing of Messrs. Davis, Slidell, and Mallory, to carry out the objects of 
 this meeting." 
 
 On the 7th of January, Mr. Crittenden addressed the senate on his 
 resolutions for referring his compromise to the people. He appealed 
 earnestly to northern men " to grant equal rights to all." He did 
 not think he was asking them to make concessions, but only to grant 
 equal rights. He denounced secession as a lawless violation of the 
 constitution. A constitutional right to break the constitution was a 
 new doctrine. 
 
 Mr. Toombs, of Geo., followed. He said the success of the Aboli- 
 tionists had produced its logical result already. They had for long 
 years been sowing dragons' teeth, and had finally got a crop of armed 
 men. The Union, sir, is dissolved. He demanded that the people of 
 the south should be protected in their property in the tenitories till 
 they should become states. Second, that the states should . be left 
 free to control or protect slavery in their own limits. Third, that 
 persons committing crimes against slave property in one state, should 
 be delivered up by another state to which they may have fled. The 
 next demand was that fugitive slaves be surrendered according to 
 
president's message and action thekeon. 1091 
 
 the act of 1850. The next, that no state pass any law intended to 
 disturb the peacei and tranquillity of any other state. He alluded, 
 with evident approval, to Mr. Douglas's bill at the preceding session 
 to prevent invasion, which Mr. Lincoln in his speech in New York, 
 had called a sedition bill. Mr. Toombs spoke in a very defiant tone. 
 The south were willing "to defend their rights with the halter 
 around their necks, and to meet these Black Republicans, their myr- 
 midons and allies whenever they choose to come on." 
 
 In the house, a resolution was introduced by Mr. Adrian, of N. J., 
 approving the bold and patriotic act of Maj. Anderson in withdraw- 
 ing from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, and the determination of the 
 President to maintain him in his present condition, and pledging the 
 house to support the President in all constitutional measures to en- 
 force the laws and preserve the Union. This resolution was adopted, 
 124 to 56. 
 
 Mr. Etheridge, of Tenn., asked leave to introduce resolutions em- 
 bracing substantially the propositions agreed to by the border state 
 committee ; but he did not succeed. 
 
 On the 8th of January, the President, by message, transmitted to 
 both houses the correspondence with the South Carolina commission- 
 ers. The reading having been completed, Mr. Davis, senator from 
 Mississippi, said; "I feel now, even more than before, pity for the 
 chief executive of the United States. Fallen, indeed, is that execu- 
 tive, who so lately was borne into that high office which he holds, 
 upon the shoulders of the democracy of the land, when he comes down 
 to depend upon the senators from New York for protection." 
 
 The President repeated some of the opinions expressed in his an- 
 nual message, viz., that no state had a right to secede ; that neither 
 he nor congress had a right to make aggressive war upon a state ; 
 but they might use military force defensively against those who re- 
 sist the Federal officers in the execution of their legal functions, and 
 against those who assail the property of the Federal Government. 
 The secession movement, he said, was based upon the misapprehen- 
 sion, at the south, of the sentiments of the majority in several of the 
 northern states. He wished that the peoplq. North and South, coukl 
 have an opportunity for reflection. Time was a great conservative 
 power. " Would that South Carolina had been convinced of this 
 ti'uth before her precipitate action. I therefore appeal through you to 
 the people of the country to declare in their might, that the Union 
 must and shall be preserved by all constitutional means. I most 
 earnestly recommend that you devote yourselves to the question how 
 this can be accomplished in peace." 
 
 The President regarded the seizure of the forts, arsenals, and mag- 
 
1092 THE AMERICAN STATEaMAN. 
 
 azines as the most serious step which had been taken. This public 
 property had long been left without garrisons and troops, because no 
 one doubted its security under the flag of the country in any state of 
 the Union. 
 
 In the house, Mr. Howard, of Mich., moved that the message be re- 
 ferred to a special committee of five, with instructions to inquire 
 whether any executive officers of the United States had been or were 
 now treating or holding communication with any person or persons 
 for the transfer of any forts and other property, or whether they were 
 otherwise rendering service to the secessionists. After a decided 
 opposition, principally from southern members, the resolution was 
 adopted, 133 to 6^. The committee was further instructed to inquire 
 whether arms had recently been removed from Harper's Ferry, to 
 Pittsburgh ; and if so, by whose authority and for what reason. 
 
 In the senate, Mr. Crittenden's resolutions being under consider- 
 ation, Mr. Trumbull moved an amendment approving the conduct of 
 Major Anderson, and of the determination of the President to main- 
 tain him in his present condition, and pledging support to him in the 
 enforcement of the laws. 
 
 Mr. Hunter, of Va., addressed the senate on the state of the country. 
 He expressed the opinion that the South must obtain concessions, or 
 she would withdraw from the Union. He enumerated her demands, 
 which were similar to those which had been presented by other south- 
 ern members. Among the amendments to the constitution which he 
 suggested, was the singular project of Mr. Calhoun already alluded 
 to — a double executive, with some modification of that plan. Seces- 
 sion was rendered certain, and there was no constitutional power to 
 coerce a state. War, if it should ensue, would be chargeable to the 
 Republicans. He said : " I ask if the Republicans are willing to add 
 civil war to the long catalogue of enormities for which they have to 
 answer hereafter ? Is it not enough that they have marched into 
 power over the ruins of the constitution ? Is it not enough that they 
 have seized this government at the expense of the Union ? Will it 
 not satisfy them unless they add civil war? * * * How will 
 they settle with their own consciences ? How will they settle with 
 humanity for having crushed the highest capacity for usefulness, pro- 
 gress to development, that was ever bestowed on man? Sir, what 
 judgment will posterity pronounce upon them for their unhallowed 
 ambition ? Will it not say, ' You found peace, and established war ; 
 you found an empire and a Union, and you rent them into frag- 
 ments ? ' And more awful still, what account will they render at the 
 bar of Heaven ? " Mr. Hunter closed with an eloquent appeal in favor 
 of conciliation. 
 
MR. SEWARD S SPEECH. 1093 
 
 Mr. Seward, from whom a speech had been expected, spoke the next 
 day after Mr. Hunter. As public opinion had designated Mr. Seward 
 as the secretary of state of Mr. Lincoln's administration, the expres- 
 sion of his views had been awaited with much interest. He was 
 aware how difficult it was, amid so many and so various counsels, to 
 decide what ought to, or what could be done. He declared his ad- 
 herence to the Union in its integrity, with all its parts, with his 
 friends, with his party, with his state, with his country ; or without 
 either as they might determine, in every event, whether of peace or 
 of war, with every consequence of honor or dishonor, of life or of 
 death. 
 
 Mr. S. said it was easy to say what would not save the Union. 
 Among the things which would not save the Union, he mentioned 
 mere eulogiums, mutual criminations, debating on the power of con- 
 gress over slavery in the territories, proving secession illegal and 
 unconstitutional, proAdng the right of the Federal Government to 
 coerce a seceding state to obedience : — by none or all of these could 
 the Union be saved. All must give place to the practical question: 
 Have many seceding states the right to coerce the remaining mem- 
 bers to acquiesce in a dissolution ? Nor did he think congressional 
 compromises, as such, calculated to save the Union. He showed that 
 the Union was essential to the prosperity and development of the 
 nation ; that, divided, the people could not be prosperous and happy ; 
 nor would permanent peace be likely to be maintained. 
 
 Mr. S. considered as one of the causes of the attempt to dissolve 
 the Union, the hope of more favorable " recombinations of the states 
 when dissevered, and the feasible alliances with European nations" 
 — alliances unnatural, and which would prove ultimately pestilential 
 to society. Secondly : The disunion movement had arisen partly out 
 of a dispute over the common domain of the United States. The 
 Union had confined this controversy within the bounds of political 
 debate, by referring it, with all the national ones, to the decision of 
 the ballot-box. Did any one suppose that disunion would transfer the 
 whole domain to either party, or that any other umpire than war 
 would, after dissolution^ be invoked ? Thirdly : This movement had 
 arisen out of the relation of African slaves to the domestic population 
 of the country. " Freedom," said Mr. S., " is to them, as to all man 
 Mnd, the chief object of desire. Hitherto, under the operation of the 
 Union, they have practically remained ignorant of the controversy, 
 (especially of its bearing on themselves. Can we hope that flagrant 
 civil war shall rage among ourselves in their very presence, and yet 
 they will remain stupid and idle spectators? Does history furnish 
 us any satisfactory instruction upon the horrors of civil war among 
 
1094 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 a people so brave, so skilled in arms, so earnest in Conviction, as we 
 are? Is it a mere chimera which suggests an aggravation of those 
 horrors beyond endurance when, on either side, there shall occur the 
 intervention of an uprising ferocious African slave population of four, 
 or six, or perhaps twenty millions ? " 
 
 He dwelt at some length upon the injurious effects of a dismember- 
 ment of the confederacy upon our national prosperity, upon our com- 
 mercial and political greatness; and he examined the causes of the 
 immense sacrifice. Foreign nations had not combined for our over- 
 throw. The Federal Government had not become tyrannical or un- 
 sound. The constitution had not lost its spirit, and collapsed into a 
 lifeless letter. What, then, he asked, could excuse the mighty crime 
 of disunion and its train of anarchy, of wrong, of incalculable in- 
 jury? The justification it assigned was that Abraham Lincoln had 
 been elected, while the success of either one of the three other can- 
 didates would have been acquiesced in. Was the election illegal? 
 No. Is the candidate personally offensive ? No ; he is a man of 
 unblemished virtue and amiable manners. Is it apprehended that he 
 will usurp despotic powers ? No ; while he is of all men most unam- 
 bitious, he is, by the partial success of those who opposed his election, 
 subjected to such restraints that he can not, without their consent, 
 appoint a minister, or even a police agent, negotiate a treaty, or pro- 
 cure the passage of a law, and can hardly draw a musket from the 
 public arsenals to defend his own person. 
 
 Every thing, Mr. S. said, was subordinate to the Union. Republi- 
 canism, Democracy, and every political name and thing ought to dis- 
 appear before the great question of Union or dissolution. He would 
 meet prejudice with conciliation, exaction with concession which sur- 
 renders no principle, and violence with the right hand of peace. 
 Whom the constitution regards as a bondsman, and escapes from the 
 state in which he is held into another, should be delivered up ; but 
 private persons should not be obliged to assist in executing the 
 laws; and freemen should be protected from being, by abuse of the 
 laws, carried into slavery. And all laws of the free states which 
 contravene this law, and all laws of the slave states which unconsti- 
 tutionally prohibit any persons from coming into them from other 
 states, ought to be repealed. Secondly : Domestic slavery is wisely 
 left by the constitution exclusively to the care and management of 
 the states; and he would not alter the constitution in that respect. 
 And to prevent misapprehension of his position, he would even vote 
 for an amendment declaring that no future amendment should confer 
 on congress a power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any state. 
 Tlnrdlv t ^,T>ile be thought congress had exclusive and sovereicrp 
 
 
SECESSION OF THE GULF STATES. 1095 
 
 authority to legislate on all subjects whatever in the common terri- 
 tories, and while he should never, directly or indirectly, give his vote 
 to sanction or establish slavery therein, yet the question what consti- 
 tutional laws shall at any time be passed, in regard to the territories 
 is, like every other question, to be determined on practical grounds. 
 He voted for enabling acts in the cases of Oregon, Minnesota, and 
 Kansas, without being able to secure in them such provisions as he 
 preferred ; and yet he voted wisely. So now, he was well satisfied 
 that, under existing circumstances, a satisfactory solution of the diffi- 
 culties in the remaining territories would be obtained by similar 
 laws, pro\ading for their organization, if such organization were 
 otherwise practicable. 
 
 Mr. S. suggested too that it might be wise to resort to the people 
 for revisions of the constitution when the troubles and dangers of the 
 state transcend the powers delegated by it to the public authorities. 
 Said he, government, in any form, is a machine: this is the most 
 complex one that the mind of man has ever invented, or the hand of 
 man has ever framed. Perfect as it is, it ought to be expected that 
 it will, at least as often as once in a century, require some modifica- 
 tion to adapt it to the changes of society and alternations of empire. 
 Fourthly : I hold myself ready now, as always heretofore, to vote for 
 any properly guarded laws which shall be deemed necessary to pre- 
 vent mutual invasions of states by citizens of other states, and to 
 punish those who shall aid and abet them. Mr. S. closed his speech 
 by pledging his support in whatever prudent yet energetic efforts the 
 government should make to preserve the public peace, and to main- 
 tain and preserve the Union ; advising only that it practice, as far as 
 possible, the utmost moderation, forbearance, and conciliation. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXYIII. 
 
 SECESSION OF THE GULF STATES. REPORTS FROM THE COMMITTEE OF 
 
 THIRTY-THREE. CABINET CHANGES. COL. HAYNe's AGENCY. COURSE 
 
 OF VIRGINIA. POSITION OF CERTAIN SLAVE STATES. RETIREMENT OF 
 
 SENATORS. ADMISSION OF KANSAS. INTERPOSITION OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 PROPOSITIONS OF SEWARD AND ADAMS. 
 
 The Convention of all the Gulf states met in the month of January, 
 1861 ; and all of them promptly adopted ordinances of secession. 
 The seven states which united in forming the Confederacy at Mont- 
 
1096 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 gomery, Ala., passed their respective ordinances, in respect to tteir 
 dates, in the following order: South Carolina, December 20th, 1860; 
 Mississippi, January 9th, 1861; Florida, January 11th; Alabama, 
 11th; Georgia, 19th; Louisiana, 26th; Texas, February 1st. The 
 preponderating force of the early secessionist, though believed to be 
 in a minority in most of these states, is exemplified in the case of 
 Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, who had taken a stand 
 against secession, but who was eventually induced to support the 
 secession scheme, and accepted the Vice-Presidency of the southern 
 Confederacy. It is believed that, in none of the seceding states, has the 
 ordinance of secession been submitted to the vote of the people. 
 
 On the 14th of January, 1861, Mr. Corwin, chairman of the com- 
 mittee of thirty-three, made a report to the house. Some of the points 
 reported on will be briefly stated. 
 
 If any publications emanating from the newspaper press had a 
 tendency to promote domestic insurrection in any of the states, the 
 corrective for the evil remained with the state governments; and the 
 belief was expressed that where the evil should become formidable, 
 the corrective would be applied, and the just freedom of the press 
 be preserved. 
 
 Undue importance, the committee thought, had been given to the 
 laws of the states alleged to conflict with the fugitive slave law. 
 This laAv was executed by United States courts, and commissioners 
 appointed by them. Hence any conflicting state law would be void, 
 and the United States courts would declare it so. The committee 
 respectfully requested the non-slaveholding states to revise their acts, 
 and repeal such as come in conflict with the constitution. The 
 governors of several states had already brought the subject before 
 their legislatures. 
 
 The committee reported an amendment to the law. "What had 
 rendered the law offensive, was its being supposed to require any citi- 
 zen to aid in the recapture of a fugitive. A section had been inserted 
 in the bill reported, designed to remove this objection to the law, and 
 Avhich would also improve its efiiciency. The northern people were 
 not opposed to ' a law for the recovery of fugitives who really owe 
 labor, but to a law which permits the seizure and enslavement of 
 persons who are free. 
 
 The occasions of the frequent agitation of the subject of slavery 
 were mentioned: the admission of Missouri, in 1821 ; the annexation 
 of Texas ; the disposal of the territory acquired from Mexico by the 
 war with that country. Disunion had been then, as now, threatened. 
 The question was supposed to be finally settled. But in 1854, it was 
 
 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THIRTT-THREE. 1097 
 
 again disturbed by the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and the 
 attempt to extend slavery into free territory. To take the question 
 of the disposal of the remaining territory out of congress, the com- 
 mittee proposed to admit the territory of New Mexico, (in which 
 slavery had already been established,) into the Union as a state, to 
 include Arizona. All the existing southern territory would then be 
 disposed of; and the northern portion would be left subject to such 
 law as the constitution and congress might furnish for its government. 
 Reference was made to several resolutions accompanying the report ; 
 and the committee concluded by saying that they were not unanimous 
 on all the resolutions and bills presented ; but a majority of a quorum 
 was obtained on them all. 
 
 It may ' be proper to state, that Mr, Corwin, though elected as a 
 Republican, was rather conservative than radical in his opinions on 
 the slavery question. 
 
 A minority report of great length, by Messrs. Washburne, of Wis- 
 consin, and Tappan, of N. H., protested against several resolutions 
 favoring concessions to the slave power. They believed that conces- 
 sions would be unavailing. The present dissatisfaction did not arise 
 from personal liberty bills, the non-execution of the fugitive slave 
 law, or apprehensions of interference with slavery in the states. And 
 they quoted from the declarations made in the South Carolina seces- 
 sion convention, of a long settled purpose to secede. [The same, 
 with numerous others, have been given in Chapter LXXXV. of this 
 ■work.] They say : " It is not pretended that they [these seven se- 
 ceding states] ever lose fugitive slaves, or that any escaping have 
 not been delivered up when demanded ; nor is it pretended that the 
 personal liberty bills of any state have practically affected their citi- 
 zens. Neither do they complain that they can not go with their 
 slaves into any territory. The supreme court has decided that they 
 have that right." The minority therefore conclude that the present 
 discontent and hostility are without just cause ; and offer the resolu- 
 tion previously offered in the senate by Mr. Clark, of N. H., that the 
 constitution "needs to be obeyed rather than amended; and our ex- 
 trication from present diflSculties is to be looked for in efforts to pre- 
 serve and protect the public property and enforce the laws, rather 
 than in new guaranties for particular interests, or compromises, or 
 concessions to unreasonable demands." 
 
 Another minority report was made by Messrs, Love, of Georgia, 
 and Hamilton, of Texas, embracing substantially the Crittenden pro- 
 positions. Mr. Adams, of Mass., had voted in committee, for the 
 propositions agreed to; but afterward withdrew his assent "for the 
 reason that the southern members had generally retired from the com- 
 
1098 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 mittee, thereby showing an unwillingness to accept any thing the 
 north could yield in the way of compromise." Messrs. Burch, of CaL, 
 and Stout, of Oregon, concuixed in many of the measures recom- 
 mended by the majority, and reported an additional resolution, pro- 
 posing to call a national coustitutional convention. 
 
 Little hope of satisfactory compromise remained ; yet efforts to 
 effect it were not wholly abandoned. Resolutions were occasionally 
 offered and new propositions made, which were prompted by a strong 
 prevailing desire to save the Union. A powerful outside pressure 
 also was brought to bear upon congress, by letters, petitions, and 
 special deputations and eminent citizens, urging a compromise. 
 
 Early in January, the steamer, Star of the West, left New York, 
 by orders from the War Department, with provisions and munitions 
 and two hundred troops for Fort Sumtei'. Though loaded secretly, 
 her object and her departure became known, and were communicated 
 immediately to the Charleston authorities, giving them time for due 
 preparations to resist the passage of the steamer to her destination. 
 When within about two miles of Fort Sumter, a masked battery on 
 Morris' Island opened fire upon her. She was struck several times, 
 and was compelled, in order to avoid destruction or capture, to return 
 without accomplishing her mission. 
 
 On the 8th of January, Jacob Thompson, secretary of the interior, 
 resigned his office ; the reason for which was alleged to be the send- 
 ing of the troops for the reenforcement of Major Anderson, contrary 
 to a distinct understanding that no troops should be ordered south 
 without a decision of the cabinet to that effect. 
 
 The duties of the war department were discharged by Mr. Holt, 
 postmaster-general, who, though a southern man, (from Kentucky,) 
 not only was a thorough Union man, but did much to infuse life and 
 energy into the administration. Mr. Thomas, secretary of the treas- 
 ury, successor to Mr. Cobb, being supposed to be a disunionist, and 
 having had intimations that his resignation was desired, resigned his 
 office on the 11th of January; and his place was supplied by the ap- 
 'pointment of Gen. John A. Dix, of New York. The cabinet was now 
 filled with trustworthy and efficient Union men. 
 
 January 14th, senators Brown and Davis, of Mississippi, with- 
 drew from the senate, in consequence of the late action of their state. 
 
 A battery having been erected on the bank of the Mississippi river, 
 at Vicksburg, by order of the authorities of the state of Miss., and de- 
 signed to compel boats passing down to land and give account of 
 themselves, a resolution was introduced in the senate by Mr. 
 Giimes, of Iowa, calling upon the President for information, if he had 
 
THE COURSE OF VIRGINIA. 1099 
 
 any, respecting attempts to interfere with the free navigation of 
 the river. 
 
 On the lYth of January, the nomination of Mr. Holt, as secretary of 
 war, was acted upon in the senate, in executive session. Though a 
 southern man and a democrat, he was regarded by secession senators 
 as in favor of coercion ; and his confirmation was by them opposed. 
 The next day, after an exciting debate, his appointment was con- 
 firmed, 38 to 13. Mr. Crittenden, whose devotion to the Union was 
 so decided throughout the session, and so ardently desirous to effect 
 a compromise, was said to have been much affected during a portion 
 of his remarks in this debate. He said his state would never consent 
 to the breaking up of the present Union and form of government, 
 and to the formation of a southern Confederacy, of which she would 
 be a border state, exposed to all the dangers and losses of such a 
 position. And he was said to have upbraided very severely the 
 southern men who had defeated his proposed compromise in the sen- 
 ate. He took the position that the Union must be preserved at all 
 hazards, either by peaceable means or by force ; and that force used 
 against the lawless citizens of a government is not coercion of a state. 
 
 Active preparations were now making to occupy and retain the 
 forts along the southern coast. An agent, (Col. Hayne,) was sent by 
 Gov. Pickens, of South Carolina, to Washington, with authority to 
 propose the entire withdrawal of Major Anderson and the Federal 
 garrison from Charleston harbor, and to guaranty that South Caro- 
 lina would then honorably treat for the forts and a just settlement of 
 all questions at issue. The President refused to recognize Col. Hayne 
 as an agent ; and, to prevent misconception, he turned the messenger 
 over to the war department, ordering him to put his demands in writ- 
 ing. Learning, however, that measures were taken for the defense 
 of Sumter in case of an assault ; and Gov. Pickens having been ad- 
 vised, as was supposed, not to attempt to dispossess Ander^son, Mr. 
 Hayne reserved his communication to the war department to a later 
 day. Gov. Pickens then advised the legislature to provdde for raising 
 additional military force to strengthen the fortifications in the state 
 and to protect the sea-coast. 
 
 In the legislature of Virginia, resolutions were introduced propos- 
 ing a plan of settlement, embracing the Crittenden compromise with 
 some amendment, as the least that Virginia could assent to. It 
 proposed also the appointment of a commissioner to each state in the 
 Union to represent the action of Virginia, and to invite a response to 
 this measure of conciliation ; an appeal to the general government 
 to abstain from all acts that might lead to a collision pending the 
 
1100 THE AMEKICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 mediation of Virginia ; an appeal to the seceding states to preserve 
 tlie existing status, and not precipitate a collision. This plan met 
 ■with favor in the other border slave states, and led to a " Peace Con- 
 vention," composed of commissioners from the several states not yet 
 having seceded. Commissioners were appointed to the proposed con- 
 vention, which was to assemble at Washington the 4th of February. 
 John Tyler, one of the commissioners, was appointed to wait on the 
 President ; and a commissioner was appointed to the seceding states 
 to request a suspension of acts of hostility. ^ resolution was also 
 adopted, declaring, that if the differences between the two sections 
 should not be reconciled, " Virginia would unite her destinies with 
 her sister slaveholding states." 
 
 Maryland remained firm ; Governor Hicks still refusing to call the 
 legislature. Delaware, too, fully maintained her loyal position. In 
 North Carolina, public sentiment was much divided, with a tendency 
 towards secession. The legislature of Arkansas submitted the ques- 
 tion of calling a convention to the people. Governor McGoffin, of 
 Kentucky, advised the legislature to call a convention; but the legis- 
 lature refused, being unwilling to countenance secession. In Ten- 
 nessee, the lower house adopted resolutions proposing a convention 
 of the southern states to agree upon a basis of adjustment, to be re- 
 ferred to a general convention of all the states. 
 
 During the week ending January 26th, senators Yulee and Mallory, 
 of Florida ; Clay and Fitzpatrick, of Alabama ; and Davis, of Missis- 
 sippi, took their leave of the senate, their states having seceded from 
 the Union. Most of them made farewell speeches, which, though 
 abounding with political heresy, with misapprehensions, misrepresen- 
 tations, and even false charges against the north, were full of inter- 
 est. The burden of their justification of secession, was, that the 
 North had infringed the rights of the south; had refused them a 
 share in lands acquired mainly by southern diplomacy, blood, and 
 treasure ; robbed them of their property, and refused restoration ; 
 refused them permission to pass through the north with their prop- 
 erty in violation of the constitution and the laws of congress ; had 
 refused to deliver up criminals against the laws of southern states, 
 who fled with their property to the north ; had invaded the borders 
 of southern' states, burned their dwellings, and murdered their families ; 
 had heaped indignity upon them, and made them a by-word, a hissing 
 and a scorn throughout the civilized world ; and had denied them 
 Christian communion, because it could not endure what it styled the 
 leprosy of slavery. They had long borne all this under the assurance 
 that these things were the acts of a minority party. But there was 
 no longer any hope. The platform of the Republican part}'^ which 
 
RETIREMENT OF 8EFAT0RS. 1101 
 
 had become predominant, was a declaration of war against the lives 
 and institutions of the southern people ; it reproached them as un- 
 christian and heathenish; declared their negroes to be entitled to 
 liberty and equality with white men, which was in spirit, if not in 
 fact, an incitement to insurrection, murder, and other crimes; and to 
 cap the climax of insult to their feelings and menace to their rights, 
 this party nominated for the Presidency a man who had indorsed the 
 platform and promised to enforce its principles, but who disregards 
 the judgments of your courts, the obligations of the constitution and 
 the requirements of his oath, by approving any bill to prohibit slavery 
 in the territories. Must we acquiesce in the inauguration of a Presi- 
 dent chosen by hostile states, whose political faith constrains him to 
 deny our constitutional rights? 
 
 Jefferson Davis, in his speech, took occasion once more to reiterate 
 his favorite doctrine of the right of a state to secede from the Union, 
 He hoped, however, that none would confound this expression of 
 opinion with the advocacy of the right of a state to remain in the Union 
 and disregard its constitutional obligations by nullification. He said 
 Mr. Calhoun advocated nullification, which, he claimed, would give 
 peace within the limits of the Union, and not disturb it ; and would only 
 be the means of bringing the agent of the United States who had vio- 
 lated his constitutional obligations before the proper tribunal of the 
 states for judgment. " Secession," said Mr. D., " belongs to a different 
 class of rights, and is justified upon the basis that the states are sove- 
 reign. The time has been, and I hope the time will come again, when a 
 better appreciation of our Union will prevent any one denying that each 
 state is a sovereign in its own right. Therefore I say I concur in the 
 act of my state, and feel bound by it. It is by this confounding of nulli- 
 fication and secession that the name of ainother great man has been 
 invoked to justify the coercion of seceding states. The phrase, ' to 
 execute the law,' as used by Gen. Jackson, was applied to a state re- 
 fusing to obey the laws and still remaining in the Union." 
 
 Mr. D. argued that the equality asserted in the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence had no reference to the slaves. Southern states had 
 proclaimed their independence, simply to defend and protect the 
 rights they had inherited, and to transmit them unshorn to their pos- 
 terity. He disclaimed all unkind feelings toward those with whom 
 he parted, and hoped peaceful relations would continue between the 
 two sections of the Union. Said he : " There will be peace if you so 
 will it ; and you may bring disaster on every part of the country if 
 you thus will have it. And if you will have it thus, we will invoke" 
 the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the paw of the lion, 
 
1102 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to protect us from the ravages of tlie bear; and thus putting our 
 trust in God, and our own firm hearts and strong arms, we will vin- 
 dicate and defend the rights we claim." 
 
 On ^Monday of this week, (21st of January,) the members of the 
 house from Alabama retired. 
 
 Col. Hayne, the South Carolina commissioner to Washington, made 
 his final demand on the 31st of January. It was, that the property 
 of the United States, at and near Charleston, " should not longer be 
 used as a military post by a government she no longer acknowl- 
 edges ;" and in pursuance of his instructions from Gov. Pickens, he 
 demanded the suiTender of Fort Sumter, the demand being accom- 
 panied by a pledge of the faith of South Carolina to make compensa- 
 tion for the property, and by a declaration, in eifect, that, if she is 
 not permitted to make a purchase, she will-seize the fort by force of arms. 
 
 Secretary Holt, in reply, reminds Col. Hayne, that the United States 
 hold Fort Sumter by a complete and incontestible title, " derived not 
 from any questionable revolutionary source, hut from the peaceful cession 
 of South Carolina hersel ;" and adding : " South Carolina can no more 
 assert the right of eminent domain over Fort Sumter, than Maryland 
 can assert it over the District of Columbia." And in regard to the 
 reenforcement of Fort Sumter, the commissioner is told that " should 
 the safety of Major Anderson require reenforcements, every effort will 
 be made to supply them." The Govenior saw fit, after this decided 
 answer of Mr. Holt, not to " seize the fort," probably preferring to 
 leave the question of occupancy to be determined by the Confederate 
 government. 
 
 A brief interruption to the proceedings, in both houses, on the great 
 question before congress and the country, was caused by the passage 
 of a bill for the admission of Kansas as a state into the Union. After 
 the retirement of the five senators, to whose vdthdrawal and valedic- 
 tories we have just alluded, the Kansas bill was called up by Mr. 
 Seward, and passed by a vote of 36 to 16. The northern democratic 
 senators no longer opposed admission, and, together with Johnson, of 
 Tennessee, and Crittenden, of Ky., voted with the Republicans 
 in the affirmative. All the votes in the negative were from the 
 slave states. 
 
 This bill had been passed by the house at the last session. A 
 slight amendment relating to a judicial district having been made to it 
 in the senate, the house took up the amendment, on the 28th; the rules 
 having been suspended for this purpose, by a vote of 119 to 42. The 
 bill, as amended, was then passed, and subsequently signed ;by the. Pres- 
 ident. Thus, after a struggle of six years, Kansas became a free sta,te. . 
 
MR. IVKRSOn's FAREWELI; SPEECH. 1103 
 
 On the 28th of January, senator Iverson, of Georgia, announced 
 his withdrawal from the senate, and followed it with a farewell- 
 speech, which, for its defiant language and its insolence, was un- 
 equaled by that of any of his retiring predecessors. He said he 
 approved the action- of his state and her sister states, and should 
 cheerfully cast his lot with them. And, sink or swim, live or die, he 
 should be with them to the last. They should have a confederacy 
 within a few weeks, with a provisional government with ample pow- 
 ers for their defense, to form treaties, make war, conclude peace, and 
 admit states; and he believed that, within a few months, all the 
 southern states would be formed into a Union more stable than the 
 one now broken up. He said : " If you acknowledge our independ- 
 ence, and treat us as one of the nations of the earth, you can have 
 friendly relations with us. You can have an equitable division of 
 the public property and of the existing public debt. But if you make 
 war upon us, we will seize and hold all the public property in our 
 borders and in our reach, and we will never pay a dollar of the pub- 
 lic debt. The first Federal gun that is fired upon the seceding states, 
 the first drop of blood of any of their people shed by the Federal 
 troops, will cancel every public and private obligation of the south 
 which may be due either to the Federal government or to the north- 
 ern people. "We care not in what shape or form, or under what pre- 
 text you undertake coercion. We shall consider all acts to exercise 
 authority over us as acts of war, and shall meet and resist them ac- 
 cordingly. You may send armies to invade us by land, or you may 
 send ships to blockade our ports, and destroy our trade and commerce 
 with other nations. You may abolish our ports of entry, and, by an 
 act of congress, attempt to collect the Federal revenue by ships of 
 war. You may do all or any of these or similar acts. They will be 
 acts of war, and so understood and considered ; and in whatever 
 shape you make war, we will fight you. * * * % 
 
 " You boast of your superior numbers and strength ; but remember 
 that ' the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.' 
 * * * Your conquest, if you gain a victory over us, will amount 
 to but little. You will have to keep a standing army of 100,000 men, 
 costing millions of money, only to keep us in subjection. You may 
 whip us, but we will not stay whipped. We will never cease the 
 strife until our whole race is extinguished, and our fair land given 
 over to desolation. You will have ships of war; we may have none. 
 You may blockade our ports, and lock up our commerce. We can 
 live, if need be, without commerce. But when you shut up our com- 
 merce from the looms of Europe, we shall sec whether other nations 
 will not have something to say and something to do on that subject. 
 
1104 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 'Cotton is King,' and will oblige you to raise your blockade and 
 draw off your ships. * * * 
 
 " I will not say that the southern states, if let alone, even after 
 they have formed a southern confederacy, will not listen to proposi- 
 tions of reconciliation. Let the north make them, and we will con- 
 sider them. * * * When they (the southern people) shall see, if 
 it be not too long delayed, a fraternal sense of justice and good feel- 
 ing returning to the northern mind and heart, and when they can find 
 sufficient and reliable guaranties for their rights and equality in the 
 Union, they may, perhaps, reconsider their action, and rejoin their 
 former confederates. * * * l may safely say that nothing will 
 satisfy them except the recognition of equality, the safety of the in- 
 stitution of domestic slavery, and the protection of their constitu- 
 tional rights, for which they have been so long contending in the 
 Union, and the denial of which has forced them to their present atti- 
 tude of self-defense." 
 
 The President, on the 28th, sent to both houses tlie Virginia reso- 
 lutions for a convention, with a message, stating that he was re- 
 quested to abstain from any acts calculated to produce a collision of 
 arms between the states and the general government; and that con- 
 gress alone, under the war-making power, could exercise the discre- 
 tion of abstaining from such acts of collision. He repeated the decla- 
 ration that it was his duty to protect the public property within the 
 seceding states; but if the seceding states would abstain from any 
 acts calculated to produce collision, there was no danger. Defense, 
 he said, and not aggression, had been his policy from the beginning. lie 
 advised congress to abstain from passing any acts of the kind mentioned. 
 
 In the hpuse, the report of the committee of thirty-three was at this 
 time, (January 28th and 29th,) under consideration. 
 
 Mr. Winslow, of N. C, said, if the propositions for constitutional 
 guaranties and a division of territory were not accepted by the Re- 
 publicans, the south had nothing further to ask or to offer. These 
 propositions demanded protection to southern institutions; and 
 with nothing less than they contained could the soutk be satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Van Wyck, of N. Y,, declared himself against any constitu- 
 tional guaranty to slavery. He also quoted from numerous southern 
 statesmen, all denying the power of congress or the states to effect a 
 dissolution of the Union, and maintaining that a dissolution of the 
 Union was a dissolution of slavery. He examined the claim for 
 rights in the territories. What monstrous demands 1 Here was a 
 nation of thirty millions of souls ; and three hundred thousand slave- 
 owners claimed equal rights in the domain with the mighty majority ! 
 
MR. VAN WYCk's SPEECH. 1105 
 
 # 
 
 Said lie : " Do you propose any concession to the North ? Any secu- 
 rity to liberty and life of the northern man in the slave states ; of 
 property in books ; of freedom of speech and of the press, as already 
 secured by the constitution? You say that you concede to freedom 
 the territory north of 36 deg. 30. min. We have a double title to that 
 already : first by purchase, and then by conquest. We bought it 
 when we took Missouri into the Union as a slave state, and then we 
 conquered it in the strife of a civil war. All our future acquisitions 
 must be in the direction of the tropics ; and you demand its uncoj^ 
 ditional surrender to slavery. You want us to surrender to men who 
 are themselves compromise breakers ! You have been telling us for 
 years that all geographical lines were sectional and dangerous. In 
 1820, you established the Missouri line to save the Union ; and now 
 you can see the salvation of the Republic only through its rcestab- 
 lishment and perpetuity, with the new, startling condition annexed, 
 that slavery must be forever protected in all our future acquisitions ! 
 
 " Believe not in reconstruction ; the compromises of the present con- 
 stitution, once lost, you can never regain. Think you that another 
 senate can be formed wherein Florida and Delaware can equal New 
 York and Pennsylvania? You are opposed to the army and the navy, 
 because you boldly assert that an enforcement of the law means co- 
 ercion of states ; but you were willing to send troops 2,000 miles 
 over prairie and desert to coerce our brethren in Utah. You sent the 
 army into Kansas. You have used Federal troops to enforce the 
 fugitive slave law, and to rescue the arsenal at Harper's Ferry from 
 John Brown. The camp had no terrors for you then ; but now you 
 oppose coercion ; yet, by force of armed men, you seize the forts and 
 navy-yards, and trample the stars and stripes in the dust." 
 
 He said the north could not be coerced into a consent to a disso- 
 lution of the Union. It would not be driven or cajoled into any line 
 of policy adverse to its solemn and just convictions. As one plan of 
 settlement, he favored a purchase of all the slaves in the border 
 states and their colonization in Central America. He also favored 
 a convention of all the states. But no Catiline should walk the land 
 to stab liberty, and strike down the stars and stripes with impunity. 
 Treason was treason ; and there were few to compromise with it if 
 the issue must come. 
 
 Numerous other speeches were made in both houses upon the 
 great question of the session ; some of them very able and eloquent ; 
 but the want of space forbids our giving even an abstract of most of 
 them. One of them was made by Mr. Stevens, of Pa., who remarked, 
 that there were but two ways of breaking up the Union:, one by 
 
1106 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 amendments to the constitution ; the other by revolution. He spoke 
 of southern cruelties toward northern men, who were tarred, feathered, 
 and hung by scores. A Virginian who had voted for Lincoln was 
 taken by the chivalry, his face blackened, and exiled from home. 
 Northern men were unsafe in the southern states. 
 
 Mr. Conkling, of N. Y., in a long speech, remarked, that, though 
 not confessed, the true reason of the rebellion was, that slavery had 
 ceased to rule. It was true that freedom, hereafter, was to be the 
 rule, and slavery the exception, in our great experiment. No more 
 wars, now, of conquest, for slavery's sake. No longer shall the arms 
 of the Eepublic go forth to change realms into deserts, to Sack cities, 
 to subdue territories in .order to people them with slavery, and endow 
 them with slave representation. 
 
 The idea of a constitutional right of secession was k) be spurned. 
 There were three ways in which a state could cut loose from Federal 
 allegiance : By the amendment of the constitution as tlierein pro- 
 vided ; by the consent, not of the state going out, or of the remain- 
 ing states, but by the universal acquiescence of the American peo- 
 ple ; and by that right or power which inheres in man, and not in 
 states — that option which all men have to defeat their governments, 
 and, if they succeeded, to live in peace as patriots and heroes ; if 
 they failed, to die as rebels and traitors. 
 
 As to concession, he said he never would consent to an adjustment 
 with men with uplifted banners of revolt in their hands. As for the 
 noble patriots from those states who were battling for the Union, and 
 at every personal hazard were endeavoring to stem the tide of dis- 
 union, he could not word his admiration. For them he could do all 
 things possible or consistent ; but he could not vote for any compro- 
 mise to extend slavery, or to amend the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Stevenson, of Ky., said, if the gentleman from New York fairly 
 represented northern sentiment, there was no hope of adjustment. 
 He saw in this and other speeches a design to deny the south all 
 rights in the territories. He still hoped the dominant party would 
 see the justice of a compromise guarantying the south its required 
 protection and rights. Kentucky would maintain her rights; and, 
 though generous and loyal, would not remain in the Union but as an equal. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton, of Texas, (Dem.) opposed, with much force, the 
 ideas of some of his southern friends, who claimed secession as one 
 of the reserved rights of the states. He said, the constitution, like 
 all constitutions, was a compact. Guarantied rights had been given 
 to it ; and, in turn, it guarantied certain rights to the parties to the 
 compact, both people and states. The government was by its 
 
 i 
 
PROPOSITIONS OF SEWARD AND ADAMS. 1107 
 
 guarantied rights, made supreme, so far as concerned the exercise of 
 those rights, and absolute, within the sphere of the power conferred 
 upon it as a Government. The reserved powers of the states were only 
 such as existed before the compact was formed. Would any man 
 say that they received a power which did not pre-exist at all, and 
 which could not have existed before the formation of the compact? 
 They said they reserved the right of secession ; but he contended 
 that no such right existed anterior to the constitution, because, in 
 fact, there was no state that could secede. Could it then be said that 
 the right of secession was one of the reserved rights of the states, 
 when it did not exist prior to the formation of the government ? The 
 right of revolution, he admitted; but that right could not be exer- 
 cised properly, unless it was exercised to oppose oppression and ty- 
 ranny. Those states which had seceded or were preparing to secede, 
 must take the consequences of revolution. They were acting most 
 despotically and recklessly for the interests of other states. Louisi- 
 ana had, by seceding, cut off Texas from the still existing states of 
 the Union. This was a flagrant breach upon the rights of other 
 states. Had Texas foreseen the probability of a secession of this 
 kind, and had she imagined that this right of secession existed in the 
 states, and that, by virtue of it, Louisiana could, at any moment, have 
 seceded from the Union, Texas would never have joined the confederacy. 
 Mr. H. said he had ever admitted, even since 1836, and at a time 
 when no other man in his state dared dispute the dictation of poli- 
 ticians — he had ever contended, since that time, that the people of a 
 territory had themselves the power of dealing with slavery as a do- 
 mestic institution, to be established or prohibited, as they thought 
 fit. He said he had been called on here and at home to " come out ; " 
 and he had been threatened and entreated to this course ; but no 
 threats or danger should tear him away from the Union until he had 
 saved the horn of the altar, and implored heaven to allay the storm, and 
 again uprear the same pillars which sustain the weight and add their 
 mounted beauty to the structure. [Mr. H. has continued a firm Union man.] 
 Some surprise was occasioned by speeches made simultaneously 
 by Mr. Seward in the senate, and by Mr. Charles Francis Adams in 
 the house. They were disapproved by a large portion — probably a 
 majority — of the Republican party, as proposing concessions to the 
 south without any hope of their acceptance, and as surrendering what 
 was deemed an important party principle. 
 
 On Thursday, the 31st of January, Mr. Seward presented the me- 
 morial of the New York Chamber of Commerce, with 38,000 signa- 
 tures, petitioning for a settlement of national differences by compro- 
 
1108 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 mise. The committee of twenty-five who bore the memorial to 
 Washington commended the propositions of the border states commit- 
 tee as the basis of adjustment. In the com'so of a long and able 
 speech he remarked, that a great many partisan interests were to be 
 ^surrendered if the Union was to be saved. " But," said Mr, S., " it 
 will require a very short time, if this Union is in danger and does re- 
 quire to he saved, for all these interests, all these platforms, and all 
 these men to disappear. You, everybody who shall oppose, resist, or 
 stand in the way of the preservation of this Union, will appear as 
 moths on a summer's eve, when the whirlwind of popular indignation 
 arises that shall he excited at the full discovery that this Union is 
 endangered through faction, and even impracticability on the one 
 part. I have hope and confidence that this is to come around just as 
 I have said ; and quite soon enough, because I perceive, although we 
 may shut our eyes to it, that the country and mankind can not shut 
 their eyes to the tnie nature of this crisis." The northern territories 
 admitted as states, the remaining territory in dispute contained an 
 area of more than a million of square miles. By a judicial decree, of 
 which he spoke, not as he accepted it, but as it was accepted and 
 enforced by the existing administration, every foot of it was slave 
 territory. In all this territory were but twenty-four slaves ! notwith- 
 standing the territory had been for twelve years relinquished to 
 slavery, which had been protected and guarantied there by the su- 
 preme court, the legislature, and the administration. This question, 
 therefore, had ceased to be a practical one, and should give way to 
 the great and vital question of union, or of dissolution of the Union — • 
 the question of country or of no country — the question of hope — the 
 question of greatness, or the question of sinking forever under the 
 contempt of mankind. If it should become necessary, in order to set- 
 tle this controversy, let it be subinitted to the people of the United 
 States in a convention called according to the forms of the constitu- 
 tion, and acting in the manner prescribed by it. In this way he be- 
 lieved, sudden relief would be given to the country. 
 
 Mr. Adams, it will be recollected, had voted, in the committee of 
 thirty-three, for the report of the majority, but afterwards withdrew 
 his assent, because the southern members had generally retired from 
 the committee. He now vindicated his action, and advocated the 
 settlement proposed by this report. He said he had faithfully 
 labored to comprehend the nature of the discontents actually prevail- 
 ing, and to judge of the extent to Avhich they justify the resort to so 
 violent a mode of relief as the overthrow of a government. He em- 
 braced the topics of complaint under three heads : 
 
PROPOSITIONS OP SEWARD AND ADAMS. 1109 
 
 First : Tlie passage of laws in some of the free states operating to 
 discourage the recovery of fugitive skives. 
 
 Second : The denial of equal rights in the territories. 
 
 Third : The apprehension of such an increase of political power in 
 the free states as to tempt to an invasion, under new forms of the con- 
 stitution, of the right of the slave states to manage their domestic affairs. 
 
 The first originated after the passage of the fugitive slave law, 
 and was designed, not to nullify that law, but to protect innocent 
 persons from illegal seizure and abduction. That law was made so 
 offensive as to excite resistance. If the personal liberty laws ap 
 peared to obstruct the reclamation of fugitive slaves, something 
 might be pardoned to the spirit of liberty wounded by the harsh and 
 revolting features of the enactment. The efficiency of the law would 
 be increased by softening its severities. The repeal of personal 
 liberty laws would not avail much : they had never been of practical 
 use to any body, bond or free. He did not think going out of the 
 Union would strengthen the hands of the claimant for the recovery 
 of his escaping bondman. 
 
 As to the second cause of complaint, he said, they could now, un- 
 der the late opinion of the supreme court, go wherever they liked on 
 the public domain. There was no majority in congress itself to pre- 
 vent their going, if it had the power. Why did not the south use 
 that right? It was not for their interest to go so far north. What 
 were the facts respecting New Mexico ? For ten years she had wel- 
 comed slaves, and had now but twenty-two. Said Mr. A. : She has 
 a slave code and twelve domiciled slaves ; and yet you want more 
 protection, and threaten a dissolution of the Union if you do not get 
 it. The number will not be likely to increase after your protecting 
 care shall have been withdrawn. 
 
 To put the question at rest, Mr. A. proposed to admit New Mexico 
 as a state. The people of the territory had already the right to hold 
 slaves granted to them on the statute-book, and they had on their 
 side possession ; we had on our side the unpropitiousness of the coun- 
 try to the different forms of agricultural labor, which rendered it un- 
 favorable to slavery. Let us abide the result now, which is sure to 
 come, sooner or later. But he would only vote for the proposition as 
 a final settlement. If the south should reject it, they should never 
 hereafter complain about the exclusion of slaveholders from the 
 territories. 
 
 But the south having an eye upon future acquisitions, demanded, 
 in advance, protection in territory that might ^^ hereafter be acquired.'" 
 Said Mr. A. : " We are told that the Union must be dissolved if we 
 
1110 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 refuse to put in tlie constitution a pledge that we will protect slavery 
 in tlie states of Sonora, or Coaliuila, or Chihuahua, or New Leon — 
 when we get them t * * * I can scarce suppress a smile at this 
 idea of 'territory hereafter to be acquired,' even amid all the pain- 
 ful realities of the immediate struggle. Is it not, I ask you, Mr. 
 Speaker, an absti'action more extraordinary than all the rest?" 
 
 In remarking upon the third cause of complaint, Mr. Adams argued 
 that the free states could never obtain the constitutional majority of 
 states necessary to alter the constitution so as to take from them the 
 right to hold slaves. It would require the addition of hventy-seven ad- 
 ditional free states, even if no more slave states were added. But as 
 Texas was to be carved into five states, and New Mexico into three ; 
 and as the south contemplated the acquiring of another portion of 
 Mexico, as was to be presumed from their demanding a guaranty for 
 future acquisitions, it was evident that the assumption upon which the 
 third cause of complaint was founded, was put forward to arouse hateful 
 passions and feelings by imaginary causes, though for apparent purposes. 
 
 Mr. A. did not consider coercion for simple secession as wise or 
 necessary. But if the persons or the property of the citizens of the 
 United States, or the property of the government, should be violently 
 and wantonly attacked, he did not see how demands for redress could 
 be avoided. Nor could interruptions of the regular channels of trade 
 in the great water-courses, or in the ocean, be long permitted. And 
 the government would also be bound to afford protection to citizens 
 who should be persecuted or proscribed on account of their attach- 
 ment to the Union. 
 
 On the 22d of January, as a Savannah steamer was about to sail 
 from New York, it was ascertained that she was receiving on board 
 a large number of boxes of rifles, purchased of northern importers and 
 manufacturers. The police superintendent ordered their seizure ; 
 and the officers took 38 cases, containing 6V0 muskets and rifles, and 
 conveyed them to the armory. The fact was telegraphed to Georgia, 
 and Mr. Toombs telegraphed to Mayor Wood, of New York, inquiring 
 whether it was true that arms consigned to the state of Georgia had 
 been seized by public authority. He was answered in the affirmative 
 by the mayor, who expressed his regret at the seizure, and said the 
 city of New York should not be made responsible for the outrage ; 
 adding, that if he had the power, he should punish the authors of this 
 illegal and unjustifiable seizure of private property. A release of the 
 arms having been demanded by parties interested, and the superin- 
 tendent having refused, five northern vessels were seized at Savan- 
 nah, by order of Gov. Brown, as reprisals for the seized guns. Ap- 
 
THE SOUTHERN CONVENTION. 1111 
 
 preliending the consequences of this act of aggression npon the 
 rights of private unoffending citizens, he was induced to release the 
 vessels. The arms having been consigned to private individuals Avho 
 could not be proved disloyal, they were finally released. 
 
 The fact was soon disclosed, that arms of various kinds and to a 
 vast amount, were furnished the southern states through individuals 
 under the guise of private property. 
 
 The persons of northern men at the south soon became unsafe. All 
 who were suspected of holding Union sentiments, were compelled to 
 flee, many of them leanng their property to a large amount. Nu- 
 merous outrages of great atrocity were perpetrated, under the sanc- 
 tion of Lynch law, upon persons of northern birth who had never 
 been heard to utter a word against the rebellion. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXXIX. 
 
 THE SOUTHERN CONVENTION. DEBATE ON PEACE RESOLUTIONS. WITH- 
 DRAWAL OF MEMBERS. SOUTHERN MAILS. PEACE CONVENTION. 
 
 SOMES ON COMPROMISE. ACTION ON THE CORWIN MEASURES. PEACE 
 
 CONVENTION PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 On the 4th of February, the members of the southern convention 
 met at Montgomery, for the purpose of forming a government for the 
 Southern Confederacy. The delegates had been elected by the several 
 state conventions. Six states were represented by 42 delegates. 
 Texas had seceded on the 1st of February; but her ordinance of se- 
 cession was not to be considered as binding until February 23d, 
 when the people were to vote on it. But without waiting for the 
 people to pass upon the ordinance, delegates to the Montgomery con- 
 vention were appointed, February 11th. 
 
 Howell Cobb, of Georgia, was chosen president of the convention ; 
 and the convention proceeded to the formation of a provisional gov- 
 ernment. The Constitution of the United States, with some altera- 
 tions and additions relating to slaves and slavery, was adopted as 
 the constitution of the confederacy. 
 
 On the 9th, Jefferson Davis was chosen by the delegates to be 
 provisional President, and Alexander H. Stephens Vice-President. 
 Thus was constituted what its friends regarded as a popular govern- 
 
1112 - THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tnent, but in the formation of wliicli the people can scarcely be said 
 to have participated. 
 
 February 4th, Messrs. Slidell and Benjamin, senators from Louisi- 
 ana in the United States congress, withdrew from the senate. 
 Their valedictory speeches were similar to those of other seceding 
 senators. 
 
 On the consideration of the President's message communicating 
 the Virginia Peace Convention resolutions, Mr. Clingman, senator 
 from North Carolina, made a speech of a thoroughly southern charac- 
 ter. A blockade of southern ports, he said, could not be sustained, 
 or would not be allowed by European governments. Northern com- 
 merce and finances would be ruined by the withholding of cotton. 
 A northern army of sufficient force to resist that of the south, could 
 not be kept in the field for any length of time — its cost would live 
 the north down. There must be either, 1st. A settlement satisfac- 
 tory to the south ; or, 2d, The recognition of southern independence ; 
 or, 3d. War. He explained the taking of the forts by South Carolina 
 at Charleston. On the last day of December, troops were ordered 
 south. Late in the evening, (11 o'clock,) the orders were counter- 
 manded ; but too late. Telegraphic dispatches had been sent to the 
 south, and a number of forts were taken. The people had taken them 
 for their own safety. 
 
 Mr. C. said Republicans labored under a delusion in supposing that 
 a southern confederacy would not be recognized by foreign powers. 
 It was a well-settled principle to recognize de facto governments. He 
 said even if there had been no division in the democratic party, if 
 they had been beaten, the whole south would have gone out of the 
 Union. They see they will be ruined by submission to the election of 
 Lincoln, and they are graduahy falling into the movement. It is 
 said we ought not to abandon our northern friends — our allies. But, 
 if we should submit, where would our northern allies be ? Trampled 
 under foot by a resistless anti-slavery party. He spoke against the 
 Pacific railroad, homestead, and tariff bills, as designed to secure the 
 ascendency of the Republicans. The sagacious men of the south see 
 the danger, and are coming resolutely into the struggle. North 
 Carolina, as well as Virginia, has planted herself on the Crittenden 
 propositions, with certain additions, and would be satisfied with 
 nothing less. 
 
 Mr. C. alluded to the " irapi*essive ceremony " of the leave-taking on 
 the part of the southern senators. It reminded him of the funeral 
 ceremony when a senator has died. * * * The Israelites, with 
 wailing and lamentation, deplored the loss of one of their tribes. 
 
DEBATE ON PEACE RESOLUTIONS. 1113 
 
 How will it be, sir, when tlie ten tribes bavo gone, when the fifteen States 
 bavc departed ? He said to Republican senators : " You carry in 
 your bosoms, for the country, peace or war; which do you mean to 
 give it? Sooner than submit to degradation and disgrace, the 
 south would, if she must, rather go down like the strong man of 
 the Bible, carrying with her the main pillars of the edifice, the edifice 
 itself, and the lords of the Philistines, into one common ruin." 
 
 Mr. Hale, of N. H., "protested for one of the northern states, 
 against the tone of the senator's speech. He talks to us as if we 
 were the war-making power. Have we seized upon forts? Have we 
 taken any arsenals, and seized upon any mints? Have we done one 
 single act of aggression? Have we fired into any flag, state or na- 
 tional? On the other hand, are not the northern states rather sub- 
 jected, in the eyes of the civilized world, to the chai-ge of pusillan- 
 imity and reproach for wanting manliness in repelling the attacks 
 made upon them ? Gentlemen come here and preach peace to us as 
 if we were the aggressive party. * * * In speculating upon the 
 contingencies that await a state of war, the senator dwelt upon that 
 force which would be found in the northern states favorable to him 
 and adverse to the country where they lived. Let nut the senator 
 lay that flattering unction to his soul. I tell hiin, if we do have war 
 — God in his providence avert it ! — the first thing we v.ill do will be 
 to dispose of northern traitors, 
 
 " I have but a single word more to say, in reply rather to the sen- 
 ator's rhetoric than his logic. He says the most imposing thing he 
 has seen in this body was when those senators announced that they 
 were about to retire the other day. Sir, I saw a ceremony simpler 
 than that, and vastly more imposing, about the same time. It was 
 when my friend from the state of Maine, (Mr. Morrill,) coming here 
 under an election of his state, walked up to that desk, and held up 
 his right hand, and called God to witness that he would support the 
 Constitution of the United States. The honorable senator asks in 
 that overflowing rhetoric with which he has delighted the senate so 
 long : ' What will you say when the ten tribes go out ? ' Sir, I was 
 glad to hear that. Ten tribes did go out from the kingdom of Israel 
 but the ark of the covenant of the living God remained with the tribe 
 of Judah. [Applause in the galleries.] "What became of the ten 
 tribes? They have gone God only knows where, and nobody , elf^e, 
 It is a matter of speculation what became of them ; whether they 
 constitute the Pottawatomies, or some other tribe of American 
 savages. I recollect a friend said to me the other day, when the 
 Japanese were here, ' I am glad the Japanese came ; for I have 
 
1114 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 learaed more history from them than I have from all the books I ever 
 read. I now know what became of the ten tribes : they settled in 
 Japan.' [Laughter.] Well, sir, that is a speculation. Now, this 
 was suggested by the honorable senator from North Carolina ; and it 
 is full of meaning. There were ten tribe* Avent out ; and remember, 
 they went out wandering. They left the ark and the empire behind 
 them. They went, as I said before, God only knows where. But, 
 sir, I do hope and pray that this comparison, so eloquent and in- 
 structive, suggested by the senator, may not be illustrated in the 
 fate of these other tribes that are going oat of the household of Israel." 
 
 In the house, Mr. McClernand, (Dem.) of Illinois, offered a resolu- 
 tion, calling upon the President for information respecting the seizure, 
 in New Orleans, of the mint and custom-house for revolutionary purposes. 
 Being objected to by Mr. Craige, of North Carolina, it was not received. 
 
 Mr. Taylor, of Louisiana, made a farewell speech. The Govern- 
 ment he said was dissolved, beyond remedy, xmless the constitution 
 were so altered as to give the south the guaranties she demanded. 
 He thought it would be for the interest of the north to accept a 
 peaceful dissolution of the Union. In answer to a question of Mr. 
 Sickles, of New York, Mr. Taylor said, that the seizures of the forts 
 and other property were made in self-defense — that the forts hav- 
 ing been erected to guard the states, could not be justly used to 
 coerce them. 
 
 Mr. Bouligny, of Louisiana, an American Union man, said he had 
 received no official information of the passage of the ordinance of se- 
 cession. Not having been elected by the convention, he was not 
 bound by their action, and he should not obey their instructions. He 
 said : " When I came here, I took an oath to maintain the constitu- 
 tion of the United States. By that oath I shall stand. Whenever in- 
 structed by my immediate constituents, their wishes will be complied 
 with. I shall, however, not only withdraw, but resign my seat. 
 After I do so, I shall continue to be a Union man, and stand under 
 the flag of my country as long as I live." 
 
 Some time was spent in debate on the bill of Mr. Colfax, of Ind., 
 for suspending the transmission of the mail in the seceding states, 
 southern members opposing the bill. Mr. Sickles, (Dem.) N. Y., 
 advocated the passage of the bill, urging, as one of the reasons, that 
 there was now no power in those states to punish any offense perpe- 
 trated upon the mails. As to the inconvenience of private citizens, 
 the merchants of New York would suffer one hundred fold more than 
 the merchants of the south. The seceding states were indebted 
 millions upon millions to the city of New York. On the indebted- 
 
SOUTHERN MAILS. 1115 
 
 ness which matured in January and February, not twenty per cent. 
 had been paid. This was the very season of the year when remit- 
 tances were forwarded. They had not been met, he regretted to know. 
 But in the present state of things it wUl be most hazardous to forward 
 remittances. He supposed that postmasters in those states paid over their 
 receipts to the sub-treasuries ; and then, as had been done in Louisiana, 
 the state authorities appropriate the money to the local government. 
 
 Mr. Sickles' feeling and attitude toward the south seem to have 
 undergone an essential change. He had been one of their devoted 
 allies, having favored a recognition of their independence, believing 
 it to have been justified by their grievances. He said : 
 
 " We must not close our eyes to the new phases which events have 
 successively put upon the secession movement. It originated, sir, as 
 a peaceful remedy for grievances. As such it had thousands and 
 tens of thousands of men at the north who were disposed to meet it 
 on midway ground, and say : ' If you can not abide with us, bitter as 
 the lesson may be, we will yield to your appeals for a separation.' 
 That was the December phase of the secession movement. In Janu- 
 ary, it assumed a new attitude. No longer peaceable, no longer dis- 
 posed to await the consent or the deliberations of the northern states, 
 forcible possession was taken of our forts, and arsenals, and arms ; 
 and we were menaced, in advance, with all the terrors of civil war; 
 and degradation to our flag and jurisdiction was inflicted upon us. 
 When this new phase of the secession movement was presented, 
 those friends of the southern cause who, up to December, defended it 
 manfully, became only the apologists " of the erring acts of their 
 friends. In February it assumed yet a new phase. I can only char- 
 acterize it as the Mexican method of revolution. * * * In j^q- 
 vember it was peaceable secession. We could agree to that. I am 
 for it. In January it was forcible secession ; and there, sir, the 
 friends of peaceable secession in the north were transformed into 
 timid apologists. In February it is spoliation and war. Armies are 
 raised under the guns of forts belonging to the United States, the 
 jurisdiction of which has been ceded to us by the solemn acts of the 
 seceding states. Measures of open war yielded to Mexican spolia- 
 tions ; and I say in the presence of this new and last phase of the se- 
 cession movement, that it can have no friends in the north ; it can 
 have no apologists in the north ; but there will soon be no exception 
 to the general denunciation which it will meet with from the loyal 
 and patriotic citizens of this country." 
 
 Mr. Branch, of N. C, said, when laws could not be enforced, it was 
 time enough to consider the measure. If the bill considered the seceded 
 
1116 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 states in tlie Union, it was unjust to withdraw from them the postal laws. 
 If it considered them out of the Union, he had no objection to the bill. 
 
 Mr. Ilindman, of Ark., regarded it as virtually recognizing the in- 
 dependence of the seceded states, and should vote for it, 
 
 Mr, Branch demanded to know if there had been any instances in 
 which the collection of postages had been stopped. 
 
 Mr, Colfax, of Ind., chairman of the post-office committee, gave a 
 number of such instances. 
 
 • The bill, though intended to apply to the southern states, Avas gen- 
 eral in its terms — authorizing the postmaster-general to discontinue 
 the mails in any state, whenever the postal service could not be safely 
 continued, or the revenues collected. 
 
 The bill passed the house, 131 to 28, It subsequently passed the senate, 
 and was approved by the President, The power which it conferred was not 
 exercised until after the commencement of Mr, Lincoln's administration. 
 
 The " Peace Convention " met at Washington on the 4th of Febru- 
 ary, 1861, and continued its session until the 27th. Twenty-one 
 states were represented : Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
 Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Penn- 
 sylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, 
 Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, and Kansas, Ex- 
 President Tyler was chosen president of the convention. 
 
 The number of states represented was perhaps greater than had 
 generally been expected. Several of the states, it is presumed, com- 
 plied with the invitation of Virginia rather from deference to the 
 wishes of the people of the border states, than from any hope of 
 agreeing upon any plan of compromise. The ultra southern states 
 having seceded, and being represented in the convention, the body 
 ,was .composed, in great part, of conservative men. After a session 
 of nearly four weeks, the convention adopted a series of propositions 
 intended to constitute article 13th of amendments to the constitution. 
 It contained seven sections. *(1.) Slavery was prohibited north of 
 the parallel of' 36 deg. 30 min., and secured south of that line. (2.) 
 No territory should be acquired, except by discovery and for national 
 uses, without the concurrence of a majority of all the senators from 
 the slaveholding states, and a majority of all the senators from the 
 non-slaveholding states ; and in case of acquisition by treaty, two- 
 thirds of each class of states must concur. (3.) Congress was to 
 have no power to control slavery in any state or territory, nor to in- 
 terfere with or abolish it in the District of Columbia, without the con- 
 sent of Maryland and the owners of slaves, nor without compensation 
 to their owners. Sundry other privileges Avere guarantied in this 
 
PEACE CONVENTION. 1117 
 
 section to slave owners. (4.) States were to have the right to pass 
 laws to enforce the delivery of fugitive slaves to legal claimants. 
 (5.) The foreign slave trade was prohibited. (6.) The provision of 
 the constitution relating to slavery, and the first, third, fifth, and 
 sixth sections of these amendments, were not to be altered or 
 abolished without the consent of all the states. (7.) Congress was 
 required to provide by law, that the United States should pay the 
 owner of a fugitive slave the full value of the slave, if rescued by 
 violence or intimidation from mobs, &c. ; and congress was required 
 to pass a law for securing to the citizens of each state the privileges 
 and immunities of citizens in the several states. 
 
 The result of the deliberations of the convention was communi- 
 cated to congress on the 27th of February, immediately after the ad- 
 journment of the convention. But congress failing to submit the 
 proposed amendment to the states for ratification, the convention 
 pVoved a failure. But it is not probable that, even if the proposed 
 amendments had been adopted by congress and submitted, the labors 
 of the convention would have been availing. Virginia had, through 
 her leading citizens, declared her purpose, if force should be employed 
 against the seceding states, to join the new confederacy ; and as 
 these states were determined on a separation at all events ; and as 
 moreover, coercive measures could not have been deferred until the 
 states could have had time to act upon the proposed amendments, 
 neither Virginia nor any other of the subsequently seceding states 
 would have been retained in the Union. Even if congress had had 
 time to deliberate and act upon the propositions of the convention 
 it is not probable that they could have commanded the votes of two- 
 thirds of both houses of congress ; and still less probable that they 
 would have been ratified by three-fourths of the states. Moreover, 
 there is at least strong presumptive evidence, as will be seen .before 
 we come to the end of this chapter, that these "peace propositions" 
 would not have proved acceptable to the south. 
 
 Petitions continued to come into congress from the different states, 
 on the all engrossing subject; some asking for compromise, and a 
 large portion of them particularly designating the Ci'ittenden propo- 
 sitions ; while many remonstrated against their adoption. These 
 propositions found favor with many of the more conservative Repub- 
 licans who believed that some concession was necessary to save the 
 border slave states. Others of that party regarded them as demand- 
 ing little less than an entire surrender to the slave power ; and to 
 sanction them was tantamount to a confession that the objects and 
 principles of the party were wrong and indefensible, and not honestly 
 
1118 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 entertained. Nor was tliere, in their view, the least evidence that 
 after having brought themselves into this humiliating position, a sin- 
 gle state would be conciliated. Their views were forcibly expressed in the 
 house, (February 16th,) by Mr. Somes, of Maine, on the report of the 
 committee of thirty-three. He regarded concession as an encouragement 
 to treason rather than the means of staying its progress. Mr. Somes said : 
 
 " The difficulties that threaten the peace and stability of the nation, 
 are the results of an attempt to override civilization by forcing 
 slavery on enlightened communities. The advocates of slavery are 
 trying to harmonize an intensified despotism with free schools and 
 Christianity. They insult the intelligence of the north by declaring 
 that wrong is right; and they propose to gag all that diflEer from 
 them. They had undertaken to unite two repellant bodies, and be- 
 cause they will not fuse, they threaten to break the crucible. Any 
 political chemist could have foretold the result. The framers of the 
 constitution, while planting slavery as a necessity there, yet provided 
 in the constitution means of carrying out the theory of equal rights, 
 namely : Free speech and a free press. They feared not error so 
 long as truth was free to contradict it. Our southern friends under- 
 stand the power of truth as well as Napoleon the First did, and fear 
 it more. * * * The present game of forcing the north into com- 
 promise is one of brag. Conventions are cheap, and resolutions 
 cheaper. We have had numerous southern conventions and resolu- 
 tions for direct trade and magnificent steam-ships ; but they floated only 
 in the imagination of the resolvers. 
 
 " But you say now they have certainly seceded ; have seized public 
 property and threaten war ; I know it ; and this is the very card to 
 bring congress to its knees, and they know it. I admire their bold- 
 ness. They stake all on a small pair, and then, without moving a 
 muscle, look their opponent in the face until he quails, and lays down 
 his hand. They play the game more desperately than they first in- 
 tended; for they did not expect firmness in the people of the north. 
 If that which was intended for a farce results in a tragedy, the get- 
 ters up of the piece will be alone responsible. * * * Be warned 
 of the fate of those who have compromised with wrong. The fugitive 
 slave law was framed to satisfy the slave power, and was made so 
 heavy that it crushed its northern champion, the greatest man of the 
 age; and carried down a President and the Whig party. Are you 
 not satisfied with such a feat ? or have you got your eyes on another 
 crop of great men and a successful party, whose necks you wish to 
 place under this modern guillotine called compromise ? Several are 
 on their backs already, looking at the glistening blade ; but they are 
 
SOMKS ON COMPROMISE. 1119 
 
 unwilling to die alone, so tliey beckon us on to share tlieir inglorious 
 fate. A sham compromise will do the south no good ; for a real one 
 there is no basis. The border states, for their own safety, must ally 
 themselves with the north. Emancipation is sure to come in time; 
 nothing can prevent it ; better prepare for it in season. Aggressions 
 on northern men in slave states must cease. RebelHon must be put 
 down, or the power of a consolidated north will sweep away all re- 
 sistance. Unless the south retreats from its treason, slavery is 
 doomed, and will go out in blood. Secession, compromise, and recon- 
 struction is now the platform of the odds and ends of the democratic 
 party ; secession to force compromise ; compromise to destroy the 
 republican party, and reconstruct the old democracy on its ruins. 
 Let us meet this courageously. The people sustain brave men, and 
 follow a hero into a ditch sooner than a coward into camp. Save the 
 free states from humiliation, the border states from secession. By 
 compromise you encourage treason and enhance the danger. I hope 
 that the Union will be saved ; but it must not be by striking hands 
 with wrong. Let us have liberty and Union if we can ; but liberty 
 "without Union, rather than Union without liberty." 
 
 In the house, February the 18th, Mr. Stanton, of Ohio, from the 
 military committee, reported a bill supplemental to the acts of 1Y95 
 and 1807; the former being "an act to provide for calling forth the 
 militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections," &c. ; 
 the latter, " an act authorizing the employment of the land and naval 
 forces of the United States in cases of insurrection." The bill pro- 
 posed to extend these acts to the case of insurrections against the 
 authority of the United States ; and to authorize the President, when 
 lawful, to use the militia in addition to the army and navy ; to ac- 
 cept the services of volunteers as cavalry, infantry, and artillery, and 
 to officer the same. 
 
 Mr. Bocock, of Va., said if there is to be any hope of peace, it must 
 be by the rejection of force bills. 
 
 Mr. Stanton said the bill merely supplied an omission in the act 
 of 1795. The bill was vehemently opposed by southern members. It 
 was advocated on the other side as necessary to enable the President 
 to perform his duty of executing the constitution and the laws. 
 
 Mr. Sickles, of N. Y., offered an amendment, providing that the 
 troops raised should be employed only to aid in the execution of 
 judicial process ; and to be sent into any state only on the request of 
 its legislature, or of the executive when the legislature is not in ses- 
 sion, in conformity with article 4, section 4, of the constitution, 
 
 Mr. Corwin moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill 
 
1120 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to the 28t]a ; and the motion prevailed, 100 to 74. It was not again 
 acted upon. 
 
 In the house, on the 27th of February, under the call of the pre- 
 vious question, the votes Avere taken upon the report of the commit- 
 tee of thirty-three. The amendment of Messrs. Burch and Stout, 
 mentioned in a preceding chapter, recommending to the states to re- 
 quest congress to call a convention to amend the constitution, which 
 had been reported as a substitute, was rejected : Yeas, 74 ; nays, 
 108. A motion to lay the resolutions on the table having been lost, 
 the vote was then taken upon a substitute offered by Mr. Kellogg, of 
 HI,, proposing to run the line of 36 deg. 30 min. between free and 
 slave territory ; declaring that nothing in the constitution should, be 
 construed to authorize interference with slavery in the states ; that 
 the constitution does authorize congress to pass laws for the return 
 of fugitives from labor; and that no slaves be imported into the 
 United States. Yeas, 33 ; nays, 158. 
 
 The Crittenden proposition, offered by Mr. Clemens, of Va., as a sub- 
 stitute for Mr. Corwin's resolutions, was rejected : Yeas, 80 ; nays, 
 113. The question then recurred upon ordering the resolutions of 
 the committee of thirty-three, (Corwin's,) to a third reading. After 
 an ineffectual attempt by southern members to divide the series, and to 
 get a vote on them separately ; and after their third reading, and another 
 unsuccessful effort to obtain a separate vote, they were passed, 136 to 53. 
 
 Then came up the joint resolution to amend the constitution, re- 
 ported by Mr. Corwin from the committee of thirty-three. It proposed, 
 as article 13 of amendments, that no amendment designed to inter- 
 fere with the relation between masters and their slaves, shall origin- 
 ate with any state that does not recognize that relation, or be valid 
 without the assent of every state. But before the question was 
 taken on the engrossment and third reading, Mr. Corwin proposed to 
 alter so as to read as follows : 
 
 "No amendment shall be made to the constitution which will 
 authorize or give congress power to abolish or interfere, within any 
 state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons 
 held to labor or service by the laws of said state." 
 
 Mr. Hickman moved to lay' the resolution of amendment on the 
 table. Lost: 68 to 121. On the third reading, the vote was, 120 to 
 61 ; on the main question, 123 to 71. Lost, for want of a two-thirds 
 majority. A motion was made to reconsider; but, while the motion 
 was pending, the house adjourned. The next day, Mr. Kilgore, of 
 Ind., and Mr, Stanton, of Ohio, Republicans, spoke in favor of the 
 proposed amendment, creating much excitement in the house 
 
PEACE CONVENTION PROPOSITIONS. 1121 
 
 On the final question, the vote was : Yeas, 133 ; nays, 65 — a ma- 
 jority of two-thirds 
 
 The next day, (March 1st,) Mr, Corwin's bill for the admission of 
 New Mexico as a state being under consideration, it was, on motion 
 of Mr. Hickman, laid upon the table, 
 
 Mr. Corwin's bill to amend the fugitive slave law was then taken 
 up. This bill provided for returning the fugitive to the state from 
 which he escaped, where the claim to his service was to be tried by a 
 jury. It provided also that citizens should not be compelled to aid 
 in the capture or detention of fugitives, unless when overpowering 
 force is employed or apprehended to prevent their capture ; and 
 the fees of commissioners were to be $10 for every case heard and 
 determined. 
 
 Mr. Hickman moved to lay this bill on the table. Lost : Yeas, 73 ; 
 nays, 104. The bill was passed, 92 to 82. 
 
 Mr. Corwin's third bill, reported as an amendment to the act for 
 the rendition of " fugitives from justice," was taken up. It is known 
 to many readers, that individuals in the South have complained, that 
 when northern men have aided slaves to escape, requisitions have 
 been made upon northern governors for delivering up such men, to 
 be taken for trial ,into the states in which the offense was alleged to 
 have been committed ; and that such governors have refused to 
 " deliver up" on the ground that the offense charged was not a crime 
 in the states of which the alleged offenders were citizens. Cases are 
 on record, in which this has been sanctioned by southern tribunals. 
 This bill provided for the arrest of any person thus charged, who waa 
 to be brought before a district judge, who, on being satisfied that he 
 was, when the ci'ime was committed, within the jurisdiction of the 
 state from which he fled, of which the charge was to he prima f am 
 evidence, was to deliver him up for removal to the state having juris- 
 diction of such crime. 
 
 This making the mere charge of crime prima facie evidence of crime 
 in connection with the fact that the circulation of an anti-slavery paper, 
 or the teaching of a slave to read, is criminal in some of 'the southern 
 states, rendered the bill odious to many of the Republicans ; and it 
 was lost. Its passage could hardly have been expected by those who 
 reported it. 
 
 The speaker now asked leave to present the proceedings and pro- 
 positions of the Peace Convention, wliich had been communicated by 
 John Tyler, its president. A sketch of the proceedings of the 
 house on this subject, is thus given in Victor's History of the 
 Rebellion : 
 
 Objections were immediately made by several Republicans. Thad- 
 
 71 
 
1122 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 deus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, did not even v(rant to hear John 
 Tyler's communication read. McClernand, (Dem.) of 111., moved to 
 suspend the rules. Grow, (Rep.) of Pa., called for the regular order 
 of business, which was a special order on the te-rritorial bill. Boteler, 
 (Am.) of Ya., asked if there was any thing so important that it should 
 take the place of the Peace conference propositions. Lovejoy, of 111., 
 answered : "Yes, sir ; there are a thousand things which should take 
 precedence." Before any action could be taken, the house adjourned, 
 to reassemble at an evening session. 
 
 At the evening session, a long wrangle followed over McClernand's 
 motion to suspend the rules in order to get the Peace convention pro- 
 positions before the house. The vote finally being ordered, the house 
 refused to suspend, by 93 ayes to 61 nays ; not two-thirds in the 
 affirmative, as required. During the call of the yeas and naj's, the 
 members pretty freely expressed their sentiments in regard to the 
 measures proposed by the conference. 
 
 Craige, of N. C, was " utterly opposed to any such wishy-washy 
 settlement of our national difficulties." 
 
 Leake, of Va., "regarded this thing as a miserable abortion." 
 
 Mr, Hindman, of Ark., " desired to defeat the propositions of the 
 Peace conference, believing them to be unworthy of the votes of 
 southern men." 
 
 Garnett, of Va., " intending and desiring to express his abhorrence 
 of these insidious propositions, conceived in fraud and J^orn in cow- 
 ardice, by giving a direct vote against them," would vote to re- 
 ceive them. 
 
 When the result was announced on Mr. MeClernand's motion to 
 suspend the rules, he said : " This vote divides the Republican party, 
 and sounds its death knell." 
 
 In the senate, the next day, (March 1st,) the Peace convention pro- 
 positions came up, when Mr. Sewai'd offered his amendment as a sub- 
 stitute : That the " states be invited to take the subject into consider- 
 ation, and express their will on the subject to congress, in pursuance 
 of the fifth article of the constitution." 
 
 Mr. Hunter, of Va., offered the first article of the Crittenden resolu- 
 tions in the place of the first proposition of the convention. He con- 
 sidered the plan proposed by the convention as worse for the South 
 than any that had yet been offered. He stated many objections ; 
 some of which were, that under these propositions, the South could 
 never acquire m^ro territory; it would almost force the border 
 states into the southern confederacy, where they could acquire terri- 
 tory. The provision that congress should provide for the security of 
 the citizens of each state to the privileges and immunities of citizens 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
PEACE CONVENTION PROPOSITIONS. 1123 
 
 in all the states, contained the seeds of civil war, and might impose 
 on the South a dangerous class of citizens, such as abolition lecturers, 
 &c,, and thought it best to leave the question to the honor of the 
 state. He understood that the states of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennes- 
 see, North Carolina, and California had said they would settle on the 
 Crittenden plan. Why not, then, adopt that plan ? It was all that 
 was required for peace. 
 
 Mr. Crittenden said the representatives of some twenty states had 
 presentt J these propositions, and asked congress to present them to 
 the people, and thought that was the only question now to be con* 
 sidered. If the legislatures of the states had presented them, it 
 would not have been proper to amend them. He contended that 
 these propositions gave the South the best possible security for 
 their rights. 
 
 Mr. Mason, of Ya., opposed the propositions of the convention, al- 
 leging that the first section cut the South from all rights in the north- 
 ern portion of the territory, and left them to law-suit in the other 
 portion. It left them rights under the common law, but the judicial 
 expounders of the common law in the free states denied any right of 
 propert}' in man. 
 
 Mr. Baker, (Rep.) of Oregon, said he intended to vote for the pro- 
 positions, and for submitting them to the people. The country was 
 in peril. Twenty states had appealed to us, and why not submit the 
 propositions ? If they urged them, that is their business, not 
 ours ; and if they adopt them, then they are measures of peace and 
 Union. 
 
 Mr. Green, (Dem.) of Missouri, said he was willing to make himself 
 a burnt offering on the altar of sacrifice, but he would not take one of 
 the propositions of the Peace conference, which involved a desertion 
 of safety and honor. These propositions are the merest twaddle ; 
 but the Crittenden resolutions have some sense in them. We must 
 have the right of property settled every where beyond a doubt. No 
 senator can come through a free state with his servant now, but is 
 compelled, when he goes home, to avoid what is called "free soil." If 
 this thing is not corrected, then we must divide. 
 
 A motion was made by Mr. Wade of Ohio, to adjourn, and renewed 
 by Mr. Trumbull, of 111., who said he saw no good in debating 
 propositions intended for the border states when they will have none 
 of them. 
 
 Thus it appears, as before stated, that the propositions of the Peace 
 convention were not acceptable to the border slave states, if their 
 views were correctly represented in congress. In the senate they 
 received only 3 out of 3T votes. In the house their fate was scarcely 
 
1124 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 better. It may be here added, that a resolution had been introduced in 
 the Peace convention, recoiainending to the several states to unite 
 with Kentucky in applying to congress to call a general convention to 
 propose amendments to the constitution. The resolution was sup- 
 ported by the Republicans, and opposed and defeated by their oppo- 
 nents. All the slave states (seven) represented in the convention 
 voted in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Lane, of Oregon, (Dem.,) referring to a former speech of sen- 
 ator Johnson, of Tenn., denounced, in severe terms, the declarations 
 of the latter in favor of the right to coerce a state, and advocated the 
 right of secession ; and he declared that Virginia would follow the 
 other southern states if she were not pacified. 
 
 Mr. Johnson reiterated his former sentiments respecting treason. 
 Treason was defined as war against the government. Show him 
 those who had fired on the United States flag, who seized forts, arse- 
 nals, and custom-houses, and he would show you traitors. If he were 
 President of the United States, he would have all such arrested and 
 tried, and, if convicted, would have them hung. He declared against 
 all flags but the stars and stripes for the country, and assumed 
 that it was its destiny to wave over the entire land, iu spite of 
 secession. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Bigler, (Dem.) of Pa., the rules were suspended 
 to take up the joint resolution of the house for the amendment of the 
 constitution-— the Corwin amendment. Mr. Pugh, (Dem.) of Ohio, 
 moved to amend by substituting the Crittenden resolutions. Mr. 
 Doolittle, (Rep.) of Wis., offered as an amendment to Mr. Pugh's, his 
 own resolution, of which he had before given notice that he would at 
 a proper time offer to the first section of the amendment proposed by 
 the convention : " That this section shall take effect on the express 
 condition that no state, or any part thereof, heretofore admitted, or 
 hereafter to be admitted, shall have power to withdraw from the 
 jurisdiction of the United States ; and that the constitution be the 
 supreme law of the land, anything contained in any constitution or 
 ordinance of any state legislature to the contrary notwithstanding." 
 
 A random discussion ensued, which continued till midnight, (Satur- 
 day, March 2d,) and Sunday being the last day of the life of congress 
 and Mr. Buchanan's administration. 
 
 Mr. Crittenden, however, made one more appeal on the question in 
 which he felt so deep an interest ; and was followed by Mr. Trum- 
 bull, and others ; when the question was taken on Mr. Doolittle's 
 amendment, and lost, 18 to 28. After a running debate on Pugh's 
 amendment substituting the Crittenden propositions for the Corwin 
 amendment, the proposed substitute was rejected — only three yeas. 
 
REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE. 1125 
 
 Clark's resolution, that the constitution is good enough, and needs 
 only to be obeyed, &c., was proposed by Mr. Bingham, (Rep.) of 
 Michigan, and lost, 13 to 25. The minority report proposition of 
 Seward and Trumbull was then voted on, and lost, 14 to 25. The 
 house joint resolution was then adopted, 24 to 12 ; being precisely a 
 constitutional majority of two-thirds. So the amendment stood pro- 
 posed to the legislatures of the states for their ratification. 
 
 Mr. Mason, of Va., then called np the Crittenden resolutions to get 
 a direct vote on them. Mr. Clark's resolution, having been offered 
 as a substitute, was first disposed of It was lost, 14 to 22, as were 
 other amendments. The question on the joint resolutions of Mr. Crit- 
 tenden was then taken, and lost, 19 to 20 : the yeas all Democrats, 
 except Mr. Crittenden, American ; nays all Republicans. 
 
 CHAPTER XC. 
 
 REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE. — CONDITION OF THE TREASURY. — TREASON 
 
 OF GENERAL TWIfiGS. — FRAUDS OF COBB AND FLOYD. THE TARIFF AND 
 
 OTHER ACTS. — INAUGURATION OF MR. LINCOLN. 
 
 Skveral interesting reports were made by committees, during this 
 session, (1861,) to which no reference has been made in preceding 
 Chapters. One of these reports was that of the committee of five, of 
 which Mr. Howard, of Michigan, was chairman^ to which had been 
 referred the President's message of January 8tb, 1861, [see Chapter 
 LXXXVII,] with instructions to report whether any executive officers 
 were or had been concerned in the surrender of forts or other pro- 
 perty, or had entered into agreement not to send recnforcements to 
 the f )rts at Charleston ; what demand for regnforcements had been 
 made, and \vhy refused ; where the ships of the United States were 
 6tati(Ujed, with what commands and orders ; whether the custom- 
 house, post-office, arsenal, &c., at Charleston had been seized, and the 
 particulars concerning the seizure ; &c., &c. To this committee was 
 also referred the message of February 8th, communicating corres- 
 pondence with Col. Hayne, the agent of South Carolina, and other 
 matters. 
 
 This committee made a report, February 21st, on the state of the 
 navy, and the conduct of tlie secretary of the navy, Mr. Toucey. 
 They gave a list of the entire naval force, and stated the location of 
 
1126 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the vessels. In speaking of the " extraordinary disposition" of the 
 naval force, they say : " Since the nation possessed a navy, it has 
 never sent its entire available force into distant seas and exposed the 
 immense interests at home to the danglers from which, even in times 
 of the utmost quiet, prudence and forecast do alwaj's shelter th-em. 
 But the committee cannot shut their eyes to the fact, that this remark- 
 able state of things has occurred at a period of our history without a 
 parallel for internal commotion, lawless violence, and a total disregard 
 of the authority of the constitution and laws, and of the rights of pro- 
 perty, public and private ; a state of things which the President him- 
 self, in the message referred to this committee, denominated a revolu- 
 tion of ' such vast and alarming proportions as to place the subject 
 entirely beyond executive control.' " The committee mention the 
 fact, that vessels had been permitted to depart for distant seas after 
 these difiBculties had broken out at home ; and the omission to put in 
 repair and commission ready for orders a single one of the twenty- 
 eight ships dismantled and unfit for service, whilst $646,639 of the 
 appropriation for repairs in the navy remained unexpended. The 
 committee mention also among the " gi'ave errors" of the secretary, 
 the acceptance of so many resignations of naval officers without in- 
 quiry, many of them to lead insurgent forces against the government. 
 Some of them are specified by the committee. 
 
 On the 21tli of February, the committee submitted a report cover- 
 ing the entire subject of the President's correspondence with the 
 South Carolina commissioners, and the complicity with treason 
 chargeable to certain members of the cabinet. The committee allude 
 to the opinion expressed in the President's message, " that there is 
 no power in tlie executive to give the slightest countenance to an at- 
 tempt of a state to withdraw from the Union ;" and, concurring in that 
 opinion, they are "unable to perceive upon what principle the Presi- 
 dent, representing the dignity of the United States, held any official 
 communication with the representatives of South Cai'oliua." Being 
 engaged in a revolutionary effort to subvert the government, it would 
 appear to have been the plain duty of the executive to enforce the laws 
 against any individuals known or suspected of complicity in any 
 treasonable movement. They regarded the reception of a communi* 
 cation from such men, and giving it an official reply, as involving, to 
 some extent, the recognition of tlie assumed position of the rebellious 
 etate. They can not sanction a policy which professes a purpose to 
 execute the laws, and protect the public property from unlawful 
 violence, and yet remains inactive when revolution is impending, and 
 entertains friendly intercourse with embassies instigated by tho 
 highest type of treason. 
 
REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE. 112T 
 
 After a full examination of the subject, the committee conclude by 
 recommending the following resolution ; " Resolved, That, in the 
 opinion of this house, the President had no constitutional power to 
 negotiate with the representatives of the state of South Carolina for 
 the surrender of any public property within the limits of tliat state ; 
 *and that it is inexpedient for congress to take any further action in 
 relation thereto." 
 
 A very brief minority report was made by John Cochrane, of X. Y., 
 in defense of the President. He thought the language of the message 
 did not justify the inference that the South Carolina commissioners 
 had been admitted tt) diplomatic intercourse. They had only been 
 received as distinguished citizens. The commissioners stated, in re- 
 ference to this attitude of the President, that " they felt no special 
 solicitude as to the character in which the President might recog- 
 nize them." 
 
 On the 28th, .the committee submitted a report, covering the revolu- 
 tion, its causes, its claims, and the manner of dealing with it. The 
 nature of the government, the doctrine of secession, the alleged griev- 
 ances of the South, and sundry other topics are discussed with abil- 
 ity ; but as the facts and arguments are contained, substantial!}^, in 
 abstracts of speeches and documents in preceding Chapters, and as 
 their insertion is incompatible with our limited space, the report is 
 entirely omitted, excepting only a short extract from a speech of 
 senator Seward, quoted by the com.mittee, in relation to the disputed 
 right of coerci(ju : 
 
 " The President says that no state has a right to secede ; but we 
 have no constitutional power to make war against a state. The 
 dilemma results from an assumption that those who, in such case, act against 
 the Federal Government, act lavfuUy as a state, although manifestly they 
 have perverted the power of a state to an unconstitutional purpose. 
 A class of politicians in New England set up this theory, and at- 
 tempted to practice upon it in our war with Great Britain. Mr. 
 JeflFervSon did not hesitate to say that states must be kept within their 
 constitutional sphere by impulsion, if they could not be held there by 
 attraction. Secession was then held to be inadmissible in the face 
 of a public enemy. But if it is untenable in one case, it is neces- 
 sarily so in all others . I fully admit the originality, the sovereignty, 
 and the independence of the several states within their spheres. 
 But I hold the Federal Government to be equally original, sovereign, 
 and independent within its sphere. And the government of a state 
 can no more absolve the people residing within its limits from alle- 
 giance to the Union, than the government of the Union can absolve 
 them from allegiance to the state. The Constitution of the United 
 
1128 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law 
 of the land, paramount to all legislation of the states, whether made 
 under the constitution, or by even their organic conventions. The 
 Union can be dissolved, not by secession, with or without armed 
 force, but only by the voluntary consent of the people of the United 
 States, collected in the manner prescribed by the constitution of the 
 United States." 
 
 One of the most atrocious and disgraceful of the treasonable acts 
 recorded in the history of the rebellion, is that of Major-General 
 David E. Twiggs, 'commanding in the depai'tment of Texas. False 
 to his oath, he surrendered to the revolutionists the movable property, 
 and fixed property in forts, bai'racks, guns, &c., in his department. 
 The reason which he assigned for his compliance with the demand of 
 the commissioners of the state of Texas to deliver to the state authori- 
 ties the military posts and public property, was, that he " desired to 
 avoid even the possibility of a collision between the Federal and 
 state troops." So he evacuated the garrisons, and took up his line 
 of march out of Texas. The amount of property surrendered, consist- 
 ing of horses, mules, wagons, harness, tools, iron, nails, corn, cloth- 
 ing, commissary and ordnance stores, was estimated at $1,209,500. 
 Thus were the revolutionists at once put in possession of the means 
 of defending that stale. 
 
 Sundry oflScers in the civil departments of the government were 
 found guilty of highly corrupt and fraudulent ti'ansactions. One of 
 these was the secretary of the treasury, Howell Cobb. In causing 
 delay in the consummation of a certain loan, great loss was sustained 
 by certain bidders. In consequence of his failure in delivering the 
 bonds and coupons, bidders refused to take the amounts awarded to 
 them. And after the bonds had been applied for and bis failure to 
 furnish tliem, he announced publicly in market, that if the Republican 
 "party should succeed at the ensuing election, the southern states would with- 
 draw from the Union, and the government tvould be broken up ; wliereby 
 the credit of the United States was impaired, and the market value of 
 the bonds depressed. 
 
 But a more faithless and treacherous " public functionary" was 
 found in the person of John B. Floyd, secretary of war. It seems 
 that acceptances had been issued to contractors with the government 
 for services not yet performed, to the enormous amount of $6,917,395, 
 to a single firm ! These acceptances were sold to banks and private 
 individuals, in various parts of the United States. Mr. Benjamin, of 
 Louisiana, had, at the President's request, called on Mr. Floyd to 
 warn him of the dangers of this reckless use of his official name ; 
 and although he promised to stop the practice of issuing paper in ad- 
 
THE TARIFF AND OTHER ACTS. 1129 
 
 vance of services performed by the Utah Army supply contractors, 
 Messrs. Russell, Majors, and Waddell, the practice was continued. 
 Having been indicted, (January 28th,) on two counts, by the grand 
 jury of Washington city : first, for malfeasance in ofBce ; and, second, 
 for conspirac}' with others to defraud the government ; he took refuge 
 in Virginia, and' joined the conspirators against the Union, whom, 
 while in oflSce, he had furnished with arms to carry on their war 
 against the government. 
 
 The seizure and release of five northern vessels by order of Gov- 
 ernor Brown, of Georgia, has been mentioned. The ten cases of arms 
 claimed by citizens of Georgia having been retained by the New 
 York police, the Governor ordered the seizure of two northern ships, 
 as reprisals for the restoration of the muskets. The 28 cases belong- 
 ing to Alaliama had been delivered up to the sheriff after proper 
 legal proceedings. The Georgia claimants might, by similar pro- 
 ceedings, have obtained their ten cases. Having written to Gov. 
 Morgan, of New York, and received no response, the seizure was 
 made. The ten cases were, after due process of law, released. 
 
 The national treasury had become entirely exhausted, and needed 
 the prompt interposition and aid of congress. The credit of the gov- 
 ernment iiad been materially impaired during the management of its 
 finances by secretary Cobb. Its paper, instead of continuing to com- 
 mand a premium, liad sunk to a point about 8 to 10 per cent, below 
 par. Tu improve the condition of the national finances was an object 
 which engaged the earnest efforts of secretary Dix on his entering 
 upon the duties of his oCBce ; and he was highly successful during 
 the few weeks of his official term. 
 
 To replenish the treasury, congress passed an act to authorize the 
 issue of treasury notes to an amount not exceeding $10,000,000 : 
 Also an act autliorizing a luan ; by wliich the President was authoi'- 
 ized to borrow, at imy time before the first of July next, a sum not ex* 
 ceeding $25,000,000, to be used in payment of the current demands 
 upon tlie treasury, and for tlie redemption of outstanding treasury 
 notes, &c. 
 
 But anotlier, and a more important act was passed, having the 
 double object ol' affording relief to the treasury, and of altering the 
 tariff, and entitled, An Act to provide for the payment of outstanding 
 Treasury Notes, to authorize a Loan, to regulate and fix the Duties 
 on Imports, and for other purposes. The sum to be loaned was not 
 to exceed $10,000,000. 
 
 It was now fifteen years since the enactment, under Mr. Polk's ad- 
 ministration, in 1846, of what was denominated a revenue tariff. 
 Also the duties were laid upon the ad valorem principle. Under this 
 
1130 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tariiF importations had been encouraged to such extent as to yield a 
 revenue beyond the public necessities, which led to the reduction, in 
 1857, of the Tariff of 1846. The revenue from customs had, for years 
 prior to this reduction, been about $64,000,000. The diminution of 
 importations caused by the great commercial revulsion which 
 occurred in 1857, and the reduction of duties, had reduced the an- 
 nual revenue from customs to less than $40,000,000 in 1861. 
 
 The friends of the protective policy had for many 3'ears seen, or 
 supposed they had seen, the need of a revision of the tariff ; indeed, 
 they regarded the revulsion of 1857 as but the legitimate and natural 
 result of the policy adopted in 1846 ; but, being in the minority, no 
 change had for years been even attempted. 
 
 It will be recollected, that Mr. Buchanan had, in his messages of 
 December 1858 and 1859, recommended an increase of duties, and a 
 return to the system of specific duties. As both the wants of the 
 treasury, and the depression of some important branches of industry, 
 demanded a revision of the tariff with a view to the augmentation of 
 duties, the house, at the session of 1859-1860, passed a bill accord- 
 ingly. Although the Democrats were in the majority, the bill was 
 passed by a vote of 105 to 64 ; some northern Democrats voting with 
 the Republicans in favor of the bill. Although a considerable num- 
 ber of the Republican members had formerly been Democrats and 
 opposed protective tariffs, but one of their number, it is believed, 
 voted against the bill. 
 
 The bill was sent to the senate, where, by delays and postpone- 
 ment, it failed to reach a final vote. At the next session, however, 
 after the withdrawal of the secession senators had given the Repub- 
 licans a majority in this body also, the bill was taken up, and 
 passed by a vote of 25 to 14 ; Mr. Bigler, (Dem.) of Pa., voting with 
 the majority. 
 
 The friends of the measure were sanguine in the expectation of a 
 revival, under its operations, of some of the branches of domestic in- 
 dustry which had long been left to struggle, without protection, 
 against foreign competition, as well as of a restoration of the general 
 prosperity of the country, which had not yet recovered from the re- 
 vulsion of 1857, which had been ascribed to the abandonment of the 
 protective policy. The war having immediately succeeded the pas- 
 sage of the law, no opportunity has been afforded for testing its na- 
 tural operation upon the national industry. 
 
 Notwithstanding the probability of a civil war, no acts were passed 
 with express reference to such an event. 
 
 Among the acts passed at this session, (1860-1861,) were acts 
 providing governments for the territories of Colorado, Nevada, and 
 
INAUGURATION OF MR. LINCOLN. 1131 
 
 Dacotatj. Although by the retirement of the senators and representa- 
 tives of the seceding" states, the Republicans had majorities in both 
 houses, no anti-slavery clause was inserted in the act to organize 
 either of the territories. 
 
 An act was passed relating to the postal service. Though general 
 in its provisions, it had special reference to the seceded and seceding 
 states, authorizing the postmaster-general to discontinue the mails in 
 the southern states, whenever the postal service could not be safely 
 continued, or the revenues collected. The power conferred in this 
 act was not exercised until after the commencement of Mr. Lincoln's 
 administration. 
 
 Mr. Branch, of N. C, said, when the laws could not be enforced, it 
 •was time enough to consider the measure. If the bill considered the 
 seceded states in the Union, it was unjust to withdraw from them 
 the postal laws. If it considered them out of the Union, he had no 
 objection to the bill. Mr. Hindman, of Ark., regarded it as virtually 
 recognizing the independence of the seceded states, and should vote 
 for it. Mr. Branch demanded to know if there had been any instances 
 in which the collection of postages had been stopped. Mr. Colfax 
 gave several such instances. 
 
 The bill passed the house, 131 to 28. It was concurred in by the 
 senate, and approved by the President. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln, the President elect, left his home at Springfield, 111., on 
 Monday the 11th of Februar}', 1861. In compliance with previous 
 invitations from the legislatures of the states of Indiana, Ohio, New 
 York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and of the corporations of the 
 principal cities on the route, he stopped at these places to receive the 
 hospitalities of their citizens. The last friendly reception he received 
 on the way was at Harrisburg. He had contemplated stopping at 
 Baltimore for a reception tendered him by the citizens of that city ; 
 but having been apprised of an intention of some of the " baser sort" 
 of persons to raise a mob on his appearance there, he left Harrisburg 
 by the cars early in the evening, and passed through Baltimore in the 
 night, in disguise, and reached Washington, where he arrived the 
 next morning, (Saturday, the 23d,) to the surprise of the citizens. 
 
 Doubts were for a time entertained of the existence of the alleged 
 conspiracy to assault him on his arrival at Baltimore. The fact, how- 
 ever, that the course pursued was in accordance with the advice of 
 Gen. Scott, in connection with other facts subsequently elicited, leave 
 scarcely a doubt of a design against a peaceable leception at 
 Baltimore. 
 
 Preparations were making for the Inauguration. Threats had been 
 uttered that Mr. Lincoln should never be inaugurated ; and it was 
 
1132 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 suspected by many that an attempt would be made to carry them 
 into effect. Troops had recently been ordered to the seat of Govern- 
 ment, On th'e 11th of February, the house, by a resolution, Irequested 
 the President to communicate the reason for assembling' and keeping 
 there so large a number of troops ; and whether he had any informa. 
 tion of a conspiracy to seize upoo the capital, and prevent the inau- 
 guration of the President elect. In answer to this resolution, Mr. 
 Holt, secretary of war, addressed a letter to the President, in which 
 he expressed the opinion that an "armed occupation of Washington 
 city" had been " a part of the revolutionary programme," and gave 
 several reasons for this opinion. The force, however, consisted of 
 only 683 effective troops, whom the President had summoned as a 
 posse comitatiis to preserve peace and order before and during the in- 
 auguration, should any designs of violence appear. 
 
 Congress continued in session until 12 o'clock, at noon of the 4th 
 of March, when both houses adjourned. Soon aftei", the Inauguration 
 took place, without anj' signs of disturbance. 
 
 The Inaugural Address of Mr. Lincoln gave general satisfaction. 
 It related chiefly to the great question which agitated the nation. 
 The declaration of his sentiments and policy in regard to this ques- 
 tion had been awaited with deep solicitude. They were clearly and 
 unequivocall)^ expressed. He assured the South, that their property, 
 their peace, and personal security would not be endangered ; that he 
 had no inclination nor right to interfere with slavery where it existed. 
 Fugitive slaves were, by the constitution, to be " delivered up ;" and 
 all the members of congress swear their support to this provision as 
 well as anj'- other. Any law upon this subject, however, should 
 guard the liberty of the persons claimed as slaves. And would it 
 not be well, too, to provide for enforcing that clause of the constitu- 
 tion which guaranties to the citizens of each state all the privileges 
 and immunities of citizens in all the states ? 
 
 There was some difference of opinion, he said, upon the question, 
 whether the clause requiring the surrender of fugitive slaves should 
 be enforced by national or by state authority. He thought the ques- 
 tion not a very material one. In contemplation of universal law and 
 of the constitution, the Union was perpetual. No government proper 
 evpr had a provision in its organic law for its termination. And in 
 the view of the constitution and the laws, the Union was unbroken, 
 and to the extent of his ability, he should take care that the laws be 
 faithfully executed in all the states. The mails, unless repelled, 
 would continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. All pro- 
 fessed to be content in the Union if all constitutional risrhts could bo 
 
INAUGURATION OV MR. LINCOLN. 1133 
 
 maintained. Was it true, then, that any right plainly writte.n in the 
 constitution had been denied ? He thought not. 
 
 He discussed the power of the supreme court to decide constftu- 
 tional questions. Its decision must be binding in any case upon the 
 parties to a suit, as to the objects of that suit, while they were also 
 entitled to high respect by other departments of the government. 
 Yet, if the policy of the government were to be irrevocably fixed by 
 the decisions of the supreme court, the people would cease to be their 
 own rulers, having practically resigned their government into the 
 hands of that eminent tribunal. 
 
 Several questions are alluded to which we pass over. Addressing 
 bis dissatisfied countrymen, he thus closed : 
 
 " If it were admitted that you hold the right side in the dispute, 
 there is still no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelli- 
 gence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has 
 never j'et forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in 
 the best way, all our present difficulty. In your hands, my dissatis- 
 fied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of 
 civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no 
 conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath 
 registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have 
 the most solemn one to ' preserve, protect, and defend' it. 
 
 " I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must 
 not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not 
 break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory stretch- 
 ing from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and 
 hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the 
 Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better 
 angels of our nature." 
 
 Chief- Justice Taney then administered the oath of oflBce. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln selected, as his cabinet oflScers, William H. Seward, of 
 N. Y., secretary of state ; Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, secretary of the 
 treasury ; Simon Cameron, of Pa., secretary of war ; Caleb B. Smith, 
 of Ind., secretary of the interior ; Montgomery Blair, of Maryland, 
 postmaster-general ; and Edward Bates, of Missouri, attorney- 
 general. 
 
1134 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER XCI. 
 
 TfAR COMMENCED BY SOUTH CAROLINA. LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATION. SPECIAI 
 
 SESSION OF CONGRESS. — CAPTURE OF MASON AND SLIDELL. 
 
 Civil war, which had for months existed in apprehension, at length 
 became a reality. Although, by firing: iuto the Star of the West, the 
 rebels had committed an act of war, the government had refrained 
 from all acts of retaliation. Mr. Lincoln had been in oflSoe nearly 
 six weeks, and kept the pledge given in his Inaugural, that the gov- 
 ernment would not be the aggressor. The occupation of Fort Sum- 
 ter by Anderson was annoying to the South Carolinians ; while to 
 our government it was desirable that his position should be main- 
 tained. But his stock of provisions was nearly exhausted. Supplies 
 from Charleston having been refused, it became the duty of the gov- 
 ernment to send a fleet of vessels with supplies for his relief But 
 the relief vessels were not permitted to fulfill their mission. The 
 attack on Sumter commenced while the fleet were in the offing. 
 
 A demand was made upon Major Anderson, on the 11th of April, 
 to surrender the fort, and refused. On Friday morning, 3 o'clock, he 
 received word that fire would be opened at 4 o'clock, which waa 
 done : and a fire was opened by Anderson on Moultrie, Cumming's 
 Point, and Sullivan's Island. The garrison was weak, however, con- 
 sisting of only about sixty men, who were unable to defend the fort a 
 long time, they having, it was said, eaten their last biscuit two days 
 before. Tlie barracks and the officers' quarters caught fire several 
 times, and the magazine was encircled by fire. In this perilous and 
 famishing condition, Major Anderson, after a gallant defense of thirty- 
 four hours, was compelled to evacuate the fort. 
 
 On the 15th, President Lincoln issued a Proclamation, declaring 
 that the " laws of the United States have been for some time past, 
 and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed in the 
 states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, 
 Louisiana, and Texas, b}- combinations too powerful to be suppressed 
 by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers 
 vested iu the marshals by law ;" and that, in virtue of the power in 
 him vested, by the constitution and the laws, he did " call forth the 
 militia of the several states of the Union, to the aggregate number of 
 
Lincoln's proclamation. 1135 
 
 ^5,000, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws 
 to be duly executed." 
 
 The first service assigned to the force would " probably be to re- 
 possess the forts, places, and property seized from the Union ;" and 
 care would be observed, " to avoid any devastation, any destruction 
 of, or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceable 
 citizens ;" and he commanded " the persons composing the combina- 
 tions to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes 
 within twenty days." And " deeming that the present condition of 
 public affairs presented an extraordinary occasion," he summoned 
 both houses of congress to assemble on the 4th of July. 
 
 The call for troops received a prompt ^nd favorable response from 
 all the northern states ; and money for the volunteers and the sup- 
 port of their families, was pledged by men of all parties. Legisla- 
 tures also made appropriations in aid of the government. The Gov- 
 ernors of the slave states, except those of Maryland and Delaware, 
 refused to comply with the call for troops ; some from their unwill- 
 ingness to aid in subduing their sister states ; others from their 
 doubts of the constitutionality of the call. Gov, Hicks, of Md., would 
 raise troops only for the defense of Washington. Delaware took a 
 thoroughly loyal stand. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln's proclamation was soon followed by a similar one 
 from President Davis, calling on the confederate states for volunteers. 
 Davis also offered liberal inducements for persons to take out letters 
 of marque and reprisal, as privateers. 
 
 Virginia having intimated an intention to join the rebel states ia 
 case force should be employed against them, her convention now 
 declared the state out of the Union. She was soon followed by Ten- 
 nessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas ; and three of the four 
 remaining slave states were strongly imbued with the secession sen- 
 timent, which rendered their adherence to the Union for some time 
 doubtful. 
 
 Li May, the President issued a proclamation calling for 42,000 ad- 
 ditional volunteers, and directed an increase of the regular army and 
 of the navy. 
 
 Washington and vicinity were infested with secret traitors and 
 spies, some of whom were employed in the public ofiSces. Many 
 arrests were made ; but by means of the writ of habeas corpus, a large 
 portion of them obtained release. The President then, as a measure 
 of safety, suspended the privilege of this writ. 
 
 The call for the troops, and especially that for the increase of the 
 regular army ; the summary arrest and imprisonment of persons sus- 
 pected of being spies and traitore ; and the yuspension of the privi- 
 
1136 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 lege of this writ, have been held by many as acts unatithorized by 
 the constitution. 
 
 Congress, in pursuance of the call of the President, convened on 
 the 4th of July, 1861. The language of the President's message was 
 distingiiished alike for its calmness and moderation, and for its indi- 
 cation of his firm purpose to preserve the Union. Alluding to the 
 state of the nation as it was at the time of his inauguration, he 
 said : 
 
 " A disproportionate share of the Federal muskets had somehow 
 found their waj' into these (southern) states, and had been seized to 
 be used against the government. Accumulations of the public reve- 
 nue, lying within them, ha(f been seized for the same object. The 
 navy was scattered in distant seas, leaving but a very small part of 
 it within the immediate reach of the government. Officers of the 
 Federal army and navy had resigned in great numbers ; and of those 
 resigning a large number had taken up arms against the government. 
 Simultaneously and in connection with all this, the purpose to sever 
 the Federal Union was openly avowed ; . . . and the Confederate 
 States were already invoking recognition, aid, and intervention from 
 foreign powers. 
 
 " Finding this condition of things, and believing it to be an imper- 
 ative duty upon the incoming executive to prevent, if possible, the 
 consummation of such attempt to destroy the Federal Union, a choice 
 of means to that end became indispensable. This choice was made, 
 and was declared in the inaugural address. The policy chosen looked 
 to the exhaustion of all peaceful measures before a resort to any 
 stronger ones. It sought only to hold all the public places and pro- 
 perty not already wrested frum the government, and to collect the 
 revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot-box. 
 It promised a continuance of the mails, at government expense, to 
 the very people who were resisting the government ; and it gave re- 
 peated pledges against any disturbance of any of the people or any of 
 their rights." 
 
 The President recommended provision to be made for raising 
 400,000 men, and $400,000,000. 
 
 After having mentioned the call for the 75,000 militia, and the pro- 
 clamation ordering the southern ports closed by blockade, all of 
 which he believed to be legal, he proceeded to say : " At this point 
 the insurrectionists announced their purpose to enter upon the prac- 
 tice of privateering. 
 
 " Other calls were made for volunteers to serve for three years, and 
 also for large additions to the regular army and navy. These mea- 
 sures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what 
 
Lincoln's message. 113T 
 
 appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity, trusting then, 
 as now, that congress would readily ratify them. 
 
 " It is believed that nothing haa been done beyond the constitu- 
 tional competency of congress. Soon after the first call for militia, it 
 was considered a duty to authorize the commanding-general, in proper 
 cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the 
 writ of habeas corpus, or in other words, to arrest and detain, without 
 resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as 
 he might deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has 
 purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the le- 
 gality and propriety of what has been done under it are questioned ; 
 and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition, 
 that one who has sworn to take care that the laws be faithfully exe- 
 cuted should not himself violate them. Of course, some consideration 
 was given to the questions of power and propriety before this matter 
 was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be 
 faithfully executed, were being resisted and failing of execution in 
 nearly one-third of the states. Must they be allowed to fail of execu- 
 tion, even had it been perfectly clear that, by the use of the means 
 necessary to their execution, some single law made in such extreme 
 tenderness to the citizen's liberty, that, practically, it relieves more of 
 tl^ guilty than the innocent, should to a very limited extent, be vio- 
 lated ? To state the question more directly, are all the laws but one 
 to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that 
 one be violated ? 
 
 " Even in such case, would not the official oath be broken, if the 
 government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disre- 
 garding the single law would tend to preserve it ? But it was not 
 believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that 
 any law was violated. The provision of the constitution that the 
 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless 
 when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require 
 it, is equivalent to a provision — is a provision — that such privilege 
 may he suspended, when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public 
 safety does require it. 
 
 " It is insisted that congress, and not the executive, is vested with 
 this power. But the constitutiou itself is silent as to which or who 
 shall exercise the power ; and as the provision was plainly made for 
 a dangerous emergency, it can not be that the framers of the instru- 
 ment intended that in every case the danger should run its course 
 until congress could be called together, the very assembling of 
 which might be prevented, as was intended in this case by the 
 
 rebellion." 
 
 72 
 
1138 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Other topics are discussed in the message, among which is the 
 southern doctrine in relation to the nature of the Union and the al- 
 leged right of secession. 
 
 Congress proceeded to its business, and prosecuted it with dili- 
 gence and promptitude, and with unucual unanimity. Indeed, party 
 distinctions were scarcely discernible. All seemed united in an 
 effort to save the Republic. 
 
 Upwards of sixty acts were passed at this short session of congress. 
 The following are some of the most important ones : 
 
 An act to provide for the payment of the militia and volunteers, for 
 services from the time they were called into the service of the 
 United States, to the 30th of June. $5,160,000 were appropriated. 
 
 An act further to provide for collecting duties on imports. This 
 act provides for collecting the revenue at any port of entry in a col- 
 lection district ; or the custom-house may be established in some 
 other place ; military and naval force being employed, if necessary. 
 Or, if the duties can not be collected in either of these ways, the 
 President may, after proclamation to that effect, close the ports of 
 entry against all commercial intercourse. 
 
 An act to authorize a national loan ; the secretary of the treasury 
 being authorized to borrow, within twelve months, $250,000,000. 
 Other acts were passed, making appropriations to the amount of more 
 than $200,000,000 for the support of the army and naval service, for 
 the year ending June 30, 1862. 
 
 An act to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in enforc- 
 ing the laws and protecting the public property. This act was pro- 
 bably designed to cover and to ratify the acts of the President prior 
 to the meeting of congress. It authorized the raising of not exceed- 
 ing 500,000 volunteers, for repelling invasion, suppressing insurrec- 
 tions, (fee. It also provided for commanding and regulating the army, 
 and a bounty of $100 for a private having served two years, or to the 
 end of the wai*. 
 
 An act for the temporary increase of the navy ; authorizing the 
 seci'etary to hire or purchase, and arm, during the insurrection, such 
 vessels as may be necessary, and appropriating $3,000,000 for this 
 purpose, to suppress piracy, and strengthen the blockade. 
 
 An act to indemnify the states for expenses incurred in defense of 
 the United States. 
 
 An act to increase the military establishment of the United States ; 
 adding nine regiments of infantry, one of cavalry, and one ot 
 artillery, for service during the rebellion ; then to be reduced to 
 a number not exceeding 25,000 men, unless otherwise ordered by 
 congress. 
 
SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS. 1139 
 
 An act appropriating- $10,000,000 for the purchase of arms ; and 
 another, $10,000,000 for the purchase and manufacture of arms, ord- 
 nance, and ordnance stores. 
 
 An act to define and punish certain conspiracies. 
 
 An act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest 
 on the public debt, &c. The duties on certain articles were modified 
 or increased. A direct tax of $20,000,000 annually was laid upon 
 the United States, (including the insurgent states,) and the territories. 
 An immense number of articles was made subject to taxation ; and 
 the aggregate sum thus raised is estimated at 150 millions a year. 
 
 An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes. 
 Any property used, or intended or suffered by the owner to be used, 
 in aiding resistance to the laws, is declared lawful prize. Also 
 slaves required or permitted by their owners to take up arras against 
 tl:>e United States, cr to work or be employed in any military or 
 naval service againi t the government, are to be forfeited by their 
 owners. 
 
 An act requiring the heads of the several departments to adminis- 
 ter the oath of allegiance and to support the constitution, to all per- 
 sons employed in their several departments. 
 
 On the 11th of July, the senate, by a vote of 32 to 10, expelled 
 senators Mason and Hunter, of Virginia ; Clingman and Bragg, of 
 North Carolina ; Chesnut,' of South Carolina ; Nicholson, of Tennes- 
 see ; Sebastian and Mitchell, of Arkansas ; and Hemphill and Wig- 
 fall, of Texas. They had not made their appearance in the senate, 
 and had vacated their seats at the last session. Three senators from 
 free states : Bright, of Ind. ; Latham, of Cal, ; and Rice, of Min., 
 voted in the negative. 
 
 On the 13th, the house, by a vote of 94 to 45, expelled John 
 B, Clark, of Missouri, for having taken up arms against the 
 government. 
 
 On the 6th of August, having finished the business for which they 
 had been convened, the two houses adjourned. 
 
 August IGth, President Lincoln, by proclamation, ordered the ces- 
 sation of all commercial intercourse between the North and the eleven 
 seceded states during the insurrection, except the western part of 
 Virginia, and such other parts of that and other states as maintained 
 a loyal adhesion to the Union. 
 
 Political parties were materially affected by the war. By seces- 
 sion, the Democratic party had lost its ascendency, which it could 
 hardly hope soon, if ever, to regain. Charging its defeat upon the 
 Republicans, and having long opposed their anti-slavery principles, it 
 was but natural that the sympathies of Democrats should be with their 
 
1140 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 former allies, or, as they were sometimes still called, their " southern 
 brethren." The strength of this attachment was evinced for soma 
 time after the rebellion had been commenced. In the winter of j861, 
 Democratic mass meetings and state conventions were held in several 
 of the northern states, and addressed by the most distinguished mem- 
 bers of the party, who vehemently denounced, in advance, the employ- 
 ment of force, by the General Government, against any rebel state. 
 
 At a Democratic state convention held in January, in the city of 
 Albany, N. Y., Ex-Governor Seymour pronounced "coercion by the 
 NorW as " no less revolutionary than secession by the South.^' Another 
 leading Democrat, in reference to "the enforcement .of the laws," 
 said : " Against this, under all circumstances, in every place and form, we 
 must noiv, and at all times, oppose a resolute and unfaltering resistance. 
 The public mind will bear the avowal, and let us make it — that if a 
 revolution of force is to begin, it shall be inaugurated at homeP He said 
 also, that he should not recede from what he had said before the elec- 
 tion, that if the Republican party should succeed, the slave states would 
 have adequate cause for separation, "Let one arrow winged by the Federal 
 bow strike the heart of an American citizen, and who can nuviber the aveng- 
 ing darts that will cloud the heavens in the conflict that will ensue ?" The 
 published reports of these speeches and of those at other meetings, 
 represent the expression of these and similar anti-coercion sentiments 
 as having been enthusiastically applauded. The proceedings of 
 these meetings caused exultation at the South. A leading secession- 
 ist from South Carolina, then at Washington, remarked, in relation to 
 them, " There will be more men in New York alone, to fight for us, 
 than the whole North can put down," 
 
 The effect of these meetings could hardly fail to encourage the se- 
 cessionists, as a divided North would effectually paraly^je the arm of 
 the Federal Government, and render the incoming administration 
 powerless against the traitors. 
 
 The bombardment of Fort Sumter aroused the general indignation 
 of the North. Men of all parties united in condemning this act of 
 war by the enemies of the Union, and in contributing to the defense 
 of the nation. It was hoped, and by many believed, that party linea 
 would for the time being be obliterated, and all would make common 
 cause against the enemy until the rebellion should be quelled. In 
 some states, eff'orta with a view to this end were made by the Repub- 
 licans, who proposed a general union of parties in choosing delegates 
 to county and state conventions. Some of these conventions, how- 
 ever, were called as Republican ; but men of all parties were invited 
 to unite in choosing delegates without regard to their former politics. 
 The result has been a union of a considerable portion of the Demo- 
 
MEETING OP CONGRESS, 1861. 1141 
 
 crats with the Republicans, forming- what is usually designated as 
 the Union party ; the title of Republican having been for the time 
 dropped, perhaps never to be resumed. 
 
 Having determined to maintain their distinctive party organiza- 
 tion, they rallied against the administration ; and the next year, 
 (1862,j they succeeded in electing their candidates in several of the 
 states, changing the political character of their legislatures, and 
 largely increasing the number of their representatives in congress. 
 
 A powerful incentive to secession was the hope of an early recog- 
 nition of the independence of the seceding states by foreign powers, 
 especially by England and France. In November, 1861, James M. 
 Mason, of Va., and Jolm Slidell, of Louisiana, senators in congress, 
 at the time of the secession of their respective states, were sent to 
 represent the Confederacy at the governmentsof these two countries, 
 to further this object. Our government having been informed of 
 their escape from Charleston, dispatched a steamer in pursuit of 
 them. They proceeded, however, to Havana, where they took pas- 
 sage in the English mail packet Trent for England. Captain Wilkes, 
 on his return from the African coast, having heard of it, waylaid the 
 Trent, brought her to, seized tli^se gentlemen with their secretary, 
 Eustace, and brought tliem in his own ship to the United States. 
 The announcement uf their capture caused great rejoicing, until it 
 became known that England considered the seizure of these men an 
 insult to her flag. Mason and Slidell were confined in Fort Warren, 
 near Bi^ston, awaiting the action of the two governments. A demand 
 was at length made by England for their release, which was granted 
 by our government. Secretary Seward, in reply to this demand, aa- 
 eigued as a reason for the surrender of the prisoners, that Captain 
 Wilkes had nut brought the captured vessel into a neutral port for 
 trial, as required by the law of nations in arresting neutral vessela 
 suspected of carrying contraband articles. 
 
 CHAPTER XCII. 
 
 MEETING OF CONGRESS, 1861. MESSAGE. — EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS AND 
 
 * POLICY. — MEETING OF CONGRESS, 1862, 
 
 The 37th Congress commenced its second (being its first regular) 
 session, December 2, 1861. President Lincoln the next day trans- 
 mitted to both houses his first annual message. lu reference to 
 
1142 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the attitude which the nation should maintain in regard to slaves and 
 slavery, he said : 
 
 " In considering the policy to be adopted for suppressing the insur- 
 rection, I have been anxious and careful that the inevitable conflict 
 for this purpose shall not degenerate into a violent and remorseless 
 revolutionary' struggle. I have, therefore, in every case, thought it 
 proper to keep the integrity of the Union prominent as the primary 
 object of the contest on our part, leaving all questions which are not 
 of vital military importance to the more deliberate action of the legis- 
 lature. In the exercise of my best discretion, I have adhered to the 
 blockade of the ports held by the insurgents, instead of putting in 
 force by proclamation the law of congress enacted at the late 
 session for closing those ports. So, also, obeying the dictates of pru- 
 dence as well as the obligations of law, instead of transcending, I 
 have adhered to the act of congress to confiscate property used for 
 insurrectionary purposes. If a new law upon the same subject shall 
 be proposed, its propriety will be duly considered. The Union must 
 be preserved ; and hence all indispensable means must be employed. 
 We should not be in haste to determine that radical and extreme 
 measures which may reach the loy^l as well as the disloyal, are 
 indispensable." 
 
 He here alludes to the Confiscation Act passed at the extra session 
 in July. He signed that act with great reluctance ; but his doubts 
 of its policy and justice seem to have been removed. He had become 
 convinced — and the public mind was rapidly coming to the conclu- 
 sion — that, as the rebellion in a great measure derived its support 
 from slaver}', and that, as the labor of the slaves was scarcely less 
 serviceable than the same number of soldiers, the latter subsisting on 
 the products of that labor ; it was just and proper that, instead of 
 remanding to their owners slaves that came to our side of the lines, 
 they sliould be retained, and employed on our works of defense. 
 
 Most of the legislation at this session had reference to the state of 
 the Union, and carrying on the war. Acts were passed for supplying 
 the treasury, upon which the demands were daily, for an average 
 sum of more than a million of dollars. So rapidly did the public 
 debt increase, as to amount, the 1st of December, 1862, to $727,- 
 512,755 1 
 
 An act was passed at this session prohibiting slavery in all present 
 and future territories of the United States. 
 
 Another act was passed, petitions for which had so long agitated 
 congress and the country, but which had many years ago ceased to 
 be prayed for — the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 
 
 I 
 
TEMANCIPATION PROCLAMATIONS AND POLICY. 1143 
 
 This act contains a provision which requires compensation to be 
 made by the government to the owners of the slaves. 
 
 In Jul^', 1862, the President issued a Proclamation by which he 
 confiscated the property of all persons who, at the end of sixty days, 
 should s-till continue in rebellion against the government. And on 
 the 22d of September he issued the Proclamation of Emancipation, 
 declaring that, on the 1st da}' of January, all slaves in any rebel 
 state should thereafter be forever free ; the states then in rebellion 
 to be designated bj' proclamation of the President. And he calls at- 
 tention to the Confiscation Act, and the act of March, 1862, which 
 makes an additional article of war, forbidding the forcible returning 
 of fugitives to their masters, and enjoins obedience to the require- 
 ments of these acts. 
 
 An act was passed authorizing the issue of $150,000,000 of Trea- 
 sury notes, and requiring all duties on imports to be paid in coin ; 
 coin only being receivable for interest on such notes. Before the 
 session closed a second issue of like amount was authorized. 
 
 A joint resolution was passed, declaring that a tax shall be im- 
 posed, wliich, with the tariff on imports, shall secure an annual reve- 
 nue of at least $150,000,000, in order to pay the ordinary expenses of 
 the government, tlie interest on the national loans, and to provide an 
 ample sinking fund for the liquidation of the public debt. 
 
 Several important acts were passed, other than those relating to 
 the war and the means of prosecuting it. Some of them are the 
 following : 
 
 An act to secure Homesteads to actual settlers on the public do- 
 main. This act gives, from and after January 1, 1863, a quarter- 
 section of land to any head of a family, or to any citizen of the United 
 States 21 years of age, or to any minor who has served fourteen days 
 in the war. 
 
 An act to authorize the President to appoint diplomatic representa- 
 tives to the Republics of Haj'ti and Liberia. Prejudice against 
 color had for many years prevented such intercourse with these 
 Republics. 
 
 An act to aid in the construction of the Pacific railroad, a measure 
 of unusual importance, which had long been contemplated, and agi- 
 tated in congress. 
 
 An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to 
 seize and confiscate the property of rebels, &c. This act imposes, aa 
 a penalty for treason, death, or imprisonment for not less than five 
 years, and a fine of not less than $10,000 ; and the slaves of tho 
 traitor are to be free. A person inciting or being engaged in a re- 
 bellion or insurrection shall bt subject to a fine not exceeding $10, 
 
1144 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 000, Of imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both ; and his 
 slaves to be free. And to insure the speedy termination of the pre- 
 sent rebellion, it is made the duty of the President to cause the 
 seizure of all the property of certain oflScers, military and civil, of the 
 Confederate States, and apply the proceeds thereof to the support of 
 the army of the United States. The provisions of the act extend to 
 other persons also, who, after public warning and proclamation by 
 the President, do not return to their allegiance after 60 days. 
 
 An act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the ter- 
 ritories of the United States, and disapproving and annulling certain 
 acts of the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah. By this 
 act. the crime of bigam}', in any territory or other place within the 
 exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, is made punishable by a 
 fine not exceeding $500, and by imprisonment for not more than 
 five years. 
 
 The policy of proclaiming freedom to the slaves in the rebellious 
 states, had for some time been suggested as a measure of safety to 
 the nation. It was, however, deemed by many as of doubtful expe- 
 diency as well as constitutionality. Mr. Lincoln, whatever may have 
 been his opinion, prudently deferred action until public sentiment 
 seemed to call for the measure. It was condemned, however, by the 
 mass of the Democratic party ; and not a few of Mr. Lincoln's politi- 
 cal friends deemed it impolitic, as it might alienate many Union men 
 in the southern states, and essentially weaken the Union cause, with- 
 out efi'ecting its intended object. The measure has been steadily 
 growing into popular favor ; until the mass of truly loyal citizens no 
 longer question either its justice or expediency, or its efficiency as a 
 war measure. The rebellion derived much aid from the labor of 
 slaves on fortifications, and other defensive works. Many regiments 
 of slaves are now (January, 1864,) in our armies ; many of them 
 have already rendered the country effective service ; and many thou- 
 sands have been employed as teamsters, and in other departments of 
 war labor. Scarcely less than one hundred thousand have been 
 brought, in these different capacities, into the service of the United 
 States. And although it was designed mainl}' or exclusively as a war 
 measure, and adopted from necessity, it will prove equally beneficial 
 in hastening the overthrow of slavery, the grand cause of our na- 
 tional troubles. 
 
 This mode of emancipation was not first conceived since the com- 
 mencement of this rebellion. In the Virginia state convention to 
 which was submitted the Constitution of the United States for ratifi- 
 cation, Patrick Henry is reported to have said, in opposition to the 
 ratification : 
 
JOHN QUINCT ADAMS ON MILITARY LAW. lliS 
 
 " One of the great objects of government is the national defense. 
 The constitution gives power to the General Government to provide 
 for the general defense, and the means must be commensurate to the 
 end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to 
 the government which is intrusted with the public defense. May 
 congress not say every blade man must fight ? In the war of the Revo- 
 lution, Virginia passed an act of Assembly, that everj' slave who 
 would join the army should be free. At some future time, congress 
 will search the constitution to see if they have not the power of man- 
 umission. And have they not, sir ? Have they not the power to provide 
 for the general defense and welfare ? May they not think that these 
 provide for the defense and welfare ? May they not think that these 
 call for the abolition of slavery ? May they not pronounce all slaves 
 free ? and will they not be warranted by that power ? The paper 
 speaks to the point ; they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, 
 and will clearly and certainly exercise it." 
 
 John Quincy Adams, in the house of representatives, in discussing 
 a resolution affirming that the right of legislating on the subject of 
 slavery resides in the slave states alone, said : 
 
 "When your country is actually in war, whether it be a war of 
 invasion or a war of insurrection, congress has power to carry on the 
 war, and must carry it on according to the laws of war.and by the laws 
 of war an invaded country has all its laws and municipal institutions swept 
 by the beard, and martial law takes the place of them. This power in 
 congress has perhaps never been called into exercise under the pre- 
 sent constitution of the United States. But when the laws of war are 
 in force, what, I ask, is one of those laws ? It is this : that when a 
 country is invaded, and two hostile armies are set in martial array, 
 the commanders of both armies have power to emancipate all the 
 elaves in the invaded territory. Nor is this a mere theoretic state- 
 ment. The history of South America shows that the^doctrine has 
 been 'tarried into practical execution within the last thirty years. 
 Slavery was abolished in Colombia, first by the Spanish General Mo- 
 rillo, and secondly, by the American General Bolivar. It was 
 abolished by virtue of a military command given at the head of the 
 army, and its abolition continues to be law to this day^ It was 
 abolished by the laws of war, and not by municipal enactments. * * * 
 
 " I might furnish a thousand proofs to show that the pretensions of 
 gentlemen to the sanctity of their municipal institutions under a state 
 of actual invasion and of actual war, whether t-ervile, civil, or foreign, 
 are whclly unfounded, and that the laws of war do, in all such cases, 
 take the precedence. I lay this down as the law of nations I say 
 that the military authority takes, for the time, the pla-ce of all muni- 
 cipal institutions, slavery among the rest. Under that state of things, 
 
1146 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 BO far from its being true that the states where slavery exists have the 
 exclusive management of the subject, not only the, President of tht 
 United Slates, but the commander of the army, has power to order the uni- 
 versal emancipation of the slaves.''^ 
 
 A meeting of Governors of loyal states was held in September, at 
 Altoona, Pa., for consultation on the affairs of the nation. More than 
 one-half of these states were represented. They expressed their ap- 
 proval of the President's Proclamation of Emancipation, and resolved, 
 by all proper and lawful means, to strengthen the hands of the gov- 
 ernment in the struggle against the rebellioh. 
 
 Tlie 2d session of the 37th Congress commenced December 1st, 
 1862. The President, in his message, recommended to congress a 
 plan of Emancipation, to be embodied in articles, and proposed to the 
 state legislatures or to state conventions for ratification. The propo- 
 sitions were substantially as follows : 
 
 1. Any state abolishing slavery prior to the 1st of January, 1900, 
 should receive for each slave emancipated a certain compensation. 
 
 2. Slaves having "enjoyed freedom by the chances of the war" to 
 be furever free ; loyal owners to be compensated. 
 
 3. C(ingr(!ss might provide for coloniziijg free colored persons, with 
 their own (.'onsent, beyond the limits of tlie United States. 
 
 These propositions, it will be perceived, did not supersede or inter- 
 fere with the obj{>cts and policy of the Proclamation of Emancipation, 
 which was strictly a war measure, intended to weaken the power of 
 the rebels. The plan proposed in the message had respect to the 
 loyal states, and was designed as a measure of peace. 
 
 To prevent, as far as possible, fluctuations in the currency, the 
 President, su.iigests a mode of providing for the public wants, and 
 of securing a sale and uniform currency, as follows : 
 
 " I know of none which promises so certain results, and is at the 
 same time so unobjectionable, as the organization of banking associ- 
 ations under a general act of congress, well guarded in its provisions. 
 To such aNf^ociations the government miglit furnish circulating n-otea 
 on the security of United States bonds deposited in the treasury. 
 These notes, prepared under the supervision of proper oflScers, being 
 uniform iy appearance and security, and convertible always into coin, 
 would at once protect labor against tiie evils of a vicious currency, 
 and facilitate commerce by cheap and safe exchanges. • • • 
 The public credit, moreover, would be greatly improved, and the 
 negotiation of new loans greatly facilitated, by the steady market de- 
 mand lor government bonds wiiich the adoption of the proposed sys- 
 tem would create. 
 
 " It is au additional recommendation of the measure, of considerable 
 
AN ACT FOR THE ADMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA. 114t 
 
 weight, in my judgment, that it would reconcile, as far as possible, 
 all existing interests, by the opportunity offered to existing institu- 
 tions to re-organize under the act, substituting only the secured uni- 
 form national circulation for the local and various circulation, secured 
 and unsecured, now issued by them." 
 
 An act in conformity with this [)lan was accordingly passed, under 
 which banking associations are going into operation. 
 
 The proclamation of September declared, that all persons held as 
 slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof 
 ''hall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, hence- 
 forth, aiid FOREVER FREE," Iti conf(jrmity with this proclamation, the 
 President, on the first of January, 1863, proclaimed freedom to the 
 slaves in the seceded or rebel states, except Tennessee, which was 
 not named as one of them. And he specially designated, as exempt 
 from the operation of the proclamation, seven counties, including the 
 cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, in the eastern part of Virginia ; 
 the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia ; and thirteen 
 parishes, (counties,) including the city of New Orleans, in Louisiana. 
 The reason fur exempting the state and parts of states above men- 
 tioned, was, probably, that they were considered as having been re- 
 covered to the Union. Although a provisional government had been 
 estabbshed at Nashville, the state could hardly be deemed a loyal 
 state ; and many of the friends of the President regarded the excep- 
 tion of this state as a serious mistake. It was designed, probably, 
 to conciliifte slaveholders professing loyalty, but who, it is supposed, 
 prefer a connection with the southern confederacy, with slavery, to a 
 return to the old Unitm, uithout slavery. They therefore take no de- 
 cided stand. They do not oppose the administration ; but they pro- 
 fess to be in favor of the constitution as it is, hoping in this way to 
 preserve their favorite institution. Whereas, it is argued, had there 
 been no exception, the friends of slavery in the exempted territory 
 would have been converted into decidedly loyal Union rnen ; in ac- 
 cordance with the sentiment, that, " to kill slavery, is to crush the 
 rebellion." 
 
 Among the acts passed at tliis session, (1862-1863,) are the 
 following : 
 
 An* act for the admission of West Virginia into the Union. This 
 state embraces forty-eight counties, belonging formerly to the original 
 state of Virginia, The admission received considerable opposition. 
 Doubts of its constitutionality were entertained by many friends of 
 the administration, among whom was the attorney-general. The con- 
 stitution of the United States declares, that " no new state shall be 
 formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, without 
 
1148 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 the consent of the legislature of the state concerned, as well as of 
 congress." But the state of Virginia had seceded from the Union, 
 and would not, of course, consent to the erection of the proposed new 
 state. Yet the act of admission declares that, " whereas the legislature 
 of Virginia, by an act passed on the 13th day of May, 1862, did give 
 its consent to the formation of a new state within the jurisdiction of the 
 said state of Virginia, to be known by the name of West Virginia," 
 &c. Bence, the legislature of the loyal portion of the state must 
 have been assumed to be the legislature of tht state of Virginia. 
 
 Before its admission, the people had expressed a wish to strike out 
 a certain section, and to insert another relating to slavery ; by which 
 slave children born after the 4th of July, 1863, are declared free ; 
 those at that time under ten years of age, to be free when twenty-one 
 years ; and all between ten and twenty-one, to be free at twenty-five 
 years : and no slave is to be permitted to come into the state for 
 permanent lesidence therein. This change having been ratified by 
 the people, the state was admitted by the proclamation of the Presi- 
 dent. It was said the President had taken the written opinions 
 of all the members of his cabinet before he gave the bill his 
 signature. 
 
 An act was passed to provide a government for the territory of 
 Arizona, formed from the western part of New Mexico. Also, an act 
 forming a territorial government for Idaho -east of Washington 
 territory and the state of Oregon, Slavery is prohibited in both 
 territories. 
 
 An act to provide a national currency, secured by a pledge of 
 United States stocks, and to provide for the circulajtion and redemp- 
 tion thereof. This is what is called the national banking law. 
 
 An act to amend an act for the collection of direct taxes in insur- 
 rectionary districts. It has been observed that the act passed at the 
 special session in July and August, 1861, apportioning the annual 
 tax of $20,000,000, included the disloyal states. A.n act was passed 
 at the next session, (1862,) for the collection of the taxes in those 
 states. Taxes were to be assessed according to the last previous 
 valuation ; or, if that could not be obtained, a valuation was to be 
 made for the purposes of this act. The lands were to be advertised 
 and sold to the highest bidder, for a sum not less than the taxes, col- 
 lection expenses, &c. ; and if no person should bid at least tliat 
 amount, the lands were to be struck off to the United States for that 
 sum. The privilege of redemption was given to persons taking the 
 oath of allegiance. That act was amended at this session, (1863,) 
 hut no very material change was made in its general character. 
 
 An act was also passed, authorizing the secretary of the treasury 
 
DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION. 1149 
 
 to "borrow, if necessary, for the support of the government the ad- 
 ditional sums of $300,000,000 for the current fiscal year, ending June 
 80, 1863, and $600,000,000 for the next fiscal year. 
 
 CHAPTER XCIII. 
 
 DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE WAR. THE CASH 
 
 OF VALLANDIGHAM. 
 
 A VIGOROUS opposition to the administration was continued by the 
 Democratic party. Encouraged by its successes in some of the 
 states at the elections in 1862, its leaders had hopes of regaining 
 political ascendency in 1864. They had attributed these successes 
 to the unpopularity of the war, and what they represented as the un- 
 constitutional exercise of power by the President in the treatment of 
 persons suspected of being traitors and spies, the suspension of the 
 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the Emancipation Proclamation, 
 &c. The principal cause, however, was to be found in the absence 
 of the large numbers of volunteers in the war, who were chiefly op- 
 posed to the Democratic party, which had now come to he regarded 
 as the anti-war, or " peace party." Notwithstanding the leaders of 
 the rebellion continued to declare their refusal to make peace on any 
 terms short of a recognition of their independence, the Democrats ad- 
 vocated a peace policy. 
 
 In the state of New York, many votes were given in 1862 for the 
 Democratic candidate (Seymour) for governor, under the impression 
 that his election would tend to stop ihe draft, repeal the war tax law, 
 and hasten the return of peace. In other states, also, many votes 
 were influenced by the same consideration. 
 
 A committee of the legislature of Kentucky condemned the policy 
 of the government, propounded the question " how to coerce the Presi- 
 dent and his party to renounce that policy" which " makes it impossi- 
 ble to restore the Union without additional constitutional guaranties 
 to the South ;" pronounced " the arming of the negroes as a crime 
 against humanity and civilization ;" approved the messages of Gov 
 Seymour, of New York, and Gov. Robinson, of Kentucky ; and de- 
 clared that Kentucky " will unite with the conservatives of the 
 North to compel the abandonment of the ruinous policy of the gov- 
 ernment," " the revocation of the proclamation of freedom," &c. 
 
1150 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 A great conservative meeting in Iowa denounced " the further pro- 
 secution of the war upon the present policy" as tending " immediately 
 and directly to the overthrow of the Federal and state governments ;" 
 declared their opposition to the tax laws, tariff act, and other mea- 
 sures of the administration. 
 
 Resolutions were reported in the Illinois legislature against " the 
 further prosecution of the present war . . . unless the President's 
 Emancipation Proclamation is withdrawn ;" condemning " the flag^ 
 rant and monstrous usurpations of the administration ;" declaring 
 against the separation of the great North-West from the southern 
 states of the Mississippi valley ; and, among other things, recom- 
 mending an arnjistice, or suspension of hostilities, until a national 
 convention could have time to assemble, and " reason" each other 
 into terms of peace I This proposition, whether so intended or not, 
 would, if carried into effect, have afforded the rebels time to sell their 
 cotton at high prices, and to supply themselves with arms, 
 munitions, salt, powder, &c., for a more effective prosecution of 
 the war. 
 
 Resolutions of a similar character were introduced in the legisla- 
 ture of Indiana. But while these resolutions were pending in these 
 state legislatures, loud expressions of indignation from the volun- 
 teers from these states in the south-western army against these reso- 
 lutions, reached the ears of these legislatures, and prevented their 
 passage. Also some of the more sagacious Democratic politicians of 
 these and other states had advised the party to cease their open op- 
 position to the war, lest, by such opposition, " Lincoln should be 
 forced to a peace by admitting a separation, and the responsibility 
 of the dismemberment of the Union be thrown upon the Democratic 
 party." 
 
 Individual members of the Democratic pai'ty had been active in 
 discouraging enlistments, and subsequently in opposing the draft, 
 pronouncing it cruel, oppressive, and unconstitutional. The senti- 
 ments of several prominent Democrats, accidentally brought to light, 
 have been considered as indicating the feelings of most of the leaders 
 of the party. 
 
 In the summer of 1862, a letter was written by Ex-Governor Sey- 
 mour, of Connecticut, to one Captain Gladding, a rebel officer paroled 
 and sent from New York to Hilton Head for exchange, and arrested 
 there as a Confederate spy, in whose possession the letter was found. 
 Mr. Seymour was at the time again a candidate for the ofiSce of gov- 
 ernor, and regarded as a representative of his party. He writes 
 thns : 
 
 • * • " Since the appearance of a letter of mine, to which you 
 
LETTER OF EX-PRESIDF.^TT PIERCE TO JEFF DAVIS. 1151 
 
 SO kindly allude, I have had the Ratisfaction of learning from quite a 
 number of persons, at home and abroad, that they approve of its 
 contents. » * » 
 
 "Your allusion to 'constitutional liberty' suggests painful reflec- 
 tions. Since the inauguration of this war, the men in power at 
 Washington have been robbing us of our rights. The great safe- 
 guard of the citizen, protecting him against illegal arrests and 
 false imprisonments, have been struck down by ignorant or wicked 
 rulers. * * # 
 
 " I abhor the whole scheme of southern invasion, with all its hor- 
 rible consequences of rapine and plunder. You can not help but see, 
 Sir, what thousands of us are beginning to see, that there can be no 
 Union got in this way. The war might have been avoided, and the 
 Union saved. And it would have been avoided but for a fanatic set 
 of men besieging the President, and who wanted blood ond plunder. 
 They have got both, and humanity weeps over the wrecks of body 
 and soul. Those who drive the car of war at this time, have no 
 more idea of saving the Union by their bloody sacrifices of this 
 eort, than they have of changing the course of nature. Still they go 
 on. # * * 
 
 " Depend upon it, Heaven will frown on such a cause as this ; it 
 can not and will not come to good. Where you find me in lamenting, 
 or exposing this iniquity, you will find me to the end of the chapter. 
 I would rather have the good opinion of fellow-citizens who, like 
 yourself, have given me their sympathy in a time of some consider- 
 able trial of one's faith, than to be first among the slayers of kindred, 
 or wear the bloody laurels they may gather in a fratricidal war." 
 
 Among the papers of Jefferson Davis, recently captured by the 
 Union army, at Jackson, Miss., was a letter from Ex-President Pierce, 
 written in January, 1860, to his friend Davis. The following is the 
 more important part of it : 
 
 " My Dear Friend : I wrote you an unsatisfactory note a day or 
 two since. I have just had a pleasant interview with Mr. Shepley, 
 whose courage and fidelity are equal to his learning and talents. He 
 says he would rather fight the battle with you as standard bearer, in 
 1860, than under the auspices of any other leader. The feeling and 
 judgment of Mr. S. in this relation is, I am confident, rapidly gaining 
 ground in New England. Our people are looking for the Coming 
 Man. One who is raised by all the elements of his character above 
 the atmosphere ordinarily breathed by politicians. A man really 
 fitted for this emergency by his ability, courage, broad statesman- 
 ship and patriotism. Col. Seymour (Thos. H.) arrived here this morn- 
 ing, and expressed his views in this relation in almost the identical 
 
1152 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 language used by Mr. Shepley. It is true that in the present state 
 of things at Washington, and throughout the country, no man can 
 predict what changes two or three months may bring forth. Let me 
 suggest that in the morning debates of congress, full justice seems 
 to me not to have been done to the Democracy of the North, I do 
 not believe that our friends at the South have any just idea of the 
 state of feeling hurrying at this moment to the pitch of intense exas- 
 peration between those who respect their political obligations, and 
 those who have apparently no impelling power but that which 
 fanatical passion on the subject of slavery imparts. Without dis- 
 cussing the question of right — of abstract power to secede, I have 
 never believed that actual disruption of the Union can occur without 
 blood ; and if through the madness of northern abolitionists that dire 
 calamity must come, the fighting will not be along Mason and Dixon's 
 line merely. It will be within our own borders, in our ovm streets, between 
 the two classes of citizens to whom I have referred. Those who defy law 
 and scout constitutional obligations, will, if we ever reach the ar- 
 bitrament of arms, find occupation enough at hoTne." 
 
 The " Col. Seymour," alluded to in this letter, is Ex-Governor Sey- 
 mour, of Connecticut, whose letter is given on the preceding page. 
 
 While it is not known how extensively these sentiments prevailed 
 among the leading men of the Democratic party, it may be fairly pre- 
 sumed that the larger portion of them must have understood each 
 other, and that their views harmonized on this question. Of this, the 
 case of Vallandigham affords conclusive evidence. This case being 
 one of the most singular and notorious among the incidents of the 
 war, deserves notice fn any political history of this country. 
 
 Clement L. Vallandigham, a Democratic representative in congress 
 from Ohio, in his speeches both in congress and in public meetings, 
 took an open stand against the war measures of the administration. 
 These speeches having been continued after they had been interdicted 
 by general orders, and being deemed to be too annoying to be further 
 tolerated, he was arrested by order of Gen. Burn side, and tried by a 
 military commission, on the following charge : " Publicly expressing, 
 in violation of General Orders No. 38, from Headquarters Depart- 
 ment of the Ohio, sympathy for those in arras against the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, and declaring disloyal sentiments and 
 opinions, with the object and purpose of weakening the power of the 
 government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion." He was 
 found guilty by the court martial, and sentenced to confinement in 
 Port Warren, Boston Harbor, during the continuance of the war. 
 The President approved the finding of the court, but commuted the 
 sentence to banishment to the southern confederacy. Sympathy was 
 
MR, LINCOLN ON THE HAAEAS CORPUS. 1153 
 
 expressed in his behalf by his party generally ; and he was nomi- 
 nated as the Democratic candidate for Governor of Ohio, notwith- 
 standing he was not permitted to return to the United States to 
 assume the duties of the oflSce in case of his election, 
 
 A general clamor was raised against " arbitrary arrests," " usur- 
 pation of power," "suppression of liberty," &c. Among the numerous 
 meetings called to give expression to Democratic sentiment on the 
 subject, was one in the city of Albany, at which resolutions were 
 adopted, denouncing the arrest of Vallandigham, and demanding his 
 restoration to liberty. The resolutions were transmitted to President 
 Lincoln for his consideration. 
 
 The letter of the President in reply, though doubtless deemed un- 
 satisfactory to his opponents, contained as powerful and able a defense 
 as the case would admit — one which his friends considered complete. 
 Although it is impossible to do justice to this reply without copying 
 it entire, a few extracts only can be given. Speaking of the insur- 
 gents, " who had for more than thirty years been preparing for rebel- 
 lion," he said : 
 
 " Undoubtedly it was a well-pondered reliance with them that, in 
 their own unrestricted efforts to destroy Union, constitution, and law, 
 all together, the government would, in a great degree, be restrained, 
 by the same constitution and law from arresting their progress. 
 Their sympathizers pervaded all departments of the government, and 
 nearly all communities of the people. From this material, under 
 cover of ' liberty of speech,' ' liberty of the press,' and ' habeas corpus,' 
 they hoped to keep on foot among us a most eflBcient corps of spies, 
 informers, suppliers, and aiders and abettors of their cause in a thou- 
 sand ways. They knew that in times such as they were inaugurat- 
 ing, by the constitution itself, the ' habeas corpus' might be sus- 
 pended ; but they also knew they had friends who would make a 
 question as to who was to suspend it ; meanwhile, their spies and 
 others might remain at large to help on their cause. Or if, as has 
 happened, the executive should suspend the writ, without ruinous 
 waste of time, instances of arresting innocent persons might occur, as 
 are always likely to occur in such cases ; and then a clamor could 
 be raised in regard to this, which might be, at least, of some service 
 to the insurgent cause, . . . Yet, thoroughly imbued with a 
 reverence for the guarantied rights of individuals, I was slow to adopt 
 the strong measures which, by degrees, I have been forced to regard 
 as ifeing within the exceptions of the constitution, and as indispen- 
 sable to the public safety. Nothing is better known to history than 
 that courts of justice are utterly incompetent to such cases. Civil 
 courts are organized chiefly for trials of individuals, or, at most, a 
 
 73 
 
1154 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 few individuals acting in concert ; and this in quiet times, and on 
 charges of crimes well defined in the law. Even in times of peace, 
 bands of horse-thieves and robbers frequently grow too numerous and 
 powerful for the ordinary courts of justice. But what comparison in 
 numbers, have such bands ever borne to the insurgent sympathizers 
 even in many of the loyal states ? Again : a jury too frequently has 
 at least one member more ready to hang the panel than hang the 
 traitor. And yet, again, he who dissuades one man from volunteer- 
 ing, or induces one soldier to desert, weakens the Union cause as 
 much as he who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this dissuasion 
 or inducement may be so conducted as to be no defined crime of which 
 any civil court would take cognizance. • » * 
 
 " Habeas corpus does not discharge men who are proved guilty of 
 defined crime ; and its suspension is allowed by the constitution on 
 purpose that men may be arrested and held who can not be proved 
 to be guilty of defined crime, ' when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, 
 the public safety may require it.' . . . The man who stands by 
 and says nothing when the peril of his government is discussed, can 
 not be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy ; 
 much more, if he talks ambiguously — talks for his country with 
 ' buts' and ' ifs' and ' ands.' " 
 
 To illustrate the little value of constitutional provisions if arrests 
 were never made until defined crime should have been committed, he 
 referred to the cases of Generals Breckinridge, Lee, Johnson, and 
 others, now occupying the highest places in the rebel service. While 
 yet within the power of the government, since the rebellion began, 
 they were known to be traitors ; and if we had seized and held them, 
 the insurgent cause would have been much weaker. But they had 
 committed no defined crime, and, if arrested, would have been dis- 
 charged on habeas corpus were the writ allowed to operate. 
 
 The President alluded to the fact that the meeting spoke of them- 
 selves as " Democrats" rather than as " American citizens." He 
 said : 
 
 *' In this time of national peril, I would have preferred to meet you 
 upon a level one step higher than any party platform ; because I am 
 sure that from such more elevated position, we could do better battle 
 for the country. . . . But since you have denied me this, t will 
 yet be thankful, for the country's sake, that not all Democrats have 
 done so. He on whose discretionary judgment Mr. Vallandighan%waB 
 arrested and tried is a Democrat, having no old party aflBnity with 
 me ; and the judge who rejected the constitutional view expressed 
 in these resolutions, by refusing to discharge Mr. V. on habeas cor- 
 
THE CASE OF VALLANDIGHAM. 1155 
 
 pus, is a Democrat of better days than these, having received his 
 judicial mantle at the hands of Gen. Jackson. And still more, of all 
 those Democrats who are nobly exposing their lives and shedding 
 their blood on the battle-field, I have learned that many approve the 
 course taken with Mr. V., while I have not heard of a single one con- 
 demning it. I can not assert that there are none such. 
 
 " The name of President Jackson recalls one instance of pertinent 
 history : 
 
 [The instance here referred to will be found described in a preced- 
 ing Chapter, pages 27T-279.] 
 
 The President said : " I do not know whether I would have ordered 
 the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. While I cannot shift the responsi- 
 bility from myself, I hold that, as a general rule, the commander in 
 the field is the better judge of the necessity in any particular case." 
 In response to the call to discharge Mr. Vallandigham, the President 
 said it would aflFord him pleasure to discharge him so soon as he 
 should believe the public safety would not suffer by it. 
 
 This party war against the administration, from whatever motives 
 or for whatever purpose it was waged, was considered as, in efiect, 
 opposition to the war for the Union, and turned to the great disad- 
 vantage of the Democratic party. At the elections in 1863, the 
 policy of the administration was sustained in nearly every state in 
 the Union, not even excepting the loyal slave states, Kentucky, Mis- 
 souri, Maryland, and Delaware. In the states of Iowa, Wisconsin, 
 and Missouri, the majorities were much increased by the soldiers in 
 the army, for whose voting, and for the transmission of whose votes 
 to the election districts in which they resided when at home, provi- 
 sion had- been made by their state legislatures. Of the soldiers' 
 votes, about three-fourths were given for the candidates of the Union 
 and war party. The soldiers' vote of Ohio was nearly unanimous 
 for the administration and war policy. Mr. Vallandigham, though he 
 received only 3,000 votes less than the entire strength of his party, 
 was beaten on the home vote alone, about 62,000. To this was added 
 a majority of the soldiers' vote about 25,000. 
 
 Mr. Vallandigham, after a brief sojourn at the South^ embarked 
 for the dominions of Queen Victoria, by way of the Atlantic, and took 
 up his residence in Canada West, where he was at the time of the 
 election, and where he still remains, (Jan. 1864.) 
 
 A deep interest was felt in several states on the subje-ct of soldiers' 
 voting. The Pennsylvania soldiers were allowed to vote in 1861 j 
 but the law authorizing the vote was declared by a state court to be 
 unconstitutional. Hence, in the absence of some 50,000 or more 
 
1156 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 electors from the state, the Union majorities were much reduced. 
 In the state of New York a bill providing for taking the vote of the 
 soldiers had been vetoed by Governor Seymour, (Democrat,) at 
 the preceding session of the legislature. 
 
 CHAPTER XCIV. 
 
 MEETING OP CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE WITH THE PROCLAMATION OF 
 
 AMNESTY. — REPORTS OF SECRETARIES. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 The 38th Congress met the 1th of December, 1863. Schuyler Col- 
 fas, of Indiana, was elected speaker on the first ballot, bj' a vote of 
 101 to 81 for all others. In his address to the house, he sai-d : "To- 
 day will be marked in American history as the opening of a Congress 
 destined to face and settle the most important questions of the cen- 
 tury." He referred, probably, to the settlement of the country after 
 the suppression of the rebellioji, the reception or reiidmission of states 
 returned to their allegiance, the establishment of a policy for the 
 altered condition of those states consequent on emancipation, and the 
 punishment of rebels. 
 
 The President's message, delivered the next day, is a model docu- 
 ment for brevity. Nearly the usual number of topics noticed on 
 such occasions, are compressed into about one-half the ordinary space. 
 One of the subjects to which reference is made is the National Bank- 
 Law of the last session, which, he says, " has proved a valuable 
 support of the public credit." He notices favorably the proposition 
 for enlarging the water communication between the Mississippi 
 river and the north-eastern seabord, which will in time be ren- 
 dered necessary by the construction of the Pacific Railroad, and 
 force its own way. As to what can be done now, is submitted to 
 congress. 
 
 In relation to the progress of the war, he says : " The rebel bor- 
 ders are pressed still further back, and by the complete opening of 
 the Mississippi, the country dominated by the rebellion is divided 
 into distinct parts, with no practical communication between them. 
 Tennessee and Arkansas have been substantially cleared of insur- 
 gent control, and influential citizens in each, owners of slaves, and 
 advocates of slavery at the beginning of the rebellion, now declare 
 
THE PROCLAMATION OF AMNESTT. 115T 
 
 openly for emancipation in their respective states. Of the states not 
 included in the emancipation proclamation, Maryland and Missouri, 
 neither of which, three years ago, would tolerate any restraint upon 
 the extension of slavery into new territories, only dispute now -as to 
 the best mode of removing it within their own limits. Of those who 
 were slaves at the beginning- of the rebellion, full one hundred thou- 
 sand aro now in the United States military service, about one-half of 
 which number actually bear arms in the ranks ; thus giving the 
 double advantage of taking so much labor from the insurgents' cause, 
 and supplying the places which otherwise must be filled with white 
 men." 
 
 Accompanying the message is a Proclamation of Amnesty. As some 
 persons heretofore engaged in the rebellion have expressed a desire 
 to resume their allegiance to the United States, and to reinaugurate 
 loyal state governments, the President proclaims pardon to all, with 
 certain exceptions, who have been implicated in the rebellion, and a 
 restoration of the rights of property, except as to slaves, and in pro- 
 perty cases where the rights of third parties shall have intervened, 
 upon condition that they take the oath of allegiance, and keep it 
 inviolate. The persons excepted from the benefits of these pro- 
 visiuns, are the higher civil officers in the service of the Confederate 
 Government, and military officers above the rank of colonel in the 
 army or lieutenant in the navy ; together with certain other classes 
 of persons, among whom are those who have been engaged in 
 treating colored persons who had been found in the United States 
 service, and those in charge of them, otherwise than as prisoners 
 of war. 
 
 It is further proclaimed, that, whenever, in any of the seceded 
 Btates, a number of persons not less than one-tenth of those who 
 voted in the presidential election of 1860, shall re6stablis.h a state 
 government, the same shall be recognized as the true government. 
 This very liberal offer will, it is pi'esuined, hasten the return of states 
 to the Union. 
 
 ^iever, perhaps, have the reports of the heads of the departments 
 commanded more general attention than those which accompanied the 
 message of December, 1863. 
 
 The secretary of the treasury congratulates the people on the 
 happy condition of the finances. He estimates the receipts of the 
 fiscal year ending June 30, 1865, at $201,000,000. The public debt, 
 on the Ist of July, 1864, would be $1,686,956,641 ; and the interest 
 on the debt as it now stands, (December, 1863,) is $54,881,505. 
 The actual receipts into the treasury during the fiscal year, were 
 $720,039,039, and the actual disbursements, $714,709,995. Of the 
 
1158 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 receipts, were $69,059,642 from customs ; $37,640,187 from internal 
 revenue ; the remainder chiefly from loans. National banks had 
 been organized under the new act in seventeen states, and num- 
 bered, December 1st, 1863, 134, with an ag-gregate capital of over 
 16 millions. 
 
 The secretary of war notices the successes of our armies during 
 the past year ; the opening of the Mississippi ; the occupation of 
 East Tennessee and Texas by our forces ; and the present posture of 
 our military affairs. He says : " The Federal force is now firmly 
 planted in every rebel state ; and there is reason to hope, that under 
 its protection, the loyal people of those states will soon cast off the 
 yoke of their leaders, and seek within the Union that peace and se- 
 curity for life, liberty, and property, which, in blind madness, were 
 recklessly thrown away." Such had been the success of our arms, 
 that the secretary reduced his estimates for the next fiscal year over 
 200 millions. 
 
 There had been captured by the enemy 13,000 prisoners of war, 
 while we had taken over 35,000 at Vicksburg and Port Hudson 
 alone. In violation of the cartel, the rebels put the paroled Vicks- 
 burg and Port Hudson prisoners into the field without waiting for an 
 exchange. We have now in our hands over 40,000 prisoners of war, 
 while the enemy holds but 13,000 of ours. Because the enemy de- 
 mand that we shall liqerate our prisoners for theirs, and because 
 they refuise te exchange colored troops and their officers, a stop has 
 been put to exchanges By barbarous treatment of our prisoners, 
 the rebels are attempting to compel our government to exchange 
 40,000 for 13,000, and to leave the colored troops at their mercy. 
 If necessary for the protection of our soldiers, retaliation in the treat- 
 ment of prisoners will be resorted to. 
 
 The draft had been enforced in twelve states, bringing 50,000 
 soldiers into the field, and $10,000,000 for procuring substitutes ; 
 this sum having been paid in sums of $300 each by drafted men, in 
 lieu of personal service, and in default of procuring substitutes 
 themselves. 
 
 The secretary of the navy speaks of the extent of the blockade, 
 from Alexandria, Va., to the Rio Grande, a distance of 3,549 miles ; 
 in addition to which a naval force of more than 100 vessels had pa- 
 trolled our rivers for the protection of commerce, and to aid our 
 armies, traversing a distance of 3,116 miles. The blockade is daily 
 becoming more effective ; and the capture of illicit traders the past 
 year has been numerous and valuable. Captures reported to the 1st 
 of November, were 1,045, besides a large number of vessels cap- 
 
REPORTS OF SECRETARIES. 1159 
 
 tured on the Mississippi and other rivei's ; and the value of prizes 
 since the rebellion began, is about $13,000,000. 
 
 The number of vessels in commission and near completion, is 588, 
 carrying 4,443 guns. Of these, 24 are iron-clads, and 7 double-end 
 iron steamers. At least 20 steamers, endeavoring to violate the 
 blockade, have been captured. Some 32 vessels belonging to the 
 navy havejbeen lost during the year ; of these 12 have been captured, 
 and 4 sunk in battle or by torpedoes. 
 
 The secretary of the interior i-eports, that, during the last fiscal 
 year, there have been disposed of for cash, by the location of bounty 
 land-warrants, as swamp and overflowed land, for railroad purposes, 
 and under the homestead law, 2,966,698 acres of the public lands, 
 against 1,377,922 acres the previous year. The increase is chiefly 
 owing to the operation of the homestead law, under which 1,456,514 
 acres have been taken up since the 1st of January, 1863, when it 
 took effect. The revenue from the sale of public lands during the 
 last fiscal year, is $136,077, an increase of $11,029 over the pre- 
 vious fiscal year. 
 
 Only 18 revolutionary soldiers remained on the pension rolls the 
 30th of June, 1863 ; widows of revolutionary soldiers, 1,573 ; army 
 pensioners of all classes, 13,659 ; of navy pensioners, 1,132. The 
 sum paid the former is $1,227,641 ; the latter, $144,071, during the 
 year. Tiie whole amount expended by the government for pensions 
 to the close of the fiscal year, June 30, 1863, is $91,603,660. 
 
 The postmaster-general reports an improvement in the financial 
 condition of his department. The revenue has nearly equalled the 
 expenditures, the latter amounting to $11,314,206, and the former to 
 $11,163,789, leaving a deficiency of but $150,414. In 1860, the 
 year immediately preceding the rebellion, the deficiency amounted 
 to $5,656,705, the postal receipts being $2,643,722 less than those of 
 1863. He hopes that the department will in a few years become 
 self-sustaining, even with the restoration of the whole service. 
 
 An act was passed at this session, to provide a national currency, 
 secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and to provide for the cir- 
 culation and redemption thereof. 
 
 Mr. Hooper, of Mass., who refiorted the bill, said it was not a bill to 
 establish the system of national banks, but to amend the act of the last 
 session establishing the national lianking system ; and to render the 
 law so perfect, that the state banks might be induced to organize under 
 it. It was not inimical to the state banks. It encouraged banking 
 upon sounder principles. The systeni of state banks had outlived its 
 usefulness, and was unequal to the exisrencies of the present time, as 
 bad been shown within the first year of the war. 
 
1160 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The bill, however, was not passed without much opposition. Its 
 capital was to be exempt from taxation, wliich, it was contended, was 
 unjust to the state banks. It was said to be unjust to the tax-payers 
 of a state to enable particular citizens of a state to exempt themselves 
 from taxation by investing their capital in national securities, and 
 depositing it in these national banks. Upon a motion to amend so that 
 the national banks should be liable to taxation in the states as the 
 property of other moneyed corporations. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Maryland, said : If it is a matter of national moment, 
 that the government of the United States ^hall have a system of na- 
 tional banks, then it is not a question of justice between money invest- 
 ed in them and money invested in other industrial enterprises. If 
 state necessity is to domineer over the national necessities — and that 
 is the generally prevailing Democratic view of the country — then adopt 
 this amendment. If the main thing be to make an effective national 
 organization which will control and regulate the currency all over the 
 country, then let the bill go through without this destructive amend- 
 ment. The right of taxation in the states places the existence of 
 these corporations at the mercy of the states. It is preposterous to 
 attempt to estabUsh a system of uniform national banking for the pur- 
 pose of having a uniform national currency, and in the sanic law to 
 give each state the right of negativing that system. 
 
 Mr. Mallory, of Kentucky, was in favor of taxing these banks as 
 other corporations were taxed. The interest on their capital, six per 
 cent., the discounting of notes, and dealing in bills of exchange, gave 
 these banks enormous profits ; and yet it is said that to give the 
 power to tax them was giving power to destroy them. The tendency 
 of the bill was rather to prostrate state power, and put it at tlie con- 
 trol of the great centralized power to be established here. 
 
 The bill, after having received numerous amenduients, was passed. 
 It received in the senate many other amendments, some of which were 
 not agreed to. A committee of conference was appointed ; and the 
 bill was passed by both houses. One of the amendments was that 
 which authorizes the taxation of these banks to an amount not ex* 
 ceeding that imposed upon tlie banks of the states in which they are 
 located. ■ 
 
 An act to prohibit certain sales of gold and foreign exchange was 
 passed. It was designed to prevent speculation in gold, which, it was 
 believed, was one of the causes of its enormous appreciation. The 
 object of the law was not to prevent the buying and selling in the 
 ordinary cyurse of business. Many of the transactions were made by 
 speculators without the payment of a dollar, the gold to bo delivered 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS. 1161 
 
 at a future day ; the purchaser, of course, hoping to effect a sale be- 
 fore the day fixed for payment. Some of its advocates seemed not to 
 be sanguine in the hope of its materially checking the evil to be 
 remedied, but favored it rather as a measure which would do no harm, 
 if it did no good. There were some who doubted its constitutionality. 
 The price of gold continued to rise after its passage, but whether to 
 a greater extent than it would have done in the absence of the law, 
 is not known. The price of gold, at the time of the passage of the 
 act, June 11, was about 200. In two weeks it rose to about 250, 
 when, (July 2,) the act was repealed ; and gold rose suddenly to 
 above 280. 
 
 An act was passed to increase the pay of soldiers of the army and 
 navy : 
 
 An act to increase the duties on imports : 
 
 An act to provide ways and means for the support of the govern- 
 ment, which authorized the secretary of the treasury to borrow, from 
 time to time, $i00,000,000 : 
 
 An act to provide internal revenue to support the government, to 
 pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes. By this 
 act, duties, stamps, licenses, &c., were increased, to meet the demands 
 of government, and to pay the interest on the large and rapidly in- 
 creasing debt. 
 
 A joint resolution was passed, to continue the payment of bounties 
 to volunteers enlisting for three years, or during the war. 
 
 A joint resolution was passed, adding five percent, to the duty on 
 incomes exceeding $600. 
 
 Acts were passed to enable the people of Nevada, Colorado, and 
 Nebraska, to form constitutions and state governments, and for their 
 admission into the union. 
 
 An act to amend an act for enrolling and calling out the national 
 forces. 
 
 A bill to repeal the fugitive slave laws was introduced December 
 14, 1863, by Mr. Stevens, of Pa. ; another, on the same day, by Mr. 
 Julian, of Ind. ; and a third, February 8, 1864, by Mr. Spalding, of 
 Ohio. They were all referred to the judiciary committee. 
 
 Mr. Morris, of N. Y., from this committee, reported, June 6, a sub- 
 stitute for the several bills, which was read the third time, Mr. M. 
 moved the previous question on the bill, which was seconded, and the 
 main question put. 
 
 Mr. Mallory, of Ky., requested Mr. Morris to withdraw the previous 
 question. Mr. Morris declined. Mr. Mallory said. Then I wish to 
 Btate to the house the reason why I asked the gentleman to with- 
 draw it. 
 
1162 * THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Morris said if the gentleman from Kentucky does not want 
 over two niiiiutrs, I am willing to ^ield to liim. 
 
 Mr. Ci)X, of Oliio. Think of it ! They cundescend to give us two 
 minutes to discuss tlie repeal of the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Mallory said that Kentucky was the only state adhering to the 
 union which had not abolished, or taken the initiatory steps to abolish 
 slavery. (In Delaware it only existed nominally.) As the gentle- 
 men on the other side of the house know that the constitution orders 
 the suirender of f-ugitive slaves, I demand, as an act of justice to 
 my state, that the act may be permitted to remain on the statute- 
 book. If you say it will be a dead letter, so much less the excuse for 
 repealing it, and so much more certainly is the insult and wrong to 
 Kentucky gratuitous. This act, by which you declare your intention 
 not to obey the injunction of the constitution, is wanton and useless, 
 except for the purpose of bravely exhibiting your contempt for that, 
 instrument and the rights of the states. This act is the forerunner 
 of an act to amend the constitution so as to authorize the abolition 
 of slavery throughout the United States. You must think 3'ou will 
 fail in that effort, or you would not press this. Sir, I warn you against, 
 the course this congiess is pursuing. Already you have crushed out 
 every feeling of love for the union in the people of the revolted states ; 
 and you are besotted if you think acts of oppression and wrong can 
 be perpetrated in the bolder slave states without producing estrange- 
 ment aiid even enmity there. The framers of the constitution gave 
 us the right to reclaim fugitive slaves. It was. conceded not as a 
 favor, but as a right. The president and every respectable member 
 of the republitan party have again and again admitted the right. Do 
 not indicate your contempt of it now by the passage of this repealing 
 act, useless as you know it to be. Will the gentleman from New 
 York withdraw the call for the previous question to enable me to offer 
 an amendment excepting my state from its operation, in order to save 
 her from insult, and do her justice? Mr. Morris declining, Mr. Mal- 
 lory said, I did not expect that he would yield. Justice is a thing I 
 have long ceased to hope for from that side of the house. 
 
 Mr. Cox, of Ohio, (unanimous consent having been given,) asked 
 for a postponement of the bill, to which Mr. Morris consented, allow- 
 ing also a " reasonable time" for its discussion. 
 
 On the 13tli of June, the bill having been taken up, 
 
 Mr. King, of Missouri, spoke in oi>position to tlie bill. He said 
 the act of 1703 was intended to secure to the citizen his rights 
 guarantied by the constitution. He alluded to what had been done 
 for the abolisiiment of slavery ; it was, however, still an existing in- 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS. 1163 
 
 6titution. The new school of commentators boldly argue that no 
 rights did exist under the constitution. He trusted liis honorable 
 friend who reported the bill did not intend to assume tliat ground. 
 Mr. K. referred to the proceedings of the convention of fratners, to 
 writings of our early statesmen, and judicial decisions, to prnve the 
 rights of the slave states to security for their slave property. He 
 contended that the act could not be repealed without a tptaMisre- 
 gard of imperative obligation. All assaults upon this law, from 
 whatever motives, were aimed directly at the constitution, and con- 
 sequently at tlie perpetuity of the union. The bill was not intended 
 to operate upon the states in rebellion, which were not under our con- 
 trol. Was it upon Kentucky that this mark of disapprubatiun, this 
 thrust at her constitutional rights, was aimed ? If so, he begged 
 gentlemen to remember that the end of the revolution was not yet. 
 
 Mr. Hubbard, of Conn., denied that any constitutional question 
 was involved in the repeal. The constitution did not provide for an 
 enactment by congress of a law for the rendition of fugitive slaves ; 
 and if it did, the people are, by the treason of slavery, absolved from 
 the obligation. This was so b}' the common law, and in the nature 
 and fitness of things it must be so. He made no distinction between 
 the act of 1793 and that of 1850. He believed the fathers would not 
 have passed the act of 1793, if slavery had been in rebellion. Good 
 policy and the best interests of the governujent demand their imme- 
 diate repeal. Repeal them, and you will get fifty thousand men 
 during the next six months which otherwise I fear you will not get 
 at all. You can not draft black men while your marshals are chasing 
 women and children in the woods of Ohio to render them back into 
 bondage. 
 
 Mr. Cox, of Ohio, alluding to the remark of Mr. Hubbard, that the 
 fathers of the republic would not have passed the act of 1793, if 
 slavery had been in rebellion, said he knew that slaveholders were 
 in rebellion ; but he could not understand that the abstract idea of 
 slavery was in rel)ellion. But does it follow that we must break 
 down every law intended to carry out the constitution in respect to 
 the return of fugitive slaves ? The slaveh(jlders would not get the 
 benefit of the (existing) law ; a line of force separates them ibjm us. 
 Tiie only beneficiaries of the act are tlie slaveliolders not in rebellion, 
 men faithful to the government. The gentleman means to say to 
 them : " We place the penalties of treason on your innocent heads." 
 In tlie course of his speech, Mr. 0. said he was oppo>ed to putting 
 black men in the army, apprehending trouble abnut the exchange of 
 prisoners. White soldiers had been kept in prison by reason of thia 
 
1164 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 infamous military policy as to blnck soldiers. He did not believe 
 thej' had strengtliened the army. He would let them be taken home 
 to their owners, and if the war must go on, leave to the white men 
 the honor and duty of carrying on the war for the constitutional 
 liberties of white men. 
 
 Mr. Morris, of N, Y., said the power authorized to enact those 
 statutes might also repeal them. The only question was the practical 
 one whether it was wise and proper to do so. In stating his objec- 
 tions to these laws, Mr. M. supposed a case, (suggested by one allud- 
 ed to by Mr Cox). Suppose a man from Cuba should steal from the 
 shores of Africa three hundred negroes, and bring them to this coun- 
 try, and a part of them had been landed and sold in Missouri or Mary- 
 land, and escaped into another state. Under this law the gentleman 
 from Ohio, as commissioner, would surrender them up to the claimant. 
 We should have a court securing to a person seized in another state 
 the usual trial by jury, in the state where arrested, to ascertain 
 whether he was entitled to his liberty. Another reason for the re- 
 peal : A slave in the state of Maryland or Missouri, might enlist in 
 the army, and be stationed in the state of New York. Under existing 
 laws lie nii<iht be seized and remanded to slavery ; and further, he 
 might be dealt with as a deserter. Our army might be invaded, and 
 our troops be consigned to slavery. Besides, they are a dead letter 
 upon the statute-book, and from high moral considerations should be 
 repealed. 
 
 The previous question being demanded, it was seconded, and the 
 main question ordered to be put. The bill was passed: Yeas, 82; 
 nays, 57 ; not voting, 42. 
 
 A similar bill had been introduced in the senate, where some of 
 the administration senators were opposed to the repeal of the act of 
 1793, of whom was senator Sherman, of Ohio, on whose motion the 
 bill was so amended as to restrict it to the act of 1850. Before the 
 bill was finally acted on, the bill from the house was received, and 
 after considerable discussion, was passed : Yeas, 27 ; nays, 12 ; ab- 
 sent, 10. 
 
 The subject of the confiscation of the property of rebels, which had 
 for two years been a fruitful topic of public and private discussion, 
 was again introduced in congress at this session. Doubts existed in 
 the minds of many of the friends of the administration as to the con- 
 stitutionality of the confiscation act of 1862. The president himself 
 was said to have entertained such doubts, and to iiave signed the 
 act with reluctance. It prescribed the penalty of death, or heavy 
 fine and imprisonment and declared the slaves of the traitor free. 
 
CONFISCATION. 1165 
 
 And it required the president to cause the seizure of the real and per- 
 sonal estate of certain classes of persons engaged in the rebellion. 
 Also the slaves of persons thereafter aiding the rebellion escaping 
 and taking refuge within the lines of the army, and captured slaves, 
 were to be free. Immediately after the passage of the act, congress 
 passed a joint resolution, explanatory of the act, declaring that tho 
 clause relating to certain state officers should not be so construed as to 
 apply to acts done by them prior to its passage ; nor should the real 
 estate of an oflfender be forfeited beyond his natural life. The object, 
 of this resolution was to secure the approval of the president. 
 
 A joint resolution was introduced at this session, (January, 1864,) 
 to amend the joint resolution of 1862. As explained by Mr. Wilson, 
 of Iowa, who, from the committee on the judiciary, had reported it, 
 the object was, by substituting the language of the constitution, to 
 leave it to the courts to determine whether forfeiture may be in fee, or 
 only for life. In the debate on this bill are presented the principal 
 arguments in favor of and against the power of congress to confiscate 
 the property of traitors. The object of the provision iii our consti- 
 tution, as is well known, was to mitigate the severity and injustice 
 of the penalty inflicted by the common law ox England for the crime 
 of treason, which was the forfeiture of the offender's real estate, and 
 the corruption or staining of his blood, so that he could neither inherit 
 property from his ancestors, nor transmit it to his heirs. By the 
 constitution, corruption of blood is entirely abolished, and the forfei- 
 ture of estate is limited to the lifetime of the offender. 
 
 Mr. Kernan, of N. Y., a member of the judiciary committee, denied 
 the power to cut off the inheritance of innocent heirs as part punish- 
 ment for treason. He t^reed with the president, that the constitu- 
 tion restrains us from forfeiting the land forever. But if we liad the 
 constitutional power, would it be wise to do so ? Punishment should 
 fall upon the guilty party only. Besides, to forfeit the lands of tho 
 masses of the southern people, would weaken the inducement to come 
 back to the old government. 
 
 Mr, Orth, of Ind., reviewed briefly the history of attainder and for- 
 feiture in England ; and he stated that the language of our Constitu- 
 tion had not as yet received an authoritative judicial construction. 
 Nor did the debates in the convention of framers, nor the Federalist, 
 nor commentators, throw much light upon the subject. After a care- 
 ful review of the question, he believed congress had power to punish 
 treason by absolute forfeiture. Did the wise men who framed tho 
 constitution intend to provide for such a farce as that the property 
 of n traitor should be forfeited to the government only for the brief 
 
1166 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 space of time between the day of sentence and the day of execution ? 
 Could a foi'feiture for tliirty or ninety days be called a punishment? 
 Was it intended to treat the high crime of treason with morr l.nity 
 than the crime of horse-stealing or petit larceny ? If a traitor can 
 not be deprived of his property by forfeiture, how can a fine assessed 
 against him be collected ? The act of the last congress imposed a 
 fine of not less than $10,000 for treason, which becoiaes a judgment 
 of court upon the real estate of the culprit; and the same judgment 
 also pronounces the sentence of death. A warrant issues to carry 
 into cflect the sentence, and a writ to collect the fine. With the one, 
 the oflScer makes a levy on the real and personal estate, and gives 
 notice of the day of sale ; by virtue of the other, he buys a rope and 
 erects a scaffold. The defendant is to be hung in thirty days after 
 sentence, but the sale can not be had without, say forty days' pre- 
 vious notice. The traitor is hung ; the physician pronounces hini 
 dead ; and the opposite construction of the constitution pronounces 
 the writ also defunct and the forfeiture a nullity ; for by virtue 
 of the writ you sell, alienate, and convey the fee simple thereof, 
 which would, in the opposite view, be a violation of the constitution. 
 Mr. 0. considered 1he fair import of the words, "except during 
 the life of the person attainted," to be, that there shall be no forfei- 
 ture after his death. In other words, the judgment of the court shall 
 be rendered while he is alive, after a fair trial, with opportunity to 
 meet his accusers face to face ; that after his death, whether accord- 
 ing to the course of nature, or by process of law, no judgment or sen- 
 tence shall be had, the effect of which shall be to forfeit his estate, 
 unless that judgment shall be final and irrevocable prior to his death. 
 English lawyers have held that parliament .jiad the power to attaint 
 a man after his death; and this power vi'as frequently exercised. Ho 
 was, as it were, taken from his grave, and declared guilty of crimes 
 which he was not even accused of during life. The stain was placed 
 upon his memory, the blood corrupted, and his innocent posterity- 
 robbed of their lawful inheritance. Congress had the power, and 
 had exercised it, to declare the death penalty ; and could it be infer- 
 red that the constitution had a more tender regard for the property of 
 a traitor than for his life? Taking his property, and placing it in 
 the national treasury, is a robbing of his innocent offspring. This 
 Mr. 0. denied. A person could not be robbed of what he did not 
 possess. The child liad no natural right to the property of his father. 
 The father, in his lifetime, could alienate his property by deed or by 
 will, and grant his estate to strangers. It was only in a certain con- 
 tingency, as where a father dies intestate, that the child obtains pos- 
 
CONFISCATION. 116t 
 
 session of his father's property ; and this right of inheritance was a 
 social rig-ht, depending upon legislation or immemorial usage ripened 
 into the" validity and sanctity of express law. 
 
 Mr. Cox, of Ohio, denounced, as unnatural, the proposition that the 
 child has no natural right to the property of his father. He protested 
 against the cruel and remorseless character of bills which proposed 
 to visit upon persons the crimes of their parent after his death. The 
 gentleman could name no authority to sustain his view but the trashy 
 decision of Judge Underwood. The reason why commentators had 
 written so little upon the subject was that it was. so plain that but 
 little could be said upon it. He here quoted from Story's commen- 
 taries and other authorities in support of his opinions. He also re-' 
 ferred to the views of Mr. Lincoln, which, he said, should be binding 
 upon that side of the house. In reply to a question from a member, 
 whether, in case of the punishment of a traitor by fine to be levied 
 upon his land, the purchaser would take only a life estate, Mr. 0. an- 
 swered : Certainly, sir ; he would only get a life estate. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Md., said, that confiscation should, in some degree, 
 attach to some portion of the people engaged in the rebellion, was 
 now the settled policy of the administration. The joint resolution of 
 the last congress limited confiscation to life estates. The bill contem- 
 plates the obliteration of that distinction. But its language, he 
 thought, did not accomplish the purpose ; and he should therefore 
 vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. 
 Stevens,] which would accomplish the object directly by repealing 
 the limiting resolution. Mr. D. defended the law of the last congress 
 as constitutional. It nowhere attached confiscation or forfeiture to a 
 conviction for treason, or to an attainder of treason. Not a word in the 
 law attaches confiscation to conviction of the person for treason, to 
 attainder of the person for treason, on a criminal proceeding in a court 
 of justice. The quotation of the clause from the constitution, he said, 
 was irrelevant to the matter in debate; which was, that no attainder 
 of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during 
 the life of the party, so that, if there be no proceeding by indictment, 
 there can be no attainder ; and if there be no attainder, there is noth- 
 ing on which the residue of the words of the constitution can operate. 
 That simple observation disposes of the whole argument. The que8< 
 tion is whether there is any process of law, however this provision be 
 construed, by which we can not effect the forfeiture of the fee in 
 lands. That question gentlemen have no where met. 
 
 Mr. D. said he understood the constitution to mean, that the forfei- 
 ture worked shall, must be effected during life. The gentleman from 
 
1168 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Ohio, [Mr. Cox,] and those who think with him, would construe it to 
 be that the forfeiture, when worked, shall only endure for the life of 
 the party. The constitution deals merely with corruption of blood 
 and its operation. There shall be no corruption of blood worked by 
 attainder, or forfeiture except during the life of the person. Attain- 
 der worked no forfeiture after the death of the part}', except by the 
 corruption of blood. The forfeiture of a fee simple estate was not a 
 forfeiture after the life of the party ; the whole fee was in the persou 
 attainted ; his heirs had no interest in it. No lawyer would ever 
 dream of describing a forfeiture for life by the words of the constitu- 
 tion, or describe the forfeiture of a fee-simple estate as a forfeiture 
 worked by attainder after the life of the party. It was one of the 
 settled laws of England at that time, and which also prevailed in 
 some states of this union, that the corruption of blood did what the 
 gentleman from Ohio so properly execrates, operate upon innoceni; 
 persons with reference to their rights coming from a different source, 
 after the criminal had expiated his crime. Mr. D. thought this a more 
 intelligible exposition of the section, than the theory that lands can 
 not be taken in fee, but personal property may be taken absolutely ; 
 which was the ground of the president's threatened veto of last year ; 
 that you can fine a man to the extent of his estate, but you can not 
 take his lands to pay the fine. 
 
 Mr. Bliss, of Ohio, alluding to the clause of the constitution under 
 discussion, said it seemed impossible that the framers meant any- 
 thing less than what the words fairly import. The first part reads, 
 " Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason." 
 That is a complete sense. The second part reads, " but no attainder 
 of treason shall work corruption of blood." That is also a complete 
 sense. The third and last member of the sentence, separated from 
 the preceding by a mark of punctuation, reads, " or forfeiture except 
 during the life of the person attainted ;" which last words, in addition 
 to the former provision, that corruption of blood shall not be worked 
 to defeat the inheritance of the estate of the attainted by his legal 
 heirs, provides also that no delay of the inheritance after his decease 
 shall occur by reason of the attainder, because his life is the lim.it of 
 the forfeiture. In reply to the argument that the interim between 
 the sentence and the execution, was too short to make the forfeiture 
 a punishment, he said he could not see its cogency, because the con- 
 stitution does not doom him to death ; and congress may punish him 
 by imprisonment for life, and confiscation of his CvState for life. Tho 
 framers could not know that ciongress would impose the penalty of 
 death. The opinions of able and learned men, jurists and coiumonta- 
 
CONFISCATION 1169 
 
 tors, who lived and acted at the time the constitution was made, and 
 shortly after, are of much weight on constitutional questions. Mr. B. 
 referred to the opinions of Judge Story and Mr. Madison in support 
 of his own. To the argument of Mr. Davis, that the law does not 
 attach forfeiture or confiscation to an attainder on conviction of trea- 
 son, and that the alleged restrictions of the constitution, having rela- 
 tion to an attainder, which means a forfeiture by the judgment of a 
 court, are inapplicable to the process of forfeiture under the confisca- 
 tion act of 1862, he replied, that the entire substance of the proceed- 
 ings under that act consists in the forfeiture, by judicial judgment, of 
 the property of a person shown in court to have been guilty of treason ; 
 and therefore such proceedings are, in principle, the same as those 
 had on indictments for treason, where forfeiture follows conviction, 
 and is made a part of the judgment and sentence. [Mr. Bliss, in these 
 last remarks, alluded to a statement of Mr. Davis, that the confiscation 
 act requires proceedings in the district court, in the nature of proceed- 
 ivgs in admiraUy, which are different from those in a court of law.] 
 The gentleman from Maryland informs us that the fixed policy of the 
 administration is the unconditional confiscation of the property of 
 rebels. This may be true at the present time ; but when the confis- 
 cation bill was under consideration, the president perceived insur- 
 mountable constitutional objections to the unrestricted forfeitures 
 provided for by its terms. 
 
 Mr. Boutwell, of Mass., replied to several statements of Mr. Bliss. 
 He difiered with him aa to the effect of Mr. Madison's commentary 
 upon this provision of the constitution. Judge Story had no case be- 
 fore him. He merely followed the English law. If the construction 
 contended for by gentlemen on the other side of the house prevails, 
 the constitution would seem to read to this eflfect : "No attainder of 
 treason shall work corruption of blood, except during the life of the 
 person attainted." 
 
 Mr. Stevens, of Pa., denied that the constitution had the least re- 
 ference to any one of the provisions of the bill in question; and he 
 intended to show that the act of 1862, modified by the explanatory 
 resolution, is not afiFectod by any provision of the constitution. The 
 clause of that act to which gentlemen take exception, provides that,, 
 to insure the speedy termination of the rebellion, the president shall 
 cause the seizure of all the estate and property of the persons guilty, 
 and apply the proceeds thereof to the support of our army. Here ia 
 no attainder of treason, no confiscation of property under any provis- 
 ion of the constitution. The property is to be seized and proceeded 
 against in rem, according to the law for that purpose, and,caijdejnaedj. 
 
 74 
 
1170 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Dot as the property of traitors, but as the propert}' of alien enemies. 
 Mr. S, contended that attainder of" treason was impossible under the 
 laws of the United States as they now stand. Without an express act 
 making a conviction and sentence and execution for treason an attaint 
 of treason, there could be no attaint of treason in the United States ; 
 and there is no such law here. In England, after a final sentence for 
 treason, an attaint is worked, not by the act itself of the sentence of 
 death, but by the common law. Here, so far as the United States 
 government is concerned, crime is only by positive enactment ; and 
 there is no crime at common law punishable under the iSws of the 
 United States. Therefore, as there is no common law, the sentence 
 and conviction for treason works no attainder. The constitution 
 provides against a positive act of that kind by congress, but it has 
 never taken place ; and to talk about what can be done under an at- 
 taint for treason is not understanding the subject in a legal point of 
 view. 
 
 It is essential, however, said Mr. S., to ascertain what relation the 
 seceded states bear to the United States ; and he cited Vattel to show 
 that the magnitude of this contest gave it the character of a civil war. 
 The confederate states had for nearly three years maintained their 
 declaration of independence by force of arms. The great powers of 
 Europe had acknowledged them as belligerents, entitled from foreign 
 nations to equal rights with the parent government. What was still 
 more conclusive, we had acknowledged them as belligerents ourselves. 
 We had blockaded their ports. A blockade is declared only against 
 a foreign nation. If they were still members of the union, we should 
 repeal the laws granting ports of entry. A nation, said Mr. S., does 
 not blockade itself We have treated their captive soldiers as prison- 
 ers of war, not as rebels ; we have exchanged prisoners ; we have 
 sent and received flags of truce. This is not the usage awarded to 
 an unorganized banditti. What, then, is the effect of this public war 
 between these belligerent, foreign nations 1 This war has cut asunder 
 all the ligaments which bound them together, and abrogated those 
 obligations. If the United States succeed, how may she treat the 
 vanquished belligerent ? Must we treat her precisely as if she always 
 had been at peace ? If so, this war has been on our part a very fool- 
 ish and a wicked one. But there is no such absurd principle to restrain 
 the hands of the injured victor. By the laws of war, the conqueror 
 may seize and convert to his own use everything that belongs to the 
 enemy. This may be done while the war is raging to weaken the 
 army, and when it is ended, the things seized may be retained to pay 
 the expenses of the war and the damages caused by it. The property 
 
 »l 
 
CONFISCATION. 1171 
 
 thus taken is not confiscated under the constitution after conviction 
 for treason, but is held by virtue of the laws of war. No individual 
 crime need be proved against the owners. The fact of being a bel- 
 ligerent enemy carries the forfeiture with it. Here was the error of 
 the president when he vetoed the confiscation bill. In the confusion 
 of business he overlooked the distinction between a traitor and a bel- 
 ligerent enemy. 
 
 Mr. Fernando Wood, of N. Y., said the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
 [Mr. Stevens] had made the most frank, able, and consistent argu- 
 ment that had been made on that side of the house. He had manfully 
 declared that the rebels had risen into a separate government, having 
 been recognized as a belligerent by foreign nations and our own. 
 While the administration and the friends of the administration in both 
 houses, and their representatives out of doors, declare they are for the 
 union, it is openly declared here by one of their ablest leaders, that, 
 they are not a union party ; that it has ceased to be a union party ; 
 that the southern states are an independent power ; and the only 
 question is whether we shall subdue or recognize them. Well, sir, if 
 they are in the union, they are under the protection of tlie constitu- 
 tion, amenable to it and to the laws made in pursuance, not in con- 
 travention, of the constitution ; entitled to its protection, which in- 
 cludes an entire exemption from congressional interference with their 
 domestic institutions. But the gentleman says they are not amena- 
 ble to the constitution. He knows the constitution stands between 
 the southern states and the designs of the abolitionists, and he tears 
 it away, and under the laws of nations seeks a power which the 
 constitution does not give. Admitting his position, have we a 
 right to confiscate the property of a foreign enemy by a paper procla- 
 mation ? 
 
 But can we confiscate and hold tlie lands of the south ? Doubtful ! 
 No purely agricultural people, fighting for the protection of their own 
 domestic institutions upon their own soil, have ever yet been con- 
 quered. No revolted people have ever been subdued after they have 
 been able to maintain an independent government for three years. 
 But let that pass. We are at war. Whether it be a civil war, re- 
 bellion, revolution, or foreign war, it matters little. It must cease ; 
 and I want this administration to tell the American people wlien it 
 will cease. There must be an end of it sooner or later from one cause 
 or another. But how, and when ? Shall it be when, in the language 
 of the president in April, 1861, we shall have "repossessed tlie forts, 
 places, and property seized from the union ?" Or in the language of 
 the resolution of congress in 1861, when we have successfully defend- 
 
1172 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ed and maintained tlie supremacy of the constitution, and preserved 
 the union with the dignity, equality, and rights of the several states 
 unimpaired," then " the war ought to cease ?" Or, when, according 
 to the presidential programme of 1862, the southern states shall con- 
 sent, under duress, to the emancipation of their slaves? Or, under 
 his more recent proclamation, in utter disregard of the constitution, 
 the abandoned tenth of the population of the south shall consent to 
 betray the remaining nine-tenths into a servitude more degraded than 
 that which their own local institutions entailed upon the blacks ? Or 
 when, under the doctrine of the republican leader of this house, [Mr. 
 Stevens,] the southern states shall be reduced to abject dependence 
 as a conquered enemy, entitled to no law or mercy except that which 
 the clemency of fanaticism may afford ? Or, more dreadful, when the 
 people, north and south, shall be utterly broken down, their ancient 
 government subverted, their homes forever gone, the fountains of the 
 great deep of national desolation shall overwhelm them, and the 
 power of aggression and resistance shall alike be exhausted? Or, 
 more fearful, when the iron heel of despotism is firmly planted upon 
 the submissive necks of northern timidity? I ask in the name of the 
 American people, when shall this hellish crusade of blood and famine 
 cease ? Sir, let the war be of whatever character it may, it must 
 cease, and must cease by negotiation. 
 
 But it is said we must not treat with rebels in arms. Mr. W, re- 
 ferred to Shays' rebellion in Massachusetts, in 1786, and to the 
 whisky insurrection in Pennsylvania, during Washington's adminis- 
 tration. In both cases, after the militia had been called out, commis- 
 sioners were appointed, and the rebels treated with successfully. 
 Therefore, Mr. Speaker, is there anything so extraordinary in my pro- 
 position to send commissioners to treat with the southern states ? 
 We will have to treat with them. The powers of aggression and re- 
 sistance are alike failing. Instead of supplying our armies through 
 patriotic enthusiasm, the government is resorting to bribery and force 
 — bribery by the system of bounties, force by conscription. Another 
 term of three years will find us in a condition where it is impossible, 
 either by force or bribery, to inspire your armies with sufficient 
 power of aggression to conquer the southern people. 
 
 Several other gentlemen addressed the house on both sides of this 
 question. It was apparent from their speeches that the subject had 
 been elaborately investigated. Although upon some points there was 
 a difference of opinion among the administration members, the ques- 
 tion was decided by nearly a strict party vote. Yeas, 83 ; nays, 74. 
 The votes of the absentees, had they been recorded, would proba- 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE REBELLIOUS STATES. 1173 
 
 bly have increased the majority. The bill was sent to the senate, 
 referred, and reported ou adversely. No further action upon it was 
 taken. 
 
 CHAPTER XCV, 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION OF THE REBELLIOUS STATES, 
 
 The question of reconstruction — the rcSstablishment of civil govern- 
 ment in seceded states — which had for some time engaged the public 
 mind, was a prominent topic of discussion at this session, (1863-64,) 
 in both houses. It arose, first, incidentall}', on the application of 
 persons claiming seats as senators and representatives from the states 
 of Arkansas and Louisiana, chosen under the new governments es- 
 tablished in accordance with the plan of the president suggested in 
 his proclamation of amnesty. [See page 1157.] Objection was made 
 to their admission on the ground that they had not been duly elected, 
 there being in those stat£s no state governments which congress 
 could recognize ; consequently there was no authority to provide for 
 holding elections. The credentials were not signed by any oflScer of 
 a state government known to the United States. It is proper here to 
 state, that the administration members were divided upon the presi- 
 dent's plan of reorganization. ■ 
 
 In the course of the debate in the house on the Arkansas case, the 
 views of the opposition members were expressed in a series of reso- 
 lutions on the relations of the seceded states to the union. They de- 
 clare that the acts of secession are mere nullities, and do not change 
 the relations of the states or the people thereof, toward the general 
 government ; that by these acts the people did not free themselves 
 from the penalties to treason, nor lose their rights as citizens of the 
 states and United States, except such as follow upon the conviction of 
 crime ; and that, having never been out of the union, no proclama- 
 tion of the president nor recognition by congress was necessary to 
 restore them. 
 
 In the senate, it was moved to refer the credentials of the appli- 
 cants to the committee on the judiciary. Mr. Howard, of Michigan, 
 thought the reference unnecessary. The state had seceded ; and he 
 was opposed to I'eadmitting a state whose unionism consists solely in 
 
11T4 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 being' held within its allegiance by the military power of the United 
 States. He did not concede to the president the power to reconstruct 
 and reestablish the union ; the power belonged to congress. 
 
 The subject was referred to the judiciary committee, who, by Mr. 
 Trumbull, reported adversely to the claimants. It appeared from this 
 report, that the number of votes in the state for president, in 1860, 
 was 54,053, and that less than one-fourth of that number had taken 
 part in the reorganization of the state government. This, however, 
 would not be fatal to the reorganization, if all loyal men had had an 
 opportunity to participate, and the state had been free from military 
 control. 
 
 Mr. Howe, of Wis., considered it a mistake that the government in 
 Arkansas was set up only by the sufferance of the military power. 
 It existed by permission of the act of congress admitting- the state. 
 The rebels, he said, had destroyed the government of Arkansas ae a 
 state ; but some loyalty remained ; and it was the duty of the gov- 
 ernment of the United States to furnish the loyalty a new state. That 
 duty had been neglected. The military power had driven the rebels 
 from the state, still resting under the statutes of congress. 
 
 The claimants were not admitted. 
 
 On the 15th of February, 1864, Mr. Henry Winter Davis, of Md., 
 from the select committee on rebellious states, reported to the house, 
 Feb. 15, 1864, a bill to guaranty to these states a republican form of 
 government. The bill came up for debate the 22d of March. 
 
 Mr. Davis maintained that the governments of the rebellious states, 
 which repudiate the constitution, were not state governments within 
 the meaning of the constitution. Nor was tlie present military gov- 
 ernment of Tennessee a republican or unrepublican government. Con- 
 gress had the power to determine what is such a government. Until 
 congress recognize a state government organized under its own aus- 
 pices, there is none in the rebel states, except the authority of con- 
 gress. It was, he said, the duty of congress to administer civil gov- 
 ernment there until the people reorganized a republican government. 
 He thought it was not yet time to do so. In no sufficient portion of 
 any rebel state had peace been restored to justify the measure. Not 
 until the rebellion should be overthrown would the southern people 
 acquiesce. It had been repeatedly asserted — Gov. Seymour, of New 
 York, had said in his message — that peace could be had upon reason- 
 able terms. It was his guess, his wish — his fond, vain hope. Not a 
 public man in the soutli had declared himself willing to consider peace 
 on arjy terms but that of independence. The people could not be 
 safely trusted until laws could be executed by courts aud sheriffs, 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE REBELLIOUS STATES, lltS 
 
 "without the menace of military authority. The bill proposed, that 
 until such law, the president should appoint a civil governor to ad- 
 minister the government under the laws of the United States, and the 
 laws in force in the states respectively' at the outbreak of the rebel- 
 lion, subject, of course, to the necessities of military occupation. 
 When armed rebellion should have vanished from the state, then let 
 the people reorganize in their own way, subject to the conditions we 
 think essential to permanent peace, a republican government which 
 the people of the United States can agree to. 
 
 For this purpose, said Mr. D., three modes were indicated. One 
 was to remove the cause of the war by altering the constitution so as 
 to prohibit slavery. But there were not enough states to ratify the 
 desired amendment, unless it were assumed that three-fourths of the 
 states represented in congress were sufficient ; a construction to 
 which he agreed, and which had countenance in high judicial quar- 
 ters. But even upon this basis the sanction of three-fourths was 
 doubtful. The next plan was that of the president set forth in the 
 amnesty proclamation ; in which it is proposed to recognize, as a true 
 state government, that which shall be reestablished by a number of 
 persons, not less than one-tenth of the number who voted at the pre- 
 yidential election of I860; provided it shall not contravene the pro- 
 clamation of freedom and the laws of congress. To secure that, an 
 oath is exacted. But the validity of the proclamation might be con- 
 sidered invalid ; and if invalid, the oath to support it would be with- 
 out legal sanction. But the proclamation declares that certain negroes 
 shall be free, and that others shall remain slaves. It therefore re- 
 cognizes slavery ; it does just what the rebel states did prior to the 
 rebellion; and the old constitution might be restored to-morrow with- 
 out contravening the proclamation. The state government recognized, 
 the operati(m of the proclamation becomes a judicial question. The 
 right of the negro to his freedom must be determined by the courts. 
 What would the courts say of the proclamation ? Is it valid, or in- 
 valid ? Its fate in southern state courts would be certain ; in the 
 courts of the United States, under existing laws, it would be scarcely 
 doubtful. He would not argue the legality of the proclamation ; it 
 was safer to make it law. He admonished those who relied on Dun- 
 more's proclamation for the right of a military commander to free" 
 slaves in a civil war, that no slave was known ever to have claimed 
 his pardon under it. When they cite the opinion of J. Q. Adams, it 
 must be remembered that he was on both sides of the question. He 
 wrote instructions to our minister denying the right to emancipate, 
 and claiming compensation of England for slaves carried off in the 
 
11T6 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 last war; and compensation was taken for negroes taken, as he al- 
 leged, in contravention of the laws of war. Under the act of 1862, 
 the president might use the negroes to suppress the rebellion ; and the 
 proclamation in law exempts the slave from obedience to his master 
 But after the rebellion is extinguished, the master's rights are in his 
 own hands, subject only to the decisions of the courts. He would not 
 risk the great issues involved in this question on such authorities be- 
 fore courts of justice. 
 
 The plan proposed by the bill, Mr. D. considered the true one. The 
 bill precluded the judicial question. It conceded to congress the 
 paramount power to reorganize those governments, to impose condi- 
 tions deemed necessary to secure the permanence of republican gov- 
 ernment, to refuse to recognize anj' that should not prohibit slavery 
 forever. Until congress has assented, there is no state government 
 in any rebel state ; and such only will be recognized as shall recog- 
 nize the power of the United States. Mr. D. concluded by asking 
 gentlemen to read that great argument of Daniel Webster in the 
 Rhode Island case before the supreme court of the United States, 
 where he maintained that the great political law of America is, that 
 every change of government shall be conducted under the supervising 
 authority of some existing legislative body throwing the protection 
 of law around the polls, defining the rights of voters, guarding against 
 fraud, repelling violence, and appointing arbiters to pronounce the 
 result ; and that it was the great fundn mental principle of American 
 government, that legislation shall guide every political change, and 
 that it assumes that there is always somewhere a permanent, organ- 
 ized legal authority to guide those who seek to restore governments 
 disorganized and broken down. 
 
 There were other members of the administration party, who, with 
 Mr. Davis, disapproved the president's plan. There was also some 
 difference of opinion among the members of that party as to the sfatus 
 of the seceding states — their relation to the general government; 
 and a still wider difference between them and members of the demo- 
 cratic party. 
 
 Mr. Beaman, of Mich said that, although differing upon minor 
 .points, the friends of the administration, he believed, agreed that the 
 government had power to control the manner of restoring the seceded 
 states to the union. Whether a state ceases to exist, or, as alleged 
 by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Davis,] it survives, but its 
 government is abrogated and its constitution dead ; or as affirmed 
 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] the seceded 
 states are foreign powers, is not, perhaps, material to the discussion. 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE REBELLIOUS STATES. 117*1 
 
 The practical questions were, What can be done with them ? What 
 are the powers of the national government in restoring the state gov- 
 ernments ? No state, he said, could legally secede or withdraw. 
 When a state has repudiated the federal authority and joined another 
 confederacy, she is no longer a state in the union ; but her territory 
 and people would remain subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
 States, until, by force of arms, she should establish her independence. 
 Having made war upon the government of the United States, and 
 formed a foreign alliance, there was no government which could be 
 recognized under the federal constitution. The constitution does not 
 guaranty that every state shall maintain a state government. The 
 general government can not compel a state to elect state oflScers or 
 members of ccmgress, nor prevent her from changing or abolishing 
 her constitution. What, then, is meant by guarantying a republican 
 government? The federal government is not to permit a state to 
 have a monarchical government, but will aid the people in sustaining 
 one republican in form. But if they will not have it, you can not 
 exercise the functions of a state government for them. Such is the 
 condition of the rebellious districts. But there are in those states 
 loyal citizens entitled to the benefits guarantied by the federal con- 
 stitution. To these we can give a temporary government like that 
 enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of American citizens without the 
 limits of state organizations. This is the purpose of this bill. It 
 asserts that the governments of the seceded states have been over- 
 thrown ; declares the right to substitute federal authority ; provides 
 for a provisional g'overnor to be charged with the civil administration 
 until a state government shall be recognized ; provides that, when 
 military resistance to the United States shall have been suppressed, 
 and the people shall have suflBciently returned to their obedience to 
 the constitution and laws of the United States, and one-tenth of the 
 white male citizens shall have taken an oath to support the constitu- 
 tion, a convention may be called, charged to declare the will of 
 the people relative "to the establishment of a state government. It 
 excludes, as electors or as delegates, all who have held office, civil 
 or military, under the rebel usurpation, or who have borne arms 
 against the United States ; provides lor the emancipation of all per- 
 sons held to involuntary servitude, and requires the incorporation into 
 the constitution provisions prohibiting all who have held office, mili- 
 tary or civil, under the usurping power, from voting for or being a 
 member of the legislature or governor, and prohibiting slavery and 
 guarantying the freedom of all persons in the state. JMr. B. defend- 
 ed the proclamation. The bill, he said, went somewhat further, but 
 
1118 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the principle upon which the authority was assumed was the same } 
 and he mentioned several of the points of similarity between them. 
 
 Mr. Allen, of 111., opposed the bill. He argued that the seceded 
 states were still in the union ; they could not get out by resisting 
 the authority of the United States by force, but were bound to the 
 federal government until the governmcut should consent to a separa- 
 tion. If they could get out by secession, they were out, were foreign 
 states ; and their citizens owed allegiance to another government ; 
 and the war was but a war of conquest for the subjugation of a 
 foreign people. But they were not out of the union, and foreign 
 states. The government had not so regarded them. He did not 
 think the bill adapted to the condition of these states. Nor had con- 
 gress power under the constitution to do what the bill proposed. It 
 destroyed the equality of the states, and curtailed the rights of their 
 citizens. Gentlemen had said these people had forfeited their claims 
 to the protection of the constitution. He said they had incurred the 
 penalties of rebellion ; but penalties could be inflicted only upon in- 
 dividuals. The badge of inequality could not, ought not, to be fixed 
 upon the states. If they were not entitled to equality of rights in the 
 sisterhood of states, they ought not to be in the sisterhood. The 
 president's plan set forth in his amnesty proclamation, was subject 
 to the same ohjection. He had no constitutional power to enforce it. 
 It was a dead letter, except in the presence of the army. It was in- 
 tended to increase his power on the floor of the house and senate, and 
 in the electoral colleges. He, [Mr. A..] denied that, as commander- 
 in-chief, he was, in time of war, released from constitutional restraints, 
 or that he might dictate what should not be in state constitutions ; 
 what laws should not be made ; who should not be entitled to the 
 elective franchise, &c. The bill, he said, was some improvement on 
 the president's plan of reconstruction. It, however, carried out his 
 plan to enable one-tenth of the citizens to make constitutions and laws 
 for governing the other nine-tenths. 
 
 The bill, Mr. A, said, was based upon the idea that there are yet 
 states in the union, their governments usurped or overthrown. How 
 should rightful rule be restored? They have the constitutions and 
 laws which they had before the rebellion. They need new incumbents 
 in the executive, ministerial, judicial, and legislative offices, who will 
 acknowledge the authority of the federal government and respect its 
 laws. These states do not occupy toward the general government 
 the relation of territories or of this district. Therefore there is no 
 authority for this legislation. Nor will they stand in the relation of 
 conquered territories. Their constitutions and laws have been lecog- 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE REBELLIOUS STATES. 1119 
 
 nized by the federal government as republican. Hence, the power to 
 enforce upon them the provisions of this bill, must be found in somo 
 other provision of the constitution than that which guaranties are- 
 publican government. But the bill ignores the existence of state con- 
 stitutions and laws, and proposes to institute governments without 
 inquiring whether they are acceptable or not to the people who arc 
 to be affected by them, which is anti-republican. It not only directs 
 Tvhat shall be in their constitutions, but who shall be entitled to the 
 elective franchise. It is true, that only those who have held oflSco 
 and borne arms under the confederate authorities are excluded from 
 voting or holding office ; but congress can not make even that part 
 of their constitution without destroying that equality of rights which 
 should exist in the states. It is a very grave offense to resist by 
 force the authority of the government ; but does it require congress, 
 in violation of constitutional right, to take from the offender tho 
 elective franchise ? 
 
 Mr. A. objected to the bill also that it prohibited a state from pay- 
 ing debts created under sanction of the usurping power. That should 
 be left to the state to determine. Many loyal persons had hf»d their 
 property taken under a promise that it should be paid for. To them 
 it would be unjust. Let the state determine what ought or ought 
 not to be paid. He was opposed also to compelling the states to 
 prohibit slavery ; a question reserved to the slates by the constitu- 
 tion, lie opposed the section which abolishes slavery and dtMiies to 
 the courts the power of passing upon the power of congress to abolish 
 it, and the section which attempts to give legal effect to the procla- 
 mation by prescribing the punishment of those who shall attempt to 
 restrain the liberty of any one declared free by the proclamation. Mr. 
 A. exhorted the house, in the effort to destroy slavery, not to destroy 
 the fundamental law of the guvernment. 
 
 Mr. Smithers, of Delaware, supported the bill. Congress possessed 
 the constitutional pow(M- to pass it. He quoted several passages 
 from the Federalist. One was from No. 31, that "a government 
 ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplish- 
 ment of the objects committed to its care," &c. Bound to guaranty 
 republican government to the states, the United States had tlie right 
 not oidy to declare the existence of the contingency on which its ac- 
 tion is invoked, but to determine the choice of the means to render 
 the power effectual. The framers of the constitution were too wise to 
 set bounds to what was impossible of definition, and ordained the 
 sweeping clause empf>\vering congress to pass all laws necessary and 
 proper to carry into effect any power vested in the government. Mr. 
 
1180 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 S. quoted also from No. 34 of the Federalist : " Nothing can be more 
 fallacious than to infer the extent of any power proper to be lodged 
 in the national government from an estimate of its immediate neces- 
 sities. There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contin- 
 gencies as they may happen ; and as these are illimitable in their 
 nature, so it is impossible safely to limit that capacity." Said Mr. 
 S., it is absurd to require that congress shall guaranty a republican 
 government to states, and deny the right of judgment as to the exi- 
 gency or the means necessary to execute the trust. To do this would 
 be to require that the instrument should invite to violations of its own 
 provisions. 
 
 Proceeding to a consideration of the bill, Mr, S. said it was the 
 purpose of the committee to change the provision authorizing one- 
 tenth, and requiring a majority of those enrolled to reestablish a 
 state government, and he would treat the bill as thus modified. He 
 tdok up its several provisions, and contended that the right of the 
 people to establish their organic law was recognized and maintained. 
 Thf' clause lelating to obligations created by state or confederate 
 authority, had no reference to private engagements. The statt s to 
 be organized were, of right, subject to contri'Mite their share of the 
 d(!l)t contracted to suppress the rebellion ; and the government should 
 insist th;it tlicy shall not be rendered unable by the assumption of 
 debts imposed in attempting its destruction. 
 
 Tne bill, said Mr. S., proposes no special theory as to the status of 
 these states ; yet the advocates of the several theories can consist- 
 ently support it. He did not hold that the subversion of an existing 
 government necessarily destroys the state. The state remains. It 
 resides in those in whom is vested the ultimate right of sovereignty. 
 He cited Mr. Madison: " Public rights are of two sorts : those which 
 require the agency of government ; those which may be carried into 
 efifect without that agency. As public rights are the rights of the na- 
 tion, not of the government, it is clear that wherever they can be 
 made good to the nation without the office of government, they are 
 not suspended by the want of an acknowledged government, or even 
 by the want of an existing government." 
 
 If it be true, said Mr. S., that the loyal people of the state are the re- 
 positories of its power and unorganized sovereignty, the bill is not 
 liable to the objection proposed. The first step in the formation of a 
 government based upon the will of the people, is to determine of 
 what persons that people shall be deemed to consist. For this pur- 
 pose an enrollment is to be made of all white male citizens, recog- 
 nizing in them alone the right of government. But as rebels are 
 
RECONSTRirCTION OF THB RBBBIXIOUS STATES. 1181 
 
 citizens of the United States, though arrayed against its authority, a 
 test must be applied to ascertain who, being loyal, are entitled to 
 participate in forming the organic law. The bill excludes tliose ad- 
 hering to the rebellion. The test proposed is an oath to support the 
 constitution of the United States ; and a majority of the persons en- 
 rolled and taking the oath are deemed to constitute the people. How, 
 then, can it be pretended that the government is not based upon the 
 consent of the governed ? It can be no deprivation of any political 
 right to declare that be who renounces obedience to the government 
 shall not have the privilege to determine concerning the form of 
 state government to be established. A rebel has no political rights, 
 and ought not to be held as one of the people authorized to form or 
 administer government. 
 
 Mr. S. combated the idea that the bill, by the provision of emanci- 
 pation, interfered with the rights of states to regulate their domestic 
 institutions. From the time of the formation of the national govern- 
 ment until now, this argument has been thrust forward in discussions 
 involving the right of congress to adopt measures for the national 
 advantage. Do we propose to exercise the power of regulating the 
 currency ? We are met by the dogma of state rights, enlisted in the 
 interest of local banks. Do we endeavor to exert our authority to 
 regulate commerce ? We are confronted with the same phantom of 
 state rights pressed into the service of some municipal corporation. 
 Do we determine to save the government, reeling beneath the blows 
 of a formidable rebellion organized and operated by the instrumen-: 
 tality of African slavery ? We dare not accomplish its suppression, 
 and prevent the contingency of future insurrections, for fear we shall 
 invade the hallowed precincts of state rights. It is time that there was 
 an end to this delusion. Mr. S. believed that there was more danger 
 from disintegration than from centralization, and referred, in proof 
 of this sentiment, to our present condition, to the history of nations, 
 and to the writings of Madison and Hamilton. 
 
 Mr. Williams, of Pa., held that the rebellious states were out of 
 the union. Thej' had voluntarily abdicated federal rights, and by 
 governmental action had resisted the federal law. The action was 
 corporate. It was the local governments that had sinned. Where 
 they had been recaptured, the local governors had fled, the local or- 
 ganizations had been dissolved, and their territories were now under 
 military occupation by our armies, or under provisional governors 
 appointed by the e:^ecutive. This fact alone, he thought, involved- 
 the admission that tliey were no longer in the union. If they were 
 still in, that occupation was unlawful. If their governments were 
 
1182 XBE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 dissolved, however, they must be reconstructed under the auspices of 
 the conquering power, not by the executive, but by the legislature of 
 the union. When I suggest, however, said Mr. W., that these stales 
 are out, it is with the qualification that they are out in point of fact, 
 with a forfeiture of all their franchises as members of the union, 
 whenever the issue of battle shall have been decided against them ; 
 but subjects of it still — members, if you choose — in legal contempla- 
 tion, so far as regards their obligations and duties under the consti- 
 tution, and our right to punish them for delinquency. Nor would I, 
 as already intimated, admit they are out as to foreign powers ; who 
 must respect our title, although our possession may be ousted, and must 
 treat the contest as a domestic one. 
 
 Mr. W., alluding to remarks of Mr. Wood, of N. Y., on the confis- 
 cation bill, [see page llTl,] said : It is suggested by a gentleman 
 from New York, that while we are claiming to be for the union, the 
 enunciation of these doctrines amounts to a declaration that we aro 
 no longer a union party. The meaning of this, if it means anything, 
 is, that because the rebel states are ord, without any agency of ours, 
 but with a large share of the responsibility on the heads of those who, 
 like the gentleman himself, encouraged the defection by their servility, 
 or by the assurance that they were opposed to coercion — as they op- 
 pose it now — and taught them to believe that they could go out with 
 perfect impunity, and that New York and Pennsylvania would go out 
 along with them — the mere statement of the fact that they were out 
 is evidence that the party of the administration on this floor is not 
 in favor of the preservation of the union ! Well, we are in favor, at 
 all events, of preserving all that is left of it, and intend, with the 
 blessing of God, to win back the residue. But do the gentleman and 
 those who vote with him believe that tlie rebel states are not out ? 
 If they are not out, why does he propose to treat with them, not with 
 the revolting states singly, but with the authorities at Richmond ? 
 In his own resolution he proposes to " offer to the insurgents an op- 
 portunity to retihrn to the union." Will he inform us whether ihey arc 
 a people known to our constitution, or how these states are to return 
 to the union if they were never out of it ? His tongue confesses it 
 unwittingly. He wishes to treat for the privilege of serving them ; 
 we propose to fight for the purpose of chastising them into submis- 
 sion. The imiohivtary slave is tending toward the north star, with 
 a musket in his hand, while his white non-combatant substitute, a 
 voluntary slave, is rushing southward, with tlie olive branch in hie 
 hand, into the patriarchal arms. In reference to a remark that our 
 right to deal with the rebel states after they shall have been reduced 
 
RECONSTEUCTION OF THE REBELLIOITS STATES. 1183 
 
 to suLrnission by force of arras, is not a question under the constitn- 
 tion, but outside of it. Mr. W. said : I desire to say, once for all, that 
 I do not concur in this ophiion, because I find the war power in the 
 constitution, with all its incidental consequences. If it is not there 
 the case is without remedy. 
 
 Jf these states are in the union, with all their rights and privileges 
 unimpaired, they may return tomorrow, even without submission, 
 after being conquered in the field, to conquer their conquerors in the 
 councils of the nation. The northern democrats will rush into their 
 arms. The old bargain will be renewed : " Give us the spoils, and 
 you may take the honors and the power, and rob the northern soldier, 
 the sick and the maimed, the widows and the orphans of the gallant 
 dead, of the miserable pittance which this government is pledged to 
 provide for them." The proclamation of freedom will be revoked ; 
 your acts of congress repealed ; your debt repudiated unless you will 
 assume theirs ; and yourselves, perhaps, ejected from these walls 
 And the effect will be, that for all your great expenditures and all 
 your bloody sacrifices, you will have won back, not peace, but a mas- 
 ter — the " old master," in negro phraseology — who governed you be- 
 fore, as turbulent, as vindictive, and as ferocious as ever. Bring 
 them back, and you can not even bind them by gratitude nor purge 
 them by oatlis, of which they make no account, as the history of the 
 rebellion, which began in perjury, shows. Mr. W. cited authorities 
 to prove that the present war was not a civil war only, but a real war ; 
 that by the law of nature and of nations, in such cases, the treatment 
 of the conquered depends on the particular circumstances of the case ; 
 that everything is lawful; that everything belonging to the offending 
 party is confiscated ; that the practice of nations has authorized the 
 forfeiture even of the real estate of individuals. Indemnit}^, security, 
 and punishment are all, therefore, means of self-defense which may 
 be legitimately used. 
 
 Mr. Thayer, of Pa., among other things defended the conscription 
 law, which had been pronounced unconstitutional and tyrannical, and 
 in conflict with state rights. Every citizen, he said, owes military 
 service to his country, in case of foreign invasion or internal rebel- 
 lion. No nation can permanently exist without it. The duty of 
 military service is recognized by the constitution of almost every 
 state in the union. The raising of armies by compulsory draft was 
 a tiling perfectly well known in the history of the several states and 
 of the revolution. Gen. Washington submitted to congress a plan to 
 this effect in 1190, which contemplated, as liable to service, all men 
 between the ages of eighteen and sixty, and stated that "every man 
 
11^4 ■ \"^>: ipHE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the proper ag-e and ability of body, i^ firmly bound by the social 
 compact to perform personally his proportion of military duty for the 
 defense of the state." A similar plan was proposed in 1814, with the 
 approbation of Mr. Madison, for a compulsory draft, which would pro-' 
 bably have been adopted and carried into effect, had not peace soon 
 ensued thereafter. Had the gentlemen from New York, [Mr. Wood 
 and Mr. Steele,] the latter of whom had denounced the measure as 
 odious, unnecessary and oppressive, and calculated to subvert the 
 liberties of the people, and centralize power in the general govern- 
 ment, forgotten the history of their own state ? Mr. T. referred to 
 the first constitution of the state adopted in 17*17 ; to the bill intro- 
 duced by Mr. Van Buren into the senate of the state, to raise 12,000 
 men by drafting, which became a law in October, 1814. It was 
 stigmatized as a conscription bill by the opposition of that day, but 
 was approved by Gov. Tompkins, and sustained by the judges of tho 
 supreme court. So the laws of the state of New York expressly re- 
 cognize the constitutional right of the national government to raise an 
 array by draft. For the great work before us, Mr. W. said, the 
 powers delegated by the people to the national government was suf- 
 ficient. Large portions of territory have been wrested from the re- 
 bellion. Order, law, and national authority must be ree'stablished in 
 those regions ; and the time has come when congress, in the exercise 
 of the great powers, conferred upon it by the people, should settle and 
 declare the terras upon which the people of the rebellious districts 
 should be restored to their state privileges, and resume their just re- 
 lations to the general government, 
 
 Mr. Kernan, of N. Y., said the leading provisions of the bill arc to 
 become applicable to these states, " when military resistance shall 
 have been suppressed in any state, and the people thereof stiall have 
 feuflBciently returned to their obedience to the constitution and 
 laws of the United States." When that time so much desired shall 
 arrive, the loyal people in these states, qualified to vote and adminis- 
 ter their state governments, are not to be permitted to resume and 
 exercise this right in accordance with the state constitution and laws 
 existing when the rebellion broke out ; but they are to be ruled over, 
 and their local state government administered by a provisional gover- 
 nor and officers appointed bj' the president, until they consent to 
 make a new constitution in accordance with the dictation of the pres- 
 ident and congress as to certain matters. 
 
 Mr. Boutwell reminded Mr, Kernan that a provision in the bill au- 
 thorized a less number than a majority to take the state government 
 into their hands. 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OP THE REBELLIOUS STATES. 1185 
 
 Mr. Kernan. Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. Boutwell, of Mass. If that number can not be found, should 
 congress yield up the government to people who refuse to acknowl- 
 edge the constitution and laws of the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Kernan. No, sir. But the point I was suggesting is, that al- 
 though the one-tenth, or one-half, or all of the citizens of one of these 
 states shall submit to the national authority, and take the oath of 
 allegiance, they are not permitted to resume government under their 
 old constitution, or to be represented in the federal government, or to 
 frame a new state constitution, unless they incorporate therein certain 
 provisions which we dictate to them, and which relate to matters 
 within the exclusive authority of the people of the state. 
 
 Mr. Ashley, of Ohio, said the house committee had determined that, 
 BO far as they were concerned, these same requirements should apply 
 to all states hereafter to be admitted. Colorado, Nebraska, and 
 Nevada, were all required to comply with these conditions. 
 
 Mr. Kernan. The states to which the bill is to apply are existing 
 states ; the bill recognizes them as such. The people have a right 
 to retain the old, or to form a new constitution. This right is absolute 
 and inherent; and congress has no right to dictate the provisions it 
 shall contain. The bill would make the people of these states the 
 subjects of despotic power : and yet it is called " a bill to guaranty 
 to the people of these states a I'epublican form of government I" 
 
 A number of other gentlemen spoke on both sides of this question, 
 the slightest allusion to whose speeches is not permitted. More space 
 has already been given to the debate on this bill, and the debate, in 
 the preceding chapter, on the bill relating to the confiscation of rebel 
 property, than is compatible with the prescribed limits of this work. 
 But as these subjects are occupying at present a large share of the 
 public attention, and will, perliaps, continue to do so for years to 
 come, and as they involve important constitutional questions, the 
 writer was induced to extend the sketch of these debates beyond the 
 length intended. 
 
 The bill for the reconstruction of the seceded state governments 
 passed the house, May 4, 1864: Yeas, 73 ; nays, 59. 
 
 In the senate, July 1, the bill was taken up, and several amend- 
 ments were proposed, of which was one to strike out the word " wlute" 
 in several sections, so as to make no distinction between white and 
 colored citizens. These amendments were lost, several senators vot- 
 ing against them from the fear of defeating the bill, as it was pre- 
 sumed the house would not concur in them. 
 
 Senator Brown, of Mo., then offered to amend the bill,, by striking 
 
 75 
 
1186 THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 out all after the enacting clause, and inserting a substitute, simply 
 providing, that when the inhabitants of a state shall have been de- 
 clared, by proclamation of the president, by virtue of law, to be in 
 a state of insurrection against the Uiiited States, they shall be de- 
 clared incapable of choosing presidential electors, or members of con- 
 gress, until they shall have returned to their obedience to the gov- 
 ernment. Mr. B. gave as a reason for oflFering this amendment, that 
 there was not suflScient time to consider the bill. The present amend- 
 ment provided all necessary security to the electoral privileges in 
 these districts. He proposed to provide for this necessity, and to 
 leave the matter of construction to a later day. This amendment, 
 after some opposition, was adopted. The house disagreed. After 
 Laving been referred to a committee of conference, the bill was agreed 
 to by both houses without the amendment of Mr. Brown. 
 
 The bill was sent to the president for his approval, but was not 
 returned ; consequently it was defeated. Congress adjourned on the 
 4th of July, On the 9th, a proclamation, dated the 8th, was issued, 
 giving reasons for not having signed the bill. It was not received 
 until less than an hour before the adjournment of the session. Louisi- 
 ana and Arkansas had already adopted free state constitutions, and 
 installed governments ; and he was unprepared to set these aside, 
 thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens as to further 
 effort ; nor was he prepared to declare a constitutional competency in 
 congress to abolish slavery in states. 
 
 This proclamation was followed, about a month afterward, by a 
 public protest signed by B. F. Wade, of Ohio, chairman of the senate 
 committee on rebellious states, and H. Winter Davis, of Md., chair- 
 man of the house committee, against the president's refusal to sign 
 the bill. It had been long under discussion, and had passed the 
 house on the 4th of May. It was reported to the senate on the 27th ; 
 and passed that body July 2, as it came from the house. It was 
 therefore presumed that the president understood its provisions. 
 They pronounce his action an "encroachment on the authority of con- 
 gress ;" they claim for congress the authority to determine the es- 
 tablished government of a state ; and congress, the proper constitu- 
 tional authority, had declared that there were no state governments 
 in the rebel states, and had provided for their erection at a proper 
 time. They regarded the new governments in these states as mere 
 " shadow^s of governments," which congress had declared should not 
 be recognized.'' 
 
STATE OF THE COUJfTRY. 
 
 CHAPTER xgvr. 
 
 118T 
 
 STATE OF THE COUNTBY.-CKUKLTY TO PRISONEHS.-WESTERX CONSPIRACY 
 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS, AND ELECTION. 
 
 bo h sides. The preponderance of success, however, was on the side 
 
 increasing. The rebel cause was evidently wanin- The state nf 
 the finances of the confederates, had as it'^^.ad beeSVor om t m./ 
 was constantly growing worse. The nominal prices of provisioTs 
 and other necessaries of life, had reached an enormous height and 
 confederate paper had depreciated to less than one-tenth of its nom' 
 .a Ivnluein gold. In several rebel states, too, public meetings were 
 held by citizens to express their sentiments in favor of peace The 
 
 SCO fedTe T'7''''' '""'^"' ^"' °^^^^- ^^^^-'^ - ''- -bellion 
 scouted the idea of peace without independence. Not the least of 
 
 scnption act, making an indiscriminate levy of all men capable of 
 bearing arms, almost without exception. 
 
 The union government, on the other hand, found little difficulty 
 
 ZT'TI'' '\T'''^ *'^ "^^"^ '' ^^-^'-^ - the war. The' 
 five-twenty loan of $500,000,000, so called from its being payable at 
 any time between five years and twenty, at the pleasur^e oVthe gov 
 enn^ent ad all been taken, with hundreds of applicants still Z; 
 pl.ed. A ten-forty loan was soon after authorized, and subscriptions 
 we.^ received at the rate of two millions a day. A striking fe'a e 
 of these loans was, that they were taken by our own citizens, at pai 
 
 the'lTof F T' ''''"' ^T ''"^'^ *' ''■^'' adequately recruited. Al'mt 
 the 1st of February, a draft was ordered by the president for 500 000 
 
 son nnn .Z.T '"''"^ ^^ '^'' ^'' '^ ^^''^' «" tl^« I'^^t call for 
 So^O^VT' '';""• ^"^-^l-"tly ^ -- draft was ordered 
 
 And on n '/«!. pTf "' ''°" '^''^" '^' ^^'^ "f ^P^-^^ ^« practicable. 
 And on the 18th of July another call for 500,000 men was made to 
 serve one year, to be drafted after the 5th of September 
 
 nor w?";r'^''''^'*''"''"^'^^°'^^'^° "''^t^''"^ remained undisturbed ; 
 ern,rn "' '7 ^PP^-^^^^"^^°" «f the recognition of the rebel gov- 
 
 ernment by any foreign power. Great Britain had repeatedly vfola- 
 
1188 THE AMEEICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ted her neutrality in permitting- privateers designed for the rebel ser- 
 vice to be fitted out in her ports, and had been notified of our inten- 
 tion to demand indemnity for depredations committed by these priva- 
 teers upon our commerce and upon our ships of war. More recently, 
 however, she had stopped suspicious vessels, and required satisfac- 
 tory evidence that they were not intended for the rebel service. 
 France, too, had manifested like sympathy with the insurgents, and 
 had, as England had done, acknowledged their rights as belligerents. 
 She had also, in the face of the declarations of our government made 
 in 1823, " that the American continents were henceforth not to be 
 considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power," 
 and that as it would " endanger our peace and happiness, we should 
 not behold such interference with indifference," and taking advantage 
 of our unfortunate condition, planted a monarchy, by force of arms, in 
 a contiguous republic. To whatever results the conduct of these na- 
 tions may lead, peaceful relations were still maintained. As it was 
 an unfcivorable time for our government to provoke a war with. any 
 foreign power, it was the general opinion that, at least until peace 
 should have been restored at home, the " Monroe doctrine," as it was 
 called, would not be enforced. It was also natural to presume, that 
 it was a matter of speculation abroad, as well as at home, whether 
 the United States would ever venture a collision with France with a 
 view to her expulsion from this continent. Congress therefore deem- 
 ed it proper to make a public declaration on the subject. Maximilian 
 had not yet arrived, but was about to remove to this continent. 
 
 A joint resolution was reported to the house, April 4, 1864, b}'^ Mr. 
 Davis, of Md., declaring " that the congress of the United States are 
 unwilling, by silence, to leave the nations of the world under the im- 
 pression that they are indifferent spectators of the deplorable events 
 now transpiring in the republic of Mexico, and that they therefore 
 think fit to declare, that it does not accord with the policy of the 
 United States to acknowledge any monarchical government erected 
 on the ruins of any republican government in America under the 
 auspices of any European power." The resolution passed the house 
 without opposition : Yeas, 109 ; nays, 0. It was sent to the senate, 
 where it was taken up at a late day of the session, and no vote was 
 taken upon its final passage. 
 
 During the summer of 1864, there were several rumors of prospec* 
 tive "amnesties" and of " peace propositions." A correspondence 
 relating to negotiation appeared in the papers in July. Mr. Horace 
 Greeley, of New York city, received from George N. Sanders, at 
 the Clifton House, (Canada side,) a letter, dated July 12, expressing 
 
ATTEMPT AT NEGOTIATION. 1189 
 
 a willingness to go to Washing-tou upon assurance of protection from 
 the president or the secretary of war. Permission was desired for 
 himself and three others. Mr. Greeley replied July 11, tendering 
 them, on the authority of the president, safe conduct, and promising 
 to accompany them. They answered that the safe conduct was ten- 
 dered under the misapprehension that they were accredited from Rich- 
 mond as bearers of propositions looking to peace. Being, however 
 m the confidential employment of their government, and knowing its 
 wishes and opinions, they felt authorized to say that they, or others 
 would be invested with full powers to visit Washington with a view 
 to the termination of the war. The letter was signed by 0. C Clay 
 Jr., and J. P. Holcomb, Mr. Sanders not being present. Mr. Greelev 
 replied, that the state of facts expressed in their letter bein- different 
 from what he had understood it to be, it was advisable that he 
 should solicit fresh instructions, which he would at once proceed to 
 do. The president's answer was as follows : 
 
 To whom it may concern ; 
 
 " Any proposition which embraces the restoration, the integrity 
 of the whole unic.n, and the abandonment of slavery, and which comes 
 by and with an authority that can control the armies now at war 
 against the United States, will be received and considered by the execu- 
 tive government of the United States, and will be met by liberal 
 terms on other substantial and collateral points ; and the bearer or 
 bearers thereof shall have safe conduct both ways. 
 
 " Abraham Lincoln.'' 
 
 This, of course, put an end to the attempt at negotiation The an- 
 swer of Messrs. Clay and Holcomb to Mr. Greeley, after the receipt 
 ot the president's dispatch, pronounces it " a document which pro- 
 vokes as much indignation as surprise," and which they " could not 
 transmit to the president of the confederate states without dishonor- 
 ing ourselves, and incurring the well-merited scorn of our country- 
 men.> And " if it (peace) can be secured only by their submission 
 to terms of conquest, the generation is yet unborn which will witness 
 Its restitution. If there is any military autocrat in the north who is 
 entitled to proffer the conditions of this manifesto, there is none in the 
 south authorized to entertain them." 
 
 The friends of the president, it is believed, unanimously approved 
 of the conditions of peace prescribed by him ; though there were 
 many who regretted that he had not encouraged the appointment of 
 commissioners by the confederate government, as the reception of pro- 
 
1190 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 positions of peace would be of great advantage to the national cause. 
 That a negotiation would have proved successful, few believed. The 
 determination declared by the secession leaders at the commencement 
 of the rebellion, was still maintained, that no terms would be acceded 
 to, which should not embrace the independence of the confederacy. 
 Such were the declarations of the leading southern papers, and of the 
 confederate authorities, both in official documents and in private 
 conversation. This fact was corroborated by several interviews with 
 president Davis and some of his subordinates in the government at 
 Richmond, by citizens of the United States who had been permitted, 
 without the official sanction of our government, to visit the confede- 
 rate capital. 
 
 One of these visits was that of Col. Jacques, of the army of the 
 Cumberland, and J. R. Gil more, better known as " Edmund Kirke," 
 auth(jr of " Among the Pines," " Down in Tennessee," &c. Tiie pro- 
 ject originated with Col. J., a subordinate under Gen. Rosecrans, and 
 a Methodist preacher before entering the army. He expressed to 
 Gen. Rosecrans the belief, that, from facts which had come to his 
 knowledge, the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church South 
 were tired of the rebellion, and desired peace and a return to their 
 allegiance ; and that if permission were given him to go within the 
 lines of the confederacy, he could return, within ninety days, with ac- 
 ceptable proposals of peace, obtained through the influence of a large 
 body of liis church south. And he wished Mr. Gilmore, (then in 
 Tennessee,) to accompany him. Mr. G. regarded the enterprise too 
 perilous to be undertaken, but was induced to assent. Gen. Rose- 
 crans telegraphed to the president, requesting a furlough of four 
 months for Col. J., and an interview with him, both of which were 
 refused ; but a fuller explanation was asked for by mail. It was 
 concluded, however, to visit Washington in person. The president 
 at first declined to entertain the subject, saying, " we could mako no 
 overtures to rebels." He afterwards consented, but with the under- 
 standing that no terms came from hira. At Fortress Monroe, Col. 
 Jacques smuggled himself on board a flag-of-truce boat, whence he 
 entered the rebel lines and got to Petersburg, where he remained 
 several weeks. Being without credentials, he was in great risk of 
 his life. He ascertained that the rebel leaders were tired of the war, 
 and were willing to give up slavery ; but they must stand by their 
 government while it held out. Col. J. returned to Baltimore. The 
 result was communicated to Mr. Lincoln, and leave of absence was 
 again granted. Col. J. now proposed to see Jefferson Davis himself ; 
 and, with Mr. Gilmore, started again. They were passed through the 
 
CRUELTY TO PRISONERS. 1191 
 
 lines by Gen. Q-rant, got to Richmond, and obtained the desired in- 
 terview. They were treated courteously. The conversation with 
 Mr. Davis in the presence of his secretary of state, Mr. Benjamin, has 
 been written out in detail by Mr. Gilmore, and extensively pub- 
 lished. 
 
 Mr. G. disclaimed having authority from Mr. Lincoln to make any 
 propositions for peace ; his object was to ascertain on what terms 
 the confederate government would make peace, believing that Mr 
 Lincoln would consent to propositions which should appear to him 
 reasonable. The final I'eply of the southern president was : " Say 
 to Mr. Lincoln from rue, that I shall at any time be pleased to receive 
 proposals for peace on the basis of our independence. It will be 
 useless to approach me with any other." 
 
 The most shocking accounts were received of the cruel treatment 
 of union prisoners confined in southern prisons. These accounts 
 were so numerous, and came from sources so reliable, as to leave 
 little doubt of their truth. An investigation was instituted in con- 
 gress. The committee on the conduct of the wai*, to whom the sub- 
 ject was referred, made a report fully confirming the v/orst represen- 
 tations of the baibaritics practiced upon our prisoners. Their rations 
 were insufficient in quantity to preserve the health of a child, and in 
 quality extremely bad. They consisted, in many instances, of corn 
 and cobs ground together, and badly prepared and cooked. They 
 were treated but little better in the hospitals. For violating rules of 
 which they had not been informed, many had been shot. Crowded 
 in great numbers in buildings, they have been fired at and killed by 
 sentinels outside, when they appeared at the windows to obtain a 
 little fresh air. Later evidence confirms the opinion of the committee, 
 that it was the design of the rebel authorities to incapacitate them 
 for service after their liberation by exchange, which is further cor- 
 roborated by tlie appearance and physical condition of great numbers 
 after their return. In some of these southern prisons, nearly one-half 
 of the prisoners have died or been permanently disabled. These atro- 
 cities were perhaps surpassed by the Fort Pillow massacre, though 
 the number of the victims was c(>ni})aratively small. This also was 
 investigated by the committee, who say, that after the rebels had, by 
 a flag of truce, treacherously obtained possession of the fort, they 
 raised the cry of " no quarter." They say : " The rebels commenced au 
 indiscriminate slaughter. Men, won)en, and children, white and 
 black, were deliberately shot down, beaten, and hacked down with 
 sabers. The sick and wounded were butchered without mercy, the 
 rebels even entering the hospital buildings and dragging them out to 
 
1192 THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 be shot, or killing tliem as they lay there." Several hundred are snp- 
 posed to have been murdered. The committee reported several other 
 cases of barbarity unknown before in civilized warfare. 
 
 One of the most remarkable events of the year — if not in the history 
 of this country — was the "Great Western Conspiracy." From the 
 testimony given on the trial of the conspirators, there was evidently 
 a secret, armed organization to defeat the government and aid the 
 rebels. Froiji a voluminous report of James Holt, Judge- Advocate- 
 General, a few facts are here presented : 
 
 1. The origin of the conspiracy. A secret association first de- 
 veloped itself in the west about the time of the first draft for troops, 
 in 1862. Its title was different in different localities, but was gene- 
 rally known as the " K. G. C," or " Knights of the Golden Circle." 
 In the summer and fall of 1863, in consequence of a partial exposure 
 of its signs and secret forms, some change was made in them, and in 
 its name, in Missouri, where it seems to have originated ; and Ster- 
 ling Price, the notorious rebel general, appears to have been one of 
 its prominent leaders. In the autumn of 1863, a secret organization 
 was formed in the north, designed to be general throughout the coun- 
 try, and termed " 0. A. K.," or " Order of American Knights," of 
 which C. L. Vallandigham, of Ohio, was a chief leader, and by whom 
 it was supposed to have been founded during his banishment, and 
 upon consultation with Jeflerson Davis. Indeed, it was boasted by 
 members of the order, that the ritual came from Davis himself Its 
 secrets having become known to the military authorities, another 
 change of name and ritual was necessary ; and it was called the " 0. 
 S. L," or " Order of the Sons of Liberty," but was better known, still, 
 by its former title. In New York and other parts of the north, the 
 " McClellan Minute Guard" was alleged to be a branch. 
 
 2. Its organization. Its constitution provided that its supremo 
 commander " should be commander-in-chief of all military forces be- 
 longing to the order in the various states when called into actual ser- 
 vice." Its first commander was P. C. Wright, editor of the New' York 
 News, and his successor, C. L. Yallandigham. There were grand 
 commanders in the different states. 
 
 3. Its extent and numbers. Its numbers have been estimated at 
 800,000 to 1,000,000. Yallandigham, in a speech at Dayton, after 
 his return from Canada, placed them at 500,000. They were chiefly 
 in the western states. Tlie number in Michigan and New York was 
 only about 20,000 each. In the south, officers of the rebel army and 
 guerrillas, as the order itself admitted, were members. 
 
 4. Its armed force. A witness on the trial of Dodd, estimated that 
 
WESTERN CONSPIRACY. 1193 
 
 two-thirds of the order were furnished with arms. In the state of 
 Indiana, there were proved to have been, at a certain tirae, 6,000 
 muskets and 60,000 revolvers, besides private arms. It was repre- 
 sented that, had Vallandigham, (who had ventured to return from 
 Canada to Ohio,) been arrested, arms were to have been furnished. 
 On the trial of Dodd it was shown that arms were also to be furnish- 
 ed through Canada, from Nassau, a West Indian British part. 
 
 5. Its oaths and ritual. In August, 1864, 112 copies of the ritual 
 were found in the ofSce of H. W. Vorhees, congressman at Terre 
 Haute, Ind. The mass of its members attain only the first or lower 
 degree, many of whom suppose it to be merely a democratic and 
 political organization. Tliey take an oath, however, to yield prompt 
 obedience to their chiefs, under penalty of '* a shameful death.." 
 
 6. Its written principles. Tliese are purely southern. The govern- 
 ment of the United States has no sovereignty. It is a compact, consti- 
 tuted by the states a common agent to exercise certain limited powers. 
 It denies the power to coerce a state by arms. Members bind 
 themselves to unsheath their swords when their pi'iuciples are 
 as&ailed Their purposes are disclosed in addresses by Wright 
 and Dodd, commanders. The latter, quoting from the views of Val- 
 landigham, says : " He judges that the Washington power will not 
 yield up its power until it is taken from an indignant people, by force 
 of arms." The former, in his general address of December, 1863, after 
 urging that " the spirit of the fathers may animate the free minds, 
 brave hearts, and still unshackled limbs of the true democracy," 
 (meaning the members of the order,) adds : " To be prepared for the 
 crisis now approaching, ... we must be watchful, patient, brave, con- 
 fident, organized, armed^ 
 
 1. Its purposes. (1.) Aiding soldiers to desert, and harboring and 
 protecting deserters. (2.) Discouraging enlistments and resisting 
 the draft. (3.) Circulating disloyal and treasonable publications. 
 (4.) Communicating with and giving intelligence to the enemy, (5.) 
 Aiding the enemy bj' recruiting them, or assisting them to recruit, 
 within our lines. (6.) Furnishing the rebels with arms, ammunition, 
 &c. (1.) Cooperating with the enemy in raids and invasions. (8.) 
 Destruction of government property. (9.) Destruction of private 
 property, and persecution of union men. (10.) Assassination and 
 murder. (11.) Establishment of a north-western confederacy. 
 
 Under the foregoing heads, the facts elicited in the investigation 
 are arranged, and appear to sustain fully the alleged objects of the 
 conspirators. The Judge- Advocate says: "The facts have been de- 
 rived from a great variety of dissimilar sources ; but all the witnesses, 
 
1W4 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 however different their situation, concur so pointedly in their testi 
 mony, that the evidence which has been furnished of the facts must 
 be regarded of the m ost reliable character." Some of the conspira 
 tors liave made confessions of their guilt. 
 
 The presidential canvass of 1864 was distinguished by no extraor- 
 dinary popular excitement. Tliere were early indications of an at" 
 tempt to effect the nomination of Mr. Lincoln for reelection. Having 
 been at the head of the government from the commencement of the 
 war, it was deemed proper — important, perhaps — that he should con- 
 tinue to assist in conducting it to its close, and in reconstructing the 
 governments of the seceded states. A considerable portion, however, 
 of the union party, as it was now called, were in favor of a new man. 
 Mr. Lincoln had been, in their view, too tardy in adopting certain 
 measures deemed indispensable to the success of the union cause ; 
 and they hoped to find, in some other man, one who would pursue a 
 more vigorous policy in the prosecution of the war. Believing it im- 
 politic, also, to divert the public mind, at so early a period, from the 
 perilous conditicm of the nation, an unsuccessful effort was made to 
 postpone the national convention which was to meet on the 8th of 
 June, to some time in August, or even September. 
 
 Anticipating the nomination of Mr. Lincoln at Baltimore, a national 
 mass convention assembled at Cleveland, Ohio, tlie week previous, 
 consisting of some of the more radical portion of the union party, who 
 regarded Mr. Lincoln as too conservative on the subject of slavery. 
 This convention nominated John C. Fremont for president, and John 
 Cochrane, of New York, for vice-president. 
 
 The convention at Baltimore nominated Abraham Lincoln for 
 president, and Andrew Johnson, of Te messee, for vice-pnisident. 
 
 Tiie resolutions constituting the platform adopted by the conven- 
 tion, pledged assistance to the government " in quelling, by force of 
 arms, the rebellion now raging;" approved the determination of the 
 government to insist upon " an unconditional surrender of the rebels 
 and a return to their allegiance" as the only terms of peace ; pledged 
 support to " the acts and proclamations b}' which a death blow was 
 aimed at this gigantic evil," (slavery :) declaring "that thj thanks 
 of the American people are due to the soldiers and sailors of the army 
 and nnvy," and " that the naticm owes to the disabled ample and per- 
 manent provision ;" approving the measures of Mr. Lincoln, " espe. 
 dally the proclumation of emancipation, and the employment, as union 
 soldiers, of men heretofore held in slavery ;" declaring "that foreign 
 immigration should be encouraged by a liberal and just policy ;" fa- 
 Toriug " the speedy construction of the railr(jad to the Pacific ;" de- 
 
PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS, AND ELECTION. 1195 
 
 daring "that the national faith pledged for the redemption of the pub- 
 lic debt must be kept inviolate," and recommending " economy and 
 a vigorous and just system of taxation ;" and " approved the position 
 taken by the government, that the people of the United States never 
 regarded vi'ith indifference the attempt of any European power to 
 overthrow any republican government on the western continent, and 
 that they view with extreme jealousy, as menacing to the peace and 
 independence of this country, the efforts of any such power to obtain 
 new footholds for monarchical governments, sustained by military 
 force, in near proximity to the United States." 
 
 The democratic national convention assembled at Chicago on the 
 29th of August, and nominated Gen. George B. M'Clellan for presi- 
 dent, and George H. Pendleton, of Ohio, for vice-president. 
 
 In the resolutions adopted as their platform, they pledge their 
 " fidelity to the union under the constitution," which they consider, 
 "as a framework of government, equally conducive to the welfare and 
 prosperity of all the states, both northern and southern ;" declare 
 "that after fuur j'ears of failure to restore the union by the experi- 
 ment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military uecesisity 
 or war power, the constitution has been disregarded in every part, 
 and public liberty and private rights alike trodden down, and the 
 material prosperity of the country essentially impaired," and that 
 "justice, humanit}', liberty, and the public welfare, demand that im- 
 mediate efiurts be made ft)r a cessation of liostilities, with a view to 
 an ultimate convention of all the states, or other peaceable means, to 
 the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be re- 
 stored on the basis of the federal union of the states ," pronounce the 
 " direct interference of the military authority of the United States in 
 the recent elections held in Kentuck}', Maryland, Missouri, and Dela- 
 ware," to have been " a shameful violation of the constitution," and 
 declare that " the repetition of such acts in the approaching election 
 ■will be held as revolutionary-, and resisted with all the means and 
 power under our control ;" " consider the usurpation of powers not 
 granted by the constitution, the subversion of the civil by military 
 law in states not in insurrection, the suppression of freedom of speech 
 and of the press, the open disregard of state rights, the employment 
 of unusual test-oaths, and the denial of the right of the people to bear 
 arms, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the union, and the per- 
 petuation of a government deriving its just powers from the consent 
 of the governed ;" censure the administration for a neglect of "duty 
 in respect to our fellow-citizens who have long been prisoners of war 
 in a suffering condition;" and declare "that the sympathy of the 
 
1196 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 democratic party is heartily extended to the soldiers of our army, and 
 that in the event of our attaining power, they will receive all the 
 care and protection, regard and kindness, that the brave soldiers of 
 the republic liave so nobly earned." 
 
 To a considerable portion of the members of the convention, the 
 nomination of Gen. McClellan was not acceptable. The party con- 
 demned the war measures of the administration, yet the most objec- 
 tionable of these measures, in their view, had received his sanction. 
 Mr. Long, of Ohio, a member of congress, in addressing the conven- 
 tion, said : " You have, to a certain extent, vindicated freedom of 
 speech, condemned arbitrary arrests, and denounced interference with 
 the freedom of elections ; yet you propose, in George B, M'Ck'Uan, to 
 place upon that platform one who has gone further in all throe of 
 these measures than has Abraham Lincoln himself. George B. M'- 
 CloUan has not contented himself with the arrest of a citizen here 
 and there, and incarcerating him in a Bastile, but has arrested an 
 entire legislature at one order. He has also suspended the writ of 
 habeas corpus, of which you complained. He has acquiesced in the 
 ernancipiition proclamation for which you have complained of 
 Ml'. Lincohi." 
 
 Mr. Harris, of Md., after the nomination, said : "I claim it as a 
 right to state, tliat one of the men whom you have nominated is a 
 tyrant. General M'Clellan was the very first man who inaugurated 
 the system of usurping state rights. Maryland has been cruelly 
 trampled upon by this man, and 1 can not consent, as a delegate from 
 
 that state, to allow his nomination to go unopposed Is it really 
 
 the case that you can consent that the man who overthrew liberty and 
 crushed under foot the free institutions of a state, shall receive re- 
 ward instead of puriishment for his tyranny V [Mr. Harris then read 
 the order of General M'Clellan, dated September 12, 1861, for the 
 arrest of the Maryland legislature.] He also read his letter to 
 General Banks, directing him " to send a sufficient detachment to 
 protect union voters," and authorizing him to suspend the writ of 
 habeas corpus. 
 
 iMr. Pendleton was entirely acceptable to the ultra peace men of 
 the party. He had, as member of congress, voted against every bill 
 to carry on the war, and against every financial and military measure 
 to invigorate and sustain the government in its prosecution. 
 
 The most prominent feature in the proceedings of the convention 
 was the peace sentiment, in which the members were nearly unani- 
 mous. Mr. Ketchum, of New York, said : " We want to elect a man 
 who will say to the south, ' Come back ; we will restore to you every 
 
PRESIBENTIAL NOMINATIONS, AND ELECTION. 1197 
 
 constitutional privilege, every guarantee that you ever possessed ; 
 your rights shall be no longer invaded ; we will wipe out the eman- 
 cipation proclamation ; we will sweep away this confiscation act. 
 All that we ask of you is, to come back and live with us on the old terms. 
 We are both tired and weary, and want to live together again.' " 
 Mr, Vallandigham said : " If you would have peace, abandon that 
 idea of coercion ; come back again to coraproipise and conciliation. 
 From military appliances let us look to the arts of peace, and the ac- 
 quirements of statesmanship. Through these alone will j-ou reach 
 the highway of public prosperity." Said Mr. Fernando Wood : " I 
 counsel peace. I counsel peace in the democratic party that we may 
 restore old rights in this distracted land. Planting ourselves upon a 
 peace platform, with a candidate pledged to restore peace and har- 
 mony, the union shall and will be restored. We call for peace." 
 [The nominations had not yet been made at the time of this speech.] 
 Senator Richardson, of 111., said : " To defeat Mr. Lincoln, to accept 
 the nominee of the Chicago convention, is to bring peace and harmony 
 and concord and union to these states." Referring to the objection 
 to proposing terms of peace to rebels in arms, he said : " These peo- 
 ple with arms in their hands are the very people I want to settle 
 with. I am not afraid of a man if he has no arms." 
 
 These declarations of sentiment from these and other leading mem- 
 bers of the convention, together with the principal resolution in the 
 platform proposing a cessation of hostilities, show the design of the 
 convention to make the question of peace or war the main issue at 
 the election. Yet the candidate selected by the convention as their 
 party leader, had been a supporter of the war, and the leader of the 
 principal army of the union. Several of the leading presses of the 
 party expressed dissatisfaction at the nomination of M'GIellan; and 
 doubts were entertained whether he would consent to stand as a 
 peace candidate. These doubts, however, were soon removed by the 
 appearance of his " letter of acceptance." He expresses a desire for 
 peace ; but he says nothing in favor of endeavoring to obtain it by 
 "armistice" or a "cessation of hostilities ;" but he says the reCstab- 
 lishment of the union entire " must be the indispensable condition in 
 any settlement •/' and " so soon as it is clear, and even probable, tliat 
 our present adversaries are ready for peace upon the basis of the 
 union, we shall exhaust all the resources of statesmanship practiced 
 by civilized nations, consistent with the honor and interests of the 
 country, to secure such peace, reestablish the union, and gurantee for 
 the future the constitutional rights of every state. The union is the 
 one condition of peace — we ask no more. If a frank and persistent 
 
1198 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 effort to obtain those objects should fail, the responsibility for superior 
 consequences will fall upon those who remain in arms against the 
 union." Although the letter was not satisfactory to the ultra peace 
 democrats, they soon acquiesced in the nomination. A meeting of 
 peace democrats was held in New York to take action upon General 
 M'Clellan's letter, and to consult on measures for organizing a peace 
 party and selecting a peace candidate ; and a resolution was unani- 
 mously adopted, in favor of a meeting at Cincinnati " to appoint a 
 candidate representing that branch of the democratic party wliich the 
 letter of Gen. M'Clellan completely ignores." The proposition was 
 never carried into effect. Similar meetings were held in other 
 places. 
 
 The relative strength of the union party had been materially im- 
 paired, in some states, by the absence of volunteers enlisted in the 
 army. In some states, acts had been passed for allowing the soldiers 
 to vote. In New York a bill for this purpose had been vetoed by the 
 governor, on the ground of its unconstitutionality ; also in a few 
 other states the object was defeated. In several, the constitutions 
 liad been amended to secure the votes of the soldiers. Among the 
 states in which this object was effected either by law or by consti- 
 tutional amendment, were the two great states of New York and 
 Peimsylvania. Assured of the votes of this class of citizens, the union 
 party regarded these states as certain for Mr. Lincoln. The hope of gain 
 to the party from this source was founded, in good part, on the results in 
 those states whose soldier citizens in the army enjoyed the privilege 
 of voting. In the six states that enabled their soldiers to vote in 
 1863 — one of tliem only those in hospitals within her own limits — the 
 aggregate was 82,275 union votes to 7,112 democratic. 
 
 Apprehendirtg the possible contingency of Mr. Lincoln's defeat by 
 a division of the union votes upon two candidates, Fremont and 
 Cochrane, the 21st of September, withdrew their names from the list 
 of candidates. Gen. Fremont states the reasons for his withdrawal 
 briefly, thus : " The policy of the democratic party signifies either 
 separation or refe'stablishment with slavery. The Chicago platform 
 is simply separation. General M'Clellan's letter of acceptance is 
 reCstablishment with slavery. The republican candidate, on the con- 
 trary, is pledged to the reestablishment of the union without slavery; 
 and however hesitating his policy may be, the pressure of his party 
 will, we may hope, force him to it." 
 
 The principles enunciated in the platforms of the parties ; the war, 
 and the acts and measures of the administration in conducting tho 
 war, were discussed in a manner and spirit usual in political cam- 
 
PRBSIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS, AND ELECTION. 1199 
 
 paigns. The democrats represented the war as the war of the admin- 
 istration, a war of aggression upon the riglits of the south, designed 
 for the benefit of the negro. They charged that, in its prosecution, the 
 constitutional rights of citizens north as well as south had been habi- 
 tually violated, and a military despotism established ; and urged that 
 the only hope of a restoration of peace and constitutional government 
 was in the success of the democratic party. Mr. Lincoln's inaugural 
 message and other papers were also referred to, to show his inconsis- 
 tency and faithlessness to his pledges not to interfere with the insti- 
 tution of slavery. 
 
 On the other hand, it was urged that the war had been commenced 
 and continued by the slaveholders for the benefit of slavery ; that the 
 means employed by the government were constitutional and neces- 
 sary for the preservation of the union ; that the object of the admin- 
 istration had not been the abolition of slavery ; nor had it been inter- 
 fered with until it became necessary, in order to save the life of the 
 nation, to deprive its enemies of one of their principal means of con- 
 tinuing the war, by liberating their slaves, and employing them in 
 the union service. 
 
 The following letter from Mr. Lincoln himself, is perhaps the best 
 defense of his policy in relation to slavery which it admits of ; and it 
 seems proper that it should be placed on record for future reference, 
 and for the information of those who may hereafter wish to know the 
 grounds upon which he justified the acts and measures which his 
 political opponents condemned as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The 
 letter was written April 4, 1864, to Col. A. G. Hodges, of Kentucky ; 
 who, believing the president was greatly misunderstood by many 
 citizens of Kentucky, requested him to write out his remarks to Gov. 
 Bramlette and senator Dixon, of that state, who had visited him on 
 business relating to the raising of troops. 
 
 " I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is 
 wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think and feel. Yet 
 I have never understood that the presidency conferred upon me an 
 unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. 
 It was in the oath I took, that I would, to the best of my ability, pre- 
 serve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. I 
 could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my 
 view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in 
 using- the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil adminis- 
 tration, this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary, 
 abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly 
 declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to . 
 
1200 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 this day, I have done no oflBcial act in mere deference to ray abstract 
 judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand, however, that 
 my ' oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability ' im- 
 posed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, 
 that government, that nation, of which that constitution was the or- 
 ganic law. Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the 
 constitution ? 
 
 " By general law, life and limb must be protected ; yet often a 
 limb must be amputated to save a life ; but a life is uever wisely given 
 to save a limb. I feel that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, 
 might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation 
 of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Eight or 
 wrong, I assumed this ground, and I now avow it. I could not feel 
 that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the con- 
 stitution, if to save slaverj' or any minor matter, I should permit the 
 wreck of government, country, and constitution, all together. When, 
 early in the war. Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I 
 forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. 
 When, a little later. Gen. Cameron, then secretary of war, suggested 
 the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it 
 an indispensable necessity. When, still later. Gen. Hunter attempt- 
 ed military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet 
 think the indispensable necessity had come. 
 
 " When, in March, and May, and July, 1862, I made earnest and 
 successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated eman- 
 cipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emanci- 
 pation and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that 
 measure. They declined the proposition, and I was driven to the 
 alternative of cither surrendering the union, and with it the consti- 
 tution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose 
 the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss ; but 
 of this I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial shows 
 no loss by it, in our foreign relations ; none in our home popular sen- 
 timent ; none in our white military force ; no loss by it anyhow or 
 anywhere. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a huTidred and 
 thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable 
 facts, about which, as facts, there can be no caviling. We have the 
 men, and we could not have had them without the measure. 
 
 " And now, let any union man who complains of the measure, test 
 himself, by writing down in one line, that he is for subduing the re- 
 bellion by force of arms, and in the next, that he is for taking these 
 130,000 men from the union side, and placing them where tliey would 
 
PRESIDENnAL NOMINATIONS, ANQ ELECTION. 1201 
 
 be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his cause 
 SO stated, it is only because he can not face the truth. 
 
 " I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In tell- 
 ing this tale, I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim 
 not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have 
 controlled me. Now, at the end of three years' struggle, the 
 nation's condition is not what, either party or any man devised or ex- 
 pected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. 
 If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we 
 of the north, as well as you of the south, shall pay fairly for our com- 
 plicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to 
 attest and revere the justice and goodness of God. 
 
 " Yours, truly, A. Lincoln." 
 
 The presidential election was held on the 8th of November. The 
 following states gave their electoral votes for Abraham Lincoln and 
 Andrew Johnson : 
 
 Maine, *I ; New Hampshire, 5 ; Massachusetts, 12 ; Rhode Island, 
 4 ; Vermont, 5 ; Connecticut, 6 ; New York, 33 ; Pennsylvania, 26 ; 
 Maryland, 7 ; West Virginia, 5 ; Ohio, 21 ; Indiana, 13 ; Michigan, 
 8 ; Illinois, 16; Wisconsin, 8 ; Minnesota, 4 ; Iowa, 8; Missouri, 
 11 ; Kansas, 3 ; Calitbrnia, 5 ; Oregon, 3 ; Nevada, 3. Total, 213. 
 
 The following states gave their votes for George B. M'Clellan and 
 George H. Pendleton : 
 
 New Jersey, t : Delaware, 3 ; Kentucky, 11. Total, 21. 
 
 The last of June, 1864, Salmon P. Chase, secretary of the treasury, 
 resigned his office ; and was sucoeoxled by senator William P. Fes- 
 senden, of Maine. About the last of June, Montgomery Blair, post- 
 master-general, resigned, and ex-governor Dennison, of Ohio, was 
 appointed in his place. 
 
 Chief justice Roger B. Taney died in October, 1864, and ex-secre- 
 tary Chase was appointed as his successor early in December. 
 
 On the 31st of October, 1864, the amended constitution of Mary- 
 land, abolishing slavery, was adopted by the people of that state. 
 
 Edward Everett, of Boston, a distinguished citizen and statesman, 
 died January 15, 1865. 
 
 76 
 
1202 THE. AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER XCVir. 
 
 MEETING OP CONGRESS. MESSAGE, AND REPORTS. DECLINE OF REBEL 
 
 POWER. PEACE EFFORTS. — CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, END OF THE 
 
 REBELLION. 
 
 The 38th congress commenced its 2d session December 5, 1864. 
 The next day president Lincoln communicated to both houses his an- 
 nual message. Its brevity, for a document of its kind, was unusual. 
 It was devoted chiefly to the domestic affairs of the nation. It notices, 
 as a " remarkable feature in the military operations of the year,' G-en. 
 Sherman's contemplated march of 300 miles through the insurgent 
 regions," and as showing " a great increase of our relative 
 strength." " In each of the states of Louisiana and Arkansas, 12,000 
 citizens have organized loyal state governments with free constitu- 
 tions, and are earnestly struggling to maintain and administer them." 
 " Maryland presents the example of complete success." The presi- 
 dent recommends the constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery, 
 which, at the last session, failed for want of a two-thirds majority in 
 the house. He regards the result of the election as showing " the 
 purpose of the people within the loyal states to maintain the integrity 
 of the union." The election showed also " that we do not approach 
 exhaustion in the most important branch of the national resources, 
 that of living men ;" the aggregate number of votes cast in 1860 be- 
 ing 3,870,222 ; in 1864, 4,015,773. Besides that number of voters, 
 there were, in states in which their soldiers were not permitted to 
 vote, about 90.000. 
 
 In respect to peace by negotiation, the president says : " On care- 
 ful consideration of all the evidence accessible, it seems to me that 
 no attempt at negotiation with the insurgent leader could result in 
 any good. He would accept nothing short of severance of the union, 
 precisely what we will not and can not give. His declarations to this 
 effect are explicit and oft-repeated. He does not attempt to decciA'o 
 us. He affords us no excuse to deceive ourselves. , . . What is true, 
 however, of him who heads the insurgent cause, is not necessarily 
 true of those who follow. Although he can not reaccept the union, 
 they can. Some of them, we know, already desire peace and reunion. 
 The number of such may increase. They can at any moment have 
 
DECLINE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 1203 
 
 peace simply by laying down their arms and submitting to the na- 
 tional authority under the constitution." The door, he said, had for 
 a year been open to all, (under the amnesty proclamation,) and was 
 still open, but the time might come when it must be closed, and more 
 rigorous measures be adopted. He repeated the declaration of his 
 purpose not to retract or modify the emancipation proclamalion. He 
 concludes his message thus : " If the people should, by any mode or 
 means, make it an executive duty to refinslave such persons, another, 
 and not I, must be their instrument to perform it. In stating a single 
 condition of peace, I mean simply to say, that the war will cease on 
 the part of the government, whenever it shall have ceased on the part 
 of those who began it." 
 
 The receipts into the treasury during the fiscal year ending June 
 30, 1864, were : from customs, $102,316,153 ; from lands, $588,333 ; 
 from direct taxes, $475,640 ; from internal revenue, $109,741,134 ; 
 from miscellaneous sources, $47,511,448. 
 
 The public debt, on the 1st of July, 1864, was $1,740,690,489. 
 
 The number of national banks organized was, on the 25th of No- 
 vember, 584, a considerable portion of which were conversions from 
 state banks. 
 
 The exhibit of the navy showed a total of 671 vessels, carrying 
 4,610 guns, and 510,396 tuns ; being an increase over all losses, 83 
 vessels, 167 guns, 42,427 tuns. Men in the naval service, about 
 51,000. Captured by the navy during the year, 324 vessels ; naval 
 captures since the war commenced, 1,379, of which 267 were steam- 
 ers; proceeds from the sale of condemned prize property, $14,396,250, 
 Total expenditure of the navy department of every description, in- 
 cluding the cost of the immense squadrons called into existence, from 
 March 4, 1861, to Nov. 1, 1864, $238,647,262. 
 
 The revenues of the post-office department were $12,438,253, and the 
 expenditures, $12,644,786. 
 
 The new state of Nevada had been admitted into the union under 
 the act of the last session. 
 
 Toward the close of the year 1864, there were several indication3 
 of the near approach of the end of the rebellion. The proclamation 
 of emancipation had, by abolishing slavery, strengthened the national 
 cause abroad, (as Davis himself had confessed.) and had apparently 
 extinguished all hope, on the part of the rebel leaders, of foreign in- 
 tervention, unless it should, by a resort to some new expedient, be 
 revived. Despairing of intervention while fighting for slavery, they 
 had sought to place themselves before the world as stni'ggling simpl3' 
 for independence. Failing to improve their prospects by this pre- 
 
1204 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tense, they now propose, rather than be brought under "Yankee 
 rule," to place themselves under a European protectorate ; and, in 
 order to secure it, they would consent to give up the institution of 
 slavery. This policy was distinctly advocated in Richmond papers, the 
 recognized organs of president Davis. An article in the Richmond 
 Enquirer closes thus : " If France and England will enter into a treaty 
 with these confederate states, recognizing our nationality and guaran- 
 teeing our independence upon the abolition of slavery in all these 
 states, rather than continue the war, we should be prepared to urge 
 the measure upon our readers. We believe such a proposition would 
 be favorably received and acted upon by those nations, and it ought 
 to be made to them." 
 
 The Examiner, however, opposed an appeal to the protection of 
 France and England in the present weakness of the south, and inti- 
 mated that the article in the Sentinel " emanated from Jefferson 
 Davis, and from a panicky mind." It says, if the alternatives were 
 presented to thera of being the subjects of those foreign powers, or 
 returning to the United States, they would choose the former. 
 
 The proposition to recruit their army by the enlistment of slaves, 
 a measure- formerly so abhorrent to their feelings, and their inability 
 to fill their wasted army from the white population, were also un- 
 equivocal indications of a rapidly sinking cause. To these may be 
 added the almost unresisted march of Gen. Sherman's army through 
 the southern states. 
 
 Our government, on the other hand, continued to prosecute the 
 war with unabated energy. The last call (in July) for 500,000 men 
 had resulted in procuring only about half of that numbex", owing to large 
 credits claimed in many localities for former surpluses, large numbers 
 of drafti;d men skulking to Canada, and other causes. To make up 
 this deficiency, the president, on the 20th of December, 1864, made an- 
 other call for 300,000 men, the draft to take place the 15th of Febru- 
 ary, to fill such quotas in the several districts, as should not have 
 been previously filled by volunteers. 
 
 The proposed amendment of the constitution of the United States 
 for the abolition of slavery, which had passed the senate in April, 
 1864, with but a few dissenting votes, aiid was lost in the house, 
 (yeas 95, nays 64,) for the want of a two-thirds majority, was adopt- 
 ed by both houses at the present session, (January, 1865.) 
 
 It was again discussed, and former arguments reproduced ; the 
 democrats contending that the general government had no constitu- 
 Lional power to interfere in any way with slavery in the states. 
 
 Mr. Ashley, of Ohio, approved the words of president Lincoln : " If 
 
CONSimmONAL AMENDMENT. 1205 
 
 slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." The proposition whether 
 this universal wrong should be abolished was now before the house. 
 The frameis of the constitution were not guilty of making an instru- 
 ment which could be fairly interpreted to deprive any one of justice, 
 liberty, and happiness. He argued the constitutional right to make 
 the proposed amendment. 
 
 Mr. Orth, of Ind., said the feeling exhibited in our struggle and iu 
 the recent elections, proved our ability and willingness to serve the 
 nation. The rebellion must be subdued without regard to cost or 
 sacrifice. Slavery, the cause of all our troubles, is dying ; but we 
 must, by a constitutional amendment, provide against its future ex- 
 istence. In the reconstruction of the government, no state must be 
 reitdmitted into the union until thoroughly purged of treason, and 
 able to sustain civil authority and free institutions. 
 
 Mr. Scofield, of Pa., said, if the war sliouid end without a division 
 of the union, or if the rebellion should collapse, we should still have 
 this question to distract our councils. Slavery in the end must die. 
 It had cost the country too mucli suffering and precious blood to be 
 permitted to live. The only question was, shall it die now by con- 
 stitutional enactment, or shall it linger in party warfare for a quarter 
 or half a century longer, producing acrimonious debate and patch- 
 work legislation ? In advocating the power, he said the question had 
 been presented to the people last autumn, and they had decided it in 
 favf)r of emancipation. 
 
 Mr. White, of Ohio, believed in the qualified sovereignty of the 
 states, and argued that there was no power in the constitution to 
 affect tlie status of slavery, as its regulation and management were 
 within the states themselves wliere tiie institution existed. No legis- 
 lative action could exceed delegated powers and interfere with re- 
 served rights. 
 
 Mr. Smithers, of Del., believed the pending measure was both con- 
 stitutional and beneficial, and the mode of amendment so distinctly 
 designated as {o preclude all cavil. 
 
 Mr. Tovvnsend, of N. Y., said the public mind, in its present in- 
 flamed state, was incapable of forming, much less of changing, the 
 organic form of a constitution which all mankind unite in proclaiming 
 the greatest monument of human wisdom 
 
 Mr. Holman, of Ind., said the amendment could not be adopted 
 without being followed by more radical measures. If in the judg- 
 ment of our fathers slavery was inconsistent with a republican form 
 of government, they would have abolished it. The democratic party 
 was, he said, opposed to the amendment, because they wish to pre- 
 
1206 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 serve the constitution as it is. He denied that because of slavery 
 our countr}' had become a hissing and a reproach. Nor, as had been 
 alleged, had its destinies been unduly controlled by southern men. 
 
 Mr. Pendleton, of Ohio, maintained, that the right of amendment 
 was limited to two ways : 1st, by the letter of the constitution itself, 
 and 2d, by the spirit, intent, and scope of the instrument and the 
 ideas upon which it was founded. It was not an abstract question, 
 but a question of a compact. A change could not be made subvert- 
 ing the constitution and encouraging a monarchy, because republican- 
 ism was at the base of our system, and to overthrow it is not to amend, 
 but to subvert the constitution. If three-fourths of the states pass 
 such an amendment and they tind that Rhode Island alone should be 
 the dissenting state, she would have the right, and it would be her 
 duty, to resist by force, and her cause would be sacred in the eyes of 
 just men, and sanctified by God. Such an amendment would not be 
 binding in the moral law; and would therefore be illegal and void ; 
 and it could be enforced only by those who had the power of the 
 sword. It was not in the power of three-fourths of the states to de- 
 termine the character of the institutions of the other fourth. We can 
 not contravene the letter and spirit of the constitution ; we can not 
 subvert republicanism and destroy liberty and decide the status of 
 the citizens of the states. If this be imposed by force it will become 
 riglit to resist by forc-, and to arm all the powei's which may nuiko 
 resistance effective. He would stand by the constitution through 
 good and evil report. He would stand by it as he understood it to 
 the end. He loved his whole country north and south, and it was 
 because he loved it that he would do no act to retard the restoration 
 of peace and the reconstruction of the union. 
 
 Messrs. McAllister and Coffroth, of Pa., and Mr. Herrick, of N. Y., 
 democrats, who had voted against the amendment at the last session, 
 now made speeches in its favor, when (Jan. 31st,) the final vote was 
 taken : Yeas, 119 ; nays, 56. If 3 of those who voted in the affirm- 
 ative had voted in the negative, the amendment would have been 
 lost. It had been previously adopted by the senate. Its ratification 
 by the states is still pending, (Sept., 1865,) wanting the sanction of 
 two or three more states. 
 
 On the first of February, the public was surprised at the announce- 
 ment, that Alexander H. Stephens, R. M. T. Hunter, and J. A. Camp- 
 bell, commissioners from the confederate government, accompanied 
 by Lieut. -Col. Hatch, a confederate military officer and exchange 
 commissioner, had arrived at Annapolis, where they had been met by 
 secretary Seward, accompanied by his private secretary, whence they 
 
COKSTmmONAL AMENDMENT. 120t 
 
 all had proceeded to Fortress Monroe io hold a coijference with refer 
 ence to peace. It having been found desirable that the president 
 should be present in person, he left Washington the next day, and 
 joined Mr. Seward. This meeting was brought about by Mi-. Francis 
 P. Blair, senior, who had been permitted to visit Richmond a few 
 weeks before. The conference was entirely informal, and is repre- 
 sented to liave been friendly. No approximation toward peace, how- 
 ever, was made. Mr, Lincoln, at the request of congress, made a 
 full report of the facts relating to the matter ; and the rebel commis- 
 sioners reported the, same at Richmond. Mr. Lincoln's report was ac- 
 companied by a letter from Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, our minister 
 at London, in which he gives an account of the conference, and from 
 which the following extract is copied : 
 
 " The Richmond party approached the discussion rather indirectly, 
 and at no time did they make categorical demands or tender formal 
 stipulations or absolute refusals. Nevertheless, di^ring the confer- 
 ence, which lasted several hours, the several points at issue between 
 the government and the insurgents were distinctly raised and discuss- 
 ed fully, intelligently, and in an amicable spirit. What the insurgent 
 party seemed chiefly to favor was a postponement of the question of 
 separation upon which the war is waged, and a mutual direction of 
 the efforts of the government, as well as those of the insurgents, to 
 some extrinsic policy or scheme for a season; during which passions 
 might be expected to subside and the armies be reduced, and trade 
 and intercourse between the people of both sections be resumed. It 
 was suggested by them, that through such postponement we might 
 now have immediate peace, with some not very certain prospect of 
 an ultimate satisfactory adjustment of political relations between the 
 government and the states, section, or people now engaged in conflict 
 with it. 
 
 " The suggestion, though deliberately considered, was nevertheless 
 regarded by the president as one of armistice or truoe ; and he an- 
 nounced that we can agree to no cessation or suspension of hostili- 
 ties, except on the basis of the disbandraent of the insurgent forces, 
 and the i-estoration of the national authority throughout all the states 
 in the union. Collaterally and in subordination to the proposition 
 which was thus announced, the anti-slavery policy of the United 
 States was reviewed in all its bearings ; and the president announced 
 that he must not be expected to depart from the positions he had 
 heretofore assumed in his proclamation of emancipation and other 
 documents, as those positions were reiterated in his annual message. 
 • • * The conference can)e to an end by mutual acquiescence. 
 
120S THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 without producing an argument of views upon the several matters 
 discussed, nor any of them." 
 
 From uo report does it appear that the Richmond commissioners 
 made any propositions. Perhaps the most that was gained by the 
 conference, was the certainty that the confederate government was 
 fully determined on independence, and that our own was equally de- 
 termined on an undivided union. A large and enthusiastic war meet- 
 ing was held at Richmond a few days after the return of the commis- 
 sioners, at which resolutions were adopted, declaring adherence to 
 their " original determination to strike for their independence and not 
 to lay down their arms until it should have been won." 
 
 Upon what grounds the confidence of final success here expressed 
 was based, it is difficult to imagine. It seems, however, to have 
 soon given way to despair. In a message of president Davis to con- 
 gress the 12th of March, he virtually acknowledges defeat. He de- 
 picts, in gloomy colors, the condition of the rebel cause : and in view, 
 probably, of the progress of Sherman's army, and the appearance of 
 things near the capital, he says : " The capital of the confederate 
 states is now threatened, and it is in greater danger than it has hereto- 
 fore been during the war." The events which speedily followed the 
 publication of this message proved his apprehensions to have been 
 well founded. 
 
 An amendment of the constitution of Tennessee, prohibiting slavery 
 in that state, was ratified at an election held on the 22d of February, 
 1865. 
 
 A joint resolution instructing the president to give to Great Britain 
 the required year's notice of the termination of the treaty made in 
 1854, establishing commercial reciprocity between the United States 
 and Canada, was passed at this session, (January 16, 1865). From 
 statistics presented in congress, it was the opinion of a majority that 
 this country did not possess equal advantages in the trade between 
 the two countries. 
 
 Several acts were passed amending acts relating to impost and in- 
 ternal duties, with a view to the increase of the national revenues, to 
 meet the demands of the treasury for the support of the government, 
 and for paying the interest on the public debt ; also an act authoriz- 
 ing further loans. 
 
 An act was passed amending the national banking law. 
 
 An act amending the act for the enrollment of the militia. 
 
 The evacuation and fall of Charleston, the successful and sweeping 
 inarch of Sherman northward to form a junction with Grant, and tho 
 repeated successes of Sheridan with his powerful cavalry forces, all 
 
ASSASSINATION OF .ABRAHAM LINCOLN. '1209 
 
 ■within a brief space, inspired the hope of a speedy termination of the 
 contest. This hope was soon realized. These events were quickly 
 followed by the defeat of the rebel array nnder Gen. Lee at Peters- 
 burg, and the almost simultaneous evacuation of that city and Rich- 
 mond, and the surrender of Lee's army. The surrender of Johnson's 
 army and the capture of Mobile, announced a few days later, may be 
 considered us the ending of the ever memorable, sanguinary, civil 
 war in tlie United States. 
 
 A few days before the occupation of Richmond, president Lincoln 
 made a visit to Gen. Grant. While there, he attended a review of 
 the army of the Potomac, and witnessed one or two of the battles 
 near Petersburg. His party continued their trip, visiting several 
 points of interest, their stopping place being within six miles of 
 Riclimond. On Monday morning, April 3, at about 8 o'clock. Gen. 
 Weitzel t(j(ik possession of Richmond, and telegraphed to secretary 
 Stanton, as follows : 
 
 " We took Richmond at 8 : 15 this morning. I captured many 
 guns. The enemy left in great haste. The city is on fire in one 
 place. Am making every effort to put it out. Gen. Grant started 
 early thits morning with the army, toward the Danville road, to cutoff 
 Lee's retreating army, if possible. President Lincoln has gone to 
 the front." 
 
 The next day the president came from City Point, and with Admi- 
 ral Portf^r and others of his party, entered the city. A few days after, 
 intelligence was received of Lee's surrender to Grant. Thus had the 
 president the pleasure of witnessing the close of the four years' war 
 which had commenced a few weeks after his first inauguration. 
 
 But scarcely had the public rejoicings, in which he had been per- 
 mitted to pariicipate, begun to subside, before his earthly career was 
 suddenly cut short by the hand of an assassin. On Friday evening, 
 April 14, 1865, a man named J.Wilkes Booth, entered Ford's theater 
 in the city of Washington, proceeded to the box in which Mr. Lincoln 
 and his lady were sitting, and fired a charge from a six-baireled re- 
 volver, which took effect in the back part of the president's head, and 
 passed out at the right temple. The assassin, a moment after, leap- 
 ed down from the box on the stage, crying the motto of tiic state of 
 Virginia, " Sic Sem.per Tyrannis ;" ran rapidly across the stage, hold- 
 ing an unsh( athed dagger in his right hand ; suddenly escaped from 
 the theater, mounted a horse, and fled. , 
 
 The president lingered in a state of apparent insensibility until the 
 next morning, 22 minutes past 1 o'clock, when he ended his eventful 
 life. 
 
1210 THE AMERICAN STATESMAW. 
 
 At nearly the same moment at which the fatal deed was commit- 
 ted, an accomplice of Booth entered the house of secretary Seward 
 with murderous intent. Mr. Seward had for some days been confined 
 to his bed in consequence of having been thrown from his carriage, 
 and was not yet considered entirely out of danger from the injuries 
 received. Tlie assassin forced liis way to the chamber of Mr. Seward ; 
 and as he passed, struck Mr. Frederick Seward, assistant-secretary 
 and son of the secretary, on the head with a weapon, felling him al- 
 most senseless, and disabled others who resisted his passage. He 
 then rushed upon the secretary who was lymg in bed, and inflicted 
 several stabs in the neck. He then rushed down stairs, mounted his 
 horse, and rode off before an alarm could be sounded. The lives of 
 both the Messrs. Seward were for several weeks considered in 
 danger. 
 
 Sundry facts and circumstances were elicited which led to the be- 
 lief that the conspirators intended to take the lives of the president, 
 vice-president, several members of the cabinet, and Gen. Grant, and 
 that Davis and other officials at Richmond approved the conspiracy. 
 Their guilt, however, needs confirmation. 
 
 Three days after tlie assassination, the confederate Gen. Johnsou 
 surrendered to Gen. Sherman. The surrender of others speedily fol- 
 lowed. 
 
 Booth, a few days after his escape, with Hari'old, one of his accom- 
 plices, was captured in Virginia. They were found secreted in a 
 barn. Showing a determination to resist, preparations were made 
 to bum the l)aru ; upon which Harrold surrendered. Booth being unwill- 
 ing to give himself up, and tliieateniiig to shoot whomsoever should 
 approacii, after a parley of nearly half an hour, the barn was fired. 
 During the progress of the flames, Boston Corbett, one of the party 
 of captors, (nearly thirty in number.) seeing Booth aiming his carbine 
 at one of the men, shot him with a revolver. Booth lived about two 
 hours, and died about 7 o'clock in the moriiing. 
 
 A number of the conspirators were arrested, tried, and convicted. 
 Four of them, Lewis Payne, the assiiilant of Mr. Seward, David E. 
 Harrold, George A. Atzerodt, and Mary E. Surratt, were hung on the 
 tth of July. Dr. Samuel A. 31udd, Samuel Arnold, and Michael 0'- 
 Laughlin, were sentenced, to imprisonment for life ; and Edward 
 Span.^ier for the term of six years. Spangler and Dr. Mudd wero 
 convicted of aiding and abetting Booth in making his escape, know- 
 ing him to have committed the murder of Mr. Lincoln. 
 
 A strong desire prevailed for the capture of Jefferson Davis, who 
 had fled from Kichmond. This desire was strengthened by the sua- 
 
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON 1211 
 
 picion that he was concerned in the conspiracy to assassinate Mr. 
 Lincoln and his cabinet officers. Large rewards were offered for 
 Davis, John C. Breckinridge, and other leaders of the rebellion. For 
 Davis alone, $100,000 were offered. On the 10th of May, he was 
 captured near the Savannah river, where he was encamped with his 
 family and others of his party. He was taken in attempting to 
 escape fiom the camp, partially disguised in female dress. 
 
 No other event connected with the rebellion — none recorded in our 
 country's history — produced so deep, so thrilling, so pervading a sen- 
 sation as the assassination of Mr, Lincoln. It was for a time the 
 great theme of the public press, the pulpit, of public meetings, and 
 ecclesiastical bodies, throughout the loyal states. On Wednesday, 
 April 19tli, fnnerd services were held at the capitol. The procession 
 is said to have exceeded in numbers those on any funeral occasion 
 ever known in Washington. It having been decided to convey the 
 body to Springfield, Illinois, the residence of Mr. Lincoln at the time 
 of his election, for interment, the funeral cortege proceeded by a cir- 
 cuitous route, passing through Baltimore, Harrisbuig, Philadelphia, 
 New York, Alban}', Buff'alo, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, and 
 Chicago, arriving at S|)ringfield on the 4th of May. The corpse was 
 exhibited in all the principal cities along the way ; and the obsequies 
 at those places were most imposing and solemn And at most of the 
 smaller stations on the route, the citizens ass(!mbled, and in various 
 ways gave demonstrations of their respect for the late president. 
 
 A few hours after the deatli of Mr. Lincoln, vice-president Johnson 
 was inducted into the oflBce of president. The oath was administered 
 to him by chief-justice Chase, in the presence of members of the cabinet 
 and a number of senators and representatives in congress, who were 
 still in Washington. In the few remarks made by him on the occa- 
 sion by way of inaugural, in respect to his policy, he said : "That 
 must be left for dt-velopment as the administration progresses. * * * 
 The only assurance that I can now give of the future is nf'rence to 
 the past. * * * The best energi»'s of my life have been spent, in endea- 
 voring to establish aiid perpetuate the principles of free govi-rnment ; 
 and I.belitfve that the government^ in passing through its present 
 perils, will settle down upon principles consonant with popnhir rights, 
 more permanent and enduring than heretofore. * * * To.l aJid an 
 honest advocacy of the great principles of free government have been 
 my lot. The duties have been mine ; the consequences are God's. 
 Thi.s has been the foundation of my political creed. In conclusion, 
 gentlemen, let me say, that I want your encouragement and counte- 
 nance. 1 shall ask and rely upon you and others in canying the 
 government through its present perils. I feel in making this request, 
 
1212 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 that it will be heartily responded to by you and all other patriots and 
 lovers of the rights and interests of a free people." 
 
 A responsibility scarcely less weighty than that which was borne 
 by his predecessor, rested upon the new incumbent. The reconstruc- 
 tion of the governments of the seceded states, and the restoration of 
 the union, were perhaps as difficult a task as was that of conducting the 
 war. The plans of Mr. Lincoln seem to have been in the main those 
 which were to be pursued thereafter. Provisional governors had al- 
 ready been appointed for those states ; and all white male citizens of the 
 age of twenty-one years, who had taken the prescribed oath of alle- 
 giance, except those excluded by the proclamation of amnesty, (see page 
 1157,) were entitled to take part in the organization of the state govern- 
 ments. Congress, however, as the reader has observed in a preceding 
 chapter, seemed disposed to claim the right to prescribe the manner in 
 which the work was to be done, the qualifications of electors, &g. 
 
 Upon no point, probably, was the public sentiment more divided than 
 that of bestowing the right of suffrage upon colored citizens. The 
 democratic party generally, and a considerable portion of the union 
 party, were opposed to their enfranchisement, re'garding them as too 
 ignorant to exercise the elective franchise with discretion. On the 
 other hand it was contended that it was unjust to exclude those who 
 had nobly fought for the government, and who were thoroughly loyal, 
 while those who had assisted in the attempt to destroy the government, 
 and who, though they had taken the prescribed oath, were still disloyal 
 in feeling, were permitted to trample upon the rights of its best friends. 
 Excluded now, they would be excluded for all time, as they would be 
 wholly in the power of their oppressors. Besides, emancipation only 
 increased the power of their enemies in the national government. 
 Instead of three-fifths, as when they were slaves, all would now be 
 counted in the representative population, thus adding nearly twenty rep- 
 resentatives to the number which they would have if but three-fifths 
 were thus counted. 
 
 On the 22d of May, the president proclaimed the removal of the 
 blockade from the ports of the United States, except the port of Gal- 
 veston and other ports in Texas, and on the 23d of June, the blockade 
 of these ports also was rescinded. 
 
 The day chosen for the raising of the old flag upon Fort Sumter was 
 Friday, the 14th of April, the anniversary of the day on which, in 1861, 
 the fort was surrendered by Major, now General Anderson. Many thou- 
 sands from the northern states attended to witness the ceremonies. The 
 flao- to be raised was that which was on the fort at the time of the sur- 
 
KAISING THE OLD FLAG UPON FORT SUMTER. 1213! 
 
 render; and the person selected to perform the act, was General Ander- 
 son himself. We give the account in the language of a person present. 
 
 The national ensign floated from all the old rebel forts in the harbor 
 except Fort Sumter, from the center of which a bare pole towering 
 above the ramparts was visible. On the stage beside the speakers' 
 stand was a golden eagle holding a wreath of flowtrs and evergreens. 
 The ceremonies were commenced by singing a eong and chorus, en- 
 titled " Victory at Last." Prayer was then offered by the venerable 
 Eev. Matthew Harris, chaplain U. S. A., being the same divine who 
 offered prayer at the raising of the flag on Fort Sumter when Major 
 Anderson removed his command from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, 
 Dec. 27, 1860. Then followed the reading of the Scriptures by 
 Rev. R. S. Storrs, of Brooklyn, N. Y. Major Anderson's dispatch to 
 the government, dated steamship Baltic, off Sand}' Hook, April 18, 
 1861, announcing the fall of Sumter, was then read by Gen. E. D. 
 Townsend. 
 
 Major-Gen. Anderson then proceeded to perform the act assigned 
 him. When he stepped forward on the platform, the burst of joy was 
 uncontrollable, and the general wept. When able to speak, he re- 
 marked as follows : 
 
 " My Friends and Fellow Citizens and Brother Soldiers : By the 
 considerate appointment of the honorable secretary of war, I am here 
 to fulfill the cherished wish of my heart through four long, long 
 years of bloody war to restore to its proper place this dear flag 
 which floated here during the peace before the first act of this cruel 
 rebellion. 
 
 " I thank God that I have lived to see this day, and to be here to 
 perform this duty to my country. My heart is filled with gratitude 
 to that God who has so s-ignally blessed us, who has given us bless- 
 ings without measure. May all the world proclaim glory to God in 
 the highest, and on earth peace and good will to men." 
 
 He then raised the halyards, and, with a firm and steady pull, aided 
 by Sergeant Hart, unfurled the glorious banner, amid the deafenino- 
 cheers of the assemblage. Gen. Anderson and Sergeant Hart then 
 raised the flag with an evergreen wreath attached, the occupants of 
 the stage joining in taking hold of the halyards. No sooner had it 
 caught the breeze than there was one tumultuous shout. It was ac 
 inspiring moment, grand and sublime, never to be experienced again 
 Our flag was there, its crimson folds tattered but not dishonored, re- 
 generated and baptized anew in the fires of liberty. 
 
1214 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER XCVIIL 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION OF SECEDED STATES. VARIOUS BILLS LOOKINR TO RE- 
 ORGANIZATION. DEBATES DISCUSSING PRINCIPLES OF STATE AND FED- 
 ERAL RELATIONS. SESSION THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. 
 
 At an early period after the abolition of slavery, Freedmen's Aid 
 Societies were formed in different states. On the 17th of December, 
 1863, President Lincoln transmitted to congress a letter addressed to 
 him by committees from several of those societies, calling the attention 
 of congress to the subject. Bills for the benefit of these people throv^n 
 into their new condition, many of them out of employment, were early 
 introduced. At the session of 1864-1865, an act was passed " To estab- 
 lish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees." The bureau was 
 to be under the management of a commissioner to be appointed by the 
 president with the consent of the senate ; the secretary of war to direct 
 the issues of provisions, clothing, etc.; the commissioner to report annu- 
 ally to the president, the report to be laid before Congress ; and the as- 
 sistant commissioner to report quarterly to the commissioner. Lands 
 abandoned in insurrectionary states, and lands acquired by the govern- 
 ment by confiscation, sale, or otherwise, might be set apart for the use 
 of loyal refugees and freedmen. 
 
 Efforts were made in congress, at the session of 1863-1864, for the 
 reconstruction of the seceded states. Some, account of the action of 
 congress on this subject has been given in the XCVth chapter. A 
 great diversity of opinion prevailed in regard to the manner in which 
 they should be readmitted into the union. Accompanying the message 
 of President Lincoln in December, 1863, was a proclamation of amnesty. 
 It was also proclaimed that, whenever any number of persons, not less 
 than one-tenth of those who voted in the presidential election of 1860, 
 should re-establish a state government, the same should be recognized as 
 the true government. [P. 1167.] But it was a condition of such recog- 
 nition, that such government should not contravene the proclamation of 
 freedom and the laws of congress. The friends of the administration 
 were divided on this question. Some were in favor of the president's 
 plan, others were opposed to allowing them a representation in congress, 
 until congress should deem it safe and expedient to readmit them to 
 their original position in the union. A bill "to guaranty to the 
 
 ) 
 
DEBATE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 1215 
 
 seceded states a republican form of government " was on this plan. 
 The people, it was argued, could not be safely trusted until laws could 
 be executed by courts and sheriils, without the menace of military au- 
 thority. The bill conceded to congress the power to reorganize those 
 governments ; to impose conditions deemed necessary to secure the per- 
 manence of republican government, and to refuse to recognize any that 
 should not prohibit slavery. [See Davis's speech, p. 11 '74-6.] The dem- 
 ocrats argued that the seceded states were yet in the union ; they could 
 not get out by resisting the authority of the United States by force, but 
 were bound to the federal government until it should consent to a sepa- 
 ration. They also denied the power of congress or the president to en- 
 force the provisions of the bill. They were opposed to compelling the 
 states to prohibit slavery. [See speeches of Mr. Allen, p. 1178, and Mr. 
 Kernan, 1184-5.] The bill was passed by both houses, and sent to the 
 president for his approval, but not being returned, it was defeated. [See 
 p. 1186.] 
 
 In the house, January 16, 1865, a bill "to guaranty a republican form 
 of government " to the seceded states, was taken up for consideraition. 
 Mr. Ashley, of Ohio, pursuant to instructions from the select committee 
 of the house on rebellious states, offered a substitute for the original bill. 
 It was so ordered. Among the numerous provisions of this bill were 
 the following : (1) The president, with the consent of the senate, was 
 to appoint, for each state, a provisional governor, charged with the civil 
 administration until a state government therein should be recognized. 
 (2) Until the recognition of such government, it was to be the duty of 
 the governor to see that this act, and the laws of the United States and 
 the laws of the state in force when the state government was overthrown 
 should be faithfully executed ; but no law or usage whereby any person 
 had been held in involuntary servitude should be enforced. And the 
 president was to appoint such officers as he should find necessary to the 
 civil administration. (3) The governor was to cause the taxes to be- 
 levied under such regulations as he should prescribe, to be applied to the 
 expenses of the administration of the laws, the surplus to be deposited in 
 the treasury of the United States, and to be paid to the state when a 
 form of government should be recognized therein. (4) Every person 
 thereafter holding any office, civil or military, in the rebel servifce, except 
 offices merely ministerial and military offices below the grade of colonel, 
 should be declared not to be a citizen of the United States. (6) When 
 the military resistance to the United States should have been suppressed 
 in any state and the people should have sufficiently returaed to their 
 obedience to the constitution and laws of the United States, the white 
 male citizens were to be enrolled, and requested to take the oath to support 
 
1216 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the constitution of the United States ; and if the persons taking that oath 
 should amount to a majority of the persons enrolled, the loyal people of 
 the state were to be invited to elect delegates to a convention to re-estab- 
 lish a state government. (6) No debt created by the sanction of the 
 usurping power, or in aid thereof, should be recognized or paid by the 
 state ; and all acts for the confiscation or forfeiture of any debt, property, 
 or franchise of any loyal citizen of the United States, were to be null and 
 void. (7) Freedom and equality of civil rights before the law, were guar- 
 antied to all persons in the state. (8) Congress was to recognize the 
 governments of Arkansas and Louisiana inaugurated by the conventions 
 in those states early in 1864, provided their constitutions were made to 
 conform to the provisions of this act. 
 
 Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend by inserting after the 
 words " to enroll all the white male citizens of the United States," the 
 words " and all other male citizens of the United States who may be 
 able to read the constitution thereof." He said the government of the 
 United States was instituted to secure the rights of all the citizens, and 
 not for the benefit of men of one race only. It was safe to assert that 
 in every state save South Carolina, and possibly Virginia and Delaware, 
 negi'oes participated in constituting the convention which framed the 
 constitution of the United States, and voted for members of the state 
 conventions to which the question of its ratification was submitted. To 
 secure and perpetuate internal peace by the abolition of political classes 
 and castes whose conflicting rights and interests would provoke incessant 
 agitation, or who, goaded by wrongs, might excite armed insurrection, 
 we needed to adopt no new theory, but might accept the principles of 
 our fathers. 
 
 Mr. Elliot, of Mass., moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, 
 and insert as a substitute the following : That the states declared to be 
 in rebellion against the United States, and within which the authority of 
 the constitution and laws of the United States has been overthrown, 
 shall not be permitted to resume their political relations with the govern- 
 ment of the United States until, by action of the loyal citizens within such 
 states respectively, a state constitution shall be established, forever pro- 
 hibiting involuntary servitude, and guaranteeing to all persons freedom 
 and equality of rights before the law. And that Louisiana be permitted 
 to resume its political relations with the government of the United 
 States under the constitution adopted by the convention which assembled 
 on the 6th day of April, 1864, at New Orleans. 
 
 Amendments by Mr. Arnold, of Illinois, and Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, 
 were offered. 
 
 Mr. Elliot, in support of his substitute, said there was no need of a 
 
''=8 ■ V.-lugustiis B.o%'.ii. V 
 
 CILVRLES SUMNEPv 
 
MR. DAWES ON RECONSTRUCTION. 1217 
 
 general bill. A bill had been passed at the last session containing many 
 provisions like those of the present bill. There appeared reason to act 
 then. He thought all that was applicable in detail in all these rebel states 
 could not be stated in one bill. He thought it more wise to take the 
 states as they should present themselves for admission. The house 
 ought, however, to agree upon certain provisions which must be con 
 tained within the constitution of the states before they should be re- 
 cognized. 
 
 Mr. Dawes, of Mass., opposed the bill. It was divided into two parts : 
 the first, that which endeavored to provide a present temporary munici- 
 pal government ; and second, that which prescribed the rule and method 
 to which all future eSorts for the adoption of a constitution must con- 
 form. The provisions for a local government were neither on the old 
 theory of a colonial government; nor on the more modern policy of 
 treating each state as a territory having power to frame their own gov- 
 ernment, with a supervisory power still retained by this government. 
 The bill proceeds upon the supposition that there are states still existing 
 with old constitutions and laws still in force ; for the first duty imposed 
 upon the provisional governor is, " that until the United States shall have 
 recognized a republican form of state government, the provisional gov- 
 ernor shall see that the laws in force when the state government was over- 
 thrown are faithfully executed," excepting the provision relating to slavery, 
 and the mode of trial and punishment of colored people. It virtually 
 declares that these states still exist within the union, with their old 
 boundaries and constitutions, and laws still in force, but without officers 
 to enforce them ; and it is for the president to fill all the offices in all these 
 states, by the advice and consent of the senate. 
 
 Mr. D. objected also to the bill, that the provisional governor was to 
 levy the whole body of the taxes, in sum total assessed in the year next 
 preceding the rebellion, upon a people now beggars and seekers of alms, 
 dependent upon the charities of the North. Their houses have been 
 burned, their lands laid desolate, and the sources of their industry 
 dried up. 
 
 Mr. D. next considered the rule and method to which all future efforts 
 for the adoj)tion of a constitution must conform. It was left discretion- 
 ary with the governor himself to determine when to institute the first 
 steps toward the formation of a new government. The bill said, when 
 the people of a state " shall have sufficiently returned to their obedience." 
 With an army of office-holders under him at stake, he might not very 
 soon conclude that the people had been sufficiently subdued. But even 
 were the governor willing to take the initiatory steps the bill said those 
 proceedings depended upon the question whether a majority of the people 
 
1218 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the whole state had signified their loyalty by taking the oath of alle- 
 giance. But the disloyal people, so long as they could keep the ma- 
 jority on their side, could dictate the sort of government they should 
 have. In the early part of the rebellion it was held that upon the loyal 
 people alone were to be reposed the functions of government ; that they 
 were to hold the elective franchise and determine the character of the 
 government ; and that the rebels were only to be counted that we might 
 know what force might be necessary for their subjection. 
 
 Mr. Edgerton, (Dem.) of Illinois, in opposition to the bill, said revolu- 
 tionary opinions and plans were overriding the constitution as a thing of 
 the past. He alluded to the resolution of H. Winter Davis, of Maryland, 
 for the appointment of a committee of nine on the rebellious states, to 
 report a bill for the reconstruction of those states. The declared purpose 
 of the committee was " to guarantee republican government to the states in 
 such governments as had been usurped or overthrown." The president, by 
 his amnesty proclamation of December 8, 1863, had transcended his execu- 
 tive powers, and assumed to take the subject of reconstruction into his own 
 hands ; to dictate state constitutions ; and to determine the conditions upon 
 which a sovereign state should or should not be recognized and protected 
 as a state in the union. The amnesty proclamation, like its forerunners, 
 the proclamations of September, 1862, and January, 1863, it was a start- 
 ling assertion of executive power. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. 
 Stevens,] had declared in his speech of January, 1 864, that the president's 
 plan of reconstruction, as stated in his amnesty proclamation, was " wholly 
 outside of and unknown to the constitution," and found its justification 
 only in the war power and in the theory of military conquest. It proposed 
 to treat the rebel territory as a conqueror would treat it. Mr. E. believed 
 one object of the gentlemen [Stevens and Da^as], in conjointly moving 
 the resolution for a special committee, was to take from the usurping 
 hand of the executive and to exercise through congress, the legislation 
 necessary to restore the relations of the Southern states to the federal 
 government. But without waiting for the action of congress, the presi- 
 dent moved straight forward to his purpose of reorganizing Louisiana, 
 Arkansas, and Florida, in his own way. Mr. E. alluded to the reconstruc- 
 tion bill passed by both houses at the preceding session, which the pres- 
 ident did not approve. [See p. 1186.] The president's will, he said, 
 undid the work of his friends in the last congress in their efforts to re- 
 construct states. 
 
 Mr. E. objected to the bill of this session, which, as modified, provided 
 to recognize Louisiana and Arkansas, under their new constitutions, on 
 condition that the conventions of those states shall incorporate into them 
 the following provisions : (1.) Excluding certain civil officers and mill- 
 
SPEECH OF MR. DAVIS. 1219 
 
 tary officers above the rank of colonel, from*voting for or being a mem- 
 ber of the legislature or governor ; prohibiting slavery and guaranteeing 
 freedom and equality of civil rights before the law ; and prohibiting a 
 state from paying any debt created by or under the sanction of the usurp- 
 ing power ; and from the operation of any acts for the confiscation or 
 forfeiture of any debt, property, or franchise, of any loyal citizen of the 
 United States. The bill provided further, that the persons enrolled as 
 having taken the oath to support the constitution of the United States, 
 amounted to a majority of the persons enrolled in the state. To all of 
 these provisions Mr. E. was opposed. 
 
 Mr. Davis, (Rep.) of Maryland, explained the bill, as follows : " The 
 bill which is now the test, to which amendments are pending, is the same 
 •which received the assent of both houses of congress at the last session, 
 •with the following modifications to suit the tender susceptibilities of gen- 
 tlemen from Massachusetts : first, the sixth section, declaring rebel officers 
 not citizens of the United States, has been stricken out ; second, the tax- 
 ation clause has been stricken out ; third, the word ' government ' has 
 been inserted before ' trial and punishment,' to meet the refined criticisms 
 of the two gentlemen from Massachusetts, ■who suppose the penal laws 
 •would be in force and operative when the penalties were forbidden to be 
 enforced ; that discriminating laws could survive the declaration that 
 there should be no discrimination between different persons in trial or 
 punishment. One section has been added to meet the present aspect of 
 public affairs ; That section authorizes the president, instead of pursuing 
 the method prescribed in the bill in reference to the states in which mili- 
 tary resistance shall have been suppressed, in the event of the legislative 
 authority under the rebellion in any rebel state taking the oath to support 
 the constitution of the United States, annulling their confiscation laws and 
 ratifying the amendment proposed by this congress to the constitution of 
 the United States, before military resistance shall be suppressed in such 
 state, to recognize them as constituting the legal authority of the state, and 
 directing him to report those facts to congress for its assent and ratifica- 
 tion. With these modifications, the bill which is now the test for amend- 
 ment, is the bill adopted by this house at the last session. 
 
 " All I desire now to do, is to state the case and predict results from 
 one course or the other. The course of military events seems to indicate 
 that, possibly by the 4th of next July, probably by next December, or- 
 ganized, armed rebellion will cease to lift its brazen front in the land. 
 But whenever it com es, one thing will assuredly accompany it. If this 
 bill do not become a law, when congress again meets, at our doors, clam- 
 orous and dictatorial, will be sixty-five representatives from the states no'W 
 in rebellion, and twenty-two senators, claiming admission, and, upon tho 
 
1220 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 theory of the honorable gentlemen, entitled to admission beyond the 
 power of argument to resist it ; for peace will have been restored ; there 
 will be no armed power but that of the United States ; there will be quiet, 
 and votes will be polled under the existing laws of the state, in the gen- 
 tlemen's view. Are you ready to accept the consequence ? For, if they 
 come to the door of the house, they will cross its threshold ; and any 
 gentleman who does not know that, or is so weak or so wild as to suppose 
 that any declaratory resolution adopted by both houses as a condition 
 precedent can stop that flood, had better put his puny hands across the 
 Mississippi, and say that it shall not enter the Gulf of Mexico. You can 
 now prevent the rise of the flood ; but when it is up you can not stop it. 
 If gentlemen are in favor of meeting that state of things, do what has 
 been intimated in the course of this debate ; vote against this bill in all 
 its aspects ; leave the door wide open ; let " our brethren of the South," 
 whose bayonets are now pointed at our brothers' hearts, drop their arms, 
 put on the seemly garb of peace, go through the forms of an election, 
 and assert the triumph of their beaten faction under the forms of political 
 authority after the sword has decided against them. I am no prophet ; 
 but that is the history of next December if this bill be defeated ; and I 
 expect it not to become a law. 
 
 " But suppose the other course to be pursued ; suppose the president sees 
 fit to do what there is not the least reason he desires to do ; suppose that 
 after he has destroyed the armies in the field he should go further, and 
 do, as I think he ought to do, what the judgment of this country dictates 
 — treat those who hold power in the South as rebels, and not as legisla- 
 tors or governors ; disperse them from the halls of legislation ; expel them 
 from executive mansions ; strip them of the emblems of authority ; and 
 set to work to hunt out the pliant ' union men,' so called, who have cringed 
 before the storm, but who will be willing to govern their fellow-citizens 
 under the protection of United States bayonets. Suppose that the fruit- 
 ful example of Louisiana shall spread like a mist all over the rest of the 
 Southern country, and that representatives like what Louisiana has sent 
 here, with such a backing of votes as she has given, shall appear at the 
 door of this hall ; whose representatives are they ? I do not mean to 
 speak of the gentlemen now here from Louisiana in their individual 
 character, but in their relations to their constituency. In Louisiana they 
 are the representatives of the bayonets of Gen. Banks and the will of the 
 president as expressed in his secret letter to Gen. Banks. If you admit 
 such representatives, you must admit, on the same basis, and under tho 
 same influences, representatives from every state from Texas to Virginia. 
 The council of Alexandria — which has just sent two senators to the other 
 house, and has ratified the amendment abolishing slavery in all the rest 
 
RECONSTRUCTION. 1221 
 
 of Virginia — would be entitled to send ten representatives here and two 
 senators to speak for the indomitable ' Old Dominion.' If the rebel repre: 
 sentatives are not here in December next, you will have here servile tools 
 of the executive who will embarrass your legislation, humble your con- 
 gress, degrade the name of republican government for two years ; and 
 then the natural majority of the South, rising indignantly against that 
 humiliating insult, will swamp you with rebel representatives, and be your 
 masters. These are the alternatives, and there is no middle ground." 
 The bill, with the amendments, was laid on the table, 91 to 64 ; not 
 voting, 27. 
 
 In the senate, Feb. 1, 1865, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, reported back, 
 with amendment, from the conmiittee on the judiciary, a joint resolution, 
 declaring that the seceding states, having been in armed rebellion for 
 more than three years, and being in such rebellion on the 8th day of 
 November, 1864, "are not entitled to representation in the electoral 
 college for the choice of president and vice-president of the United States, 
 for the term of office commencing on the 4th day of March, 1865 ; and 
 no electoral votes shall be received or counted from said states concerning 
 the choice of president and vice-president for said term of office." As 
 amended, after " November, 1864," in the preamble, was inserted, " that 
 no valid election for president and vice-president of the United States 
 according to the constitution and laws thereof was held therein on said 
 day." 
 
 Mr. Ten Eyck, (Dera.) of New Jersey, moved to except Louisiana 
 from the states named in the preamble. That state had reorganized, or 
 at least attempted to do so. They had elected state officers and members 
 of a constitutional convention, and framed a new constitution ; and the 
 legislature had authorized the election of electors of president and vice- 
 president, and the electors had met and cast their votes. His object in 
 moving the amendment was that some opportunity might be afforded a 
 loyal people who had got the better of the rebellion, of resuming their 
 place in the councils of the nation. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, (Rep.) of Illinois, opposed the motion. The committee 
 on the judiciary, by the amendment they had reported, proposed to alter 
 the preamble somewhat, in order to avoid committal upon the subject; 
 so that if the amendment were adopted and the resolution passed, it 
 would not have been decided whether Louisiana was in the union or out 
 of it ; whether a state, or not a state. The 8th day of November last, 
 the day of the presidential election, was such in all these states, that no 
 election was held according to constitution and laws of the United States. 
 To strike out Louisiana and to receive her electoral vote, was to decide 
 that there was a state government there, which he did not believe. Much 
 
1222 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the state was still overrun by the enemy, and legal voters were unable 
 to vote one way or another. 
 
 Again, the president, in pursuance of an act of congress, had declared 
 the inhabitants of Louisiana to be in a state of insurrection against the 
 government of the United States. The vote of the inhabitants of a state 
 could not be received when the laws and the executive proclamation de- 
 clared them in a state of insurrection. 
 
 Mr. Ten Eyck said, in reply, that he held that none of these states 
 could be out of the union ; that their governments had been overrun by 
 the feet of hostile armies, and mapy of their citizens had by usurpation 
 and in violation of their duty attempted to carry these states out of the 
 union. And whenever they re-established themselves, or set their state 
 governments in action anew, he felt it his duty to extend to them all the 
 rights and privileges of a loyal people. 
 
 Mr. Harris, (Rep.) of New York, was opposed to the preamble to the 
 resolution. A part of it was not true. He admitted that the rebel states 
 had been declared to be in a state of insurrection, and the first clause of 
 the preamble was true. But he denied that the local authorities of the 
 states of Louisiana, and Arkansas, and Tennessee, were in insurrection. 
 He insisted that those authorities had been put in power by the proceed- 
 ings under the federal government. A governor and a legislature had 
 been elected by the loyal people of the state. It was therefore not true 
 that on the 8tli of November last the state authorities were in a state of 
 armed rebellion. He also doubted the competency of congress to legis- 
 late in reference to the counting of the votes. He could not find in the 
 constitution any authority for congress to pass a law excluding any votes 
 returned to the vice-president. 
 
 Mr. Hale, (Rep.) of New Hampshire, thought it would be one of the 
 strangest things if congress had not power over this subject. The con- 
 stitution prohibits any person holding an office of profit or trust under 
 the federal government, from being a presidential elector. Suppose, 
 when the two houses are met to count the votes, it is evident that some 
 electoral votes had been given by members of congress ; would not con- 
 gress have power to say that they should not be counted ? But the con- 
 stitution, he said, was not silent ; it declares that congress shall have 
 power " to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carry- 
 ing into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by 
 this constitution in the government of the United States." Were the 
 framers of the constitution so derelict, so blind, as not to provide some 
 mode of conducting legally the machinery of this great measure which 
 is essential to the very life of the nation ? He contended that it was the 
 part of wisdom to settle this question now before the emergency comes 
 
MR. collamer's speech. 1223 
 
 — ^before a contingency shall arise which may be fraught with the conse- 
 quences of revolution. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, (Rep.) of Illinois, said, the senator from New York and 
 the senator from Wisconsin both doubt the power of congress to pass this 
 resolution, and insist that the presiding officer of the senate is to deter- 
 mine the question in the first instance. The constitution does not say 
 that he shall count the votes ; and from the days of Washington till this 
 moment the vice-president never has counted the votes. He is to " open 
 all the certificates." " And the votes shall then be counted." The con- 
 stitution gives the power to count the votes ; but it does not prescribe 
 the mode of doing it. The power is implied in the power to carry into 
 effect the granted powers of the constitution. 
 
 Mr. CoUamer, (Rep.) of Vermont, said the preamble declares certain 
 states in a condition of armed rebellion, and have so continued for a cer- 
 tain time ; and then the resolution legislates concerning them. I think 
 that is all wrong and uncalled for. In 1861, congress passed an act 
 making many provisions for the condition of things which had then 
 arisen. It is the act " further to provide for the collection of duties on 
 imports, and for other purposes." The fifth section of that act provided 
 that whenever the president shall have called forth the militia to suppress 
 combinations against the laws, and the insurgents shall have failed to 
 disperse, and when the insurgents claim to act under the authority of any 
 state, and such claim is not disclaimed or repudiated by the persons ex- 
 ercising the functions of government in such state, nor such insurrection 
 suppressed by said state, the president may by proclamation declare that 
 the inhabitants of such state where the insurrection exists, are in insur- 
 rection against the United States; and thereupon all commercial inter- 
 course between them and the citizens of the rest of the United States 
 shall cease and be unlawful so long as such condition of hostility shall 
 continue ; and all goods and chattels, wares and merchandise, coming 
 from said state into other parts of the United States, with the vessel con- 
 taining them, shall be forfeited to the United States. In short, a state 
 of war was declared to exist in that event. The law named no state. 
 It was a general law that when the people of a state are in insurrection 
 and claim to act under its authority, and do not stop it, the president may 
 declare them to be in insurrection, and a state of war exists. Said Mr. 
 C, in order to conform our legislative acts to that law, I propose to offer 
 a substitute for this resolution. The president's proclamation declaring 
 certain states in rebellion, was issued according to law. It declared a 
 state of war. Have any of these states ever altered their condition? 
 The state of war certainly still continues. 
 
 The substitute of Mr. CoUamer declared that the people of no state 
 
1224 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 declared to be in a state of insun-ection, shall be empowered to elect pres- 
 idential electors, until said condition of insurrection shall cease, and be 
 so- declared by virtue of a law of the United States. This is simply a 
 law in pursuance of the law of 1861, declaring what shall be the effect 
 which shall follow a certain condition of things into which a state may 
 fall. 
 
 Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, agreed with those who held that congi-ess 
 had authority to legislate on this subject. He enumerated many points 
 on which, in relation to the presidential vote, the constitution is silent ; 
 and he mentioned those for which the constitution provides. The sena- 
 tor from New York denies to congress the power to declare that the votes 
 of any state are not to be counted. Does he mean to say that the votes 
 of the states in rebellion are to be counted ? Yet if we do not legislate 
 upon the subject, where is the power to exclude them ? These states are 
 still in rebellion ; and the United States have not only the right, but it 
 is their duty to prosecute the war to a success by bringing them back, 
 they being (not in a constitutional sense, but practically) out of the union. 
 Now, is it possible that the inhabitants of a state thus at war with the 
 United States, have a right to vote in any presidential election for a pres- 
 ident of the United States ? 
 
 Mr. Ten Eyck dissented from the argument that, inasmuch as the pres- 
 ident had declared these states to be in a condition of insurrection under 
 an act of congress passed in 1861, therefore it would require an act of 
 congTess to authorize them to elect presidential electors and senators and 
 representatives. He considered the prohibition of commercial intercourse 
 with the insurgents as intended to prevent persons in the loyal part of 
 the union from furnishing them with provisions and munitions of war 
 with which they might prosecute this rebellion. He inquired, if it should 
 come to the knowledge of the joint convention to be assembled next week 
 to count the electoral votes, that in either of those states the rebellion 
 had been suppressed, and that the people had put their civil government 
 into full execution, whether, under the law and the proclamation of the 
 president in 1861, it would be necessary that there should be an act of 
 congress to establish the fact of their re-organization, and of their having 
 re-assumed their ancient loyal functions. 
 
 Mr. Cowan, (Dem.) of Pennsylvania, thought any action intended to 
 prevent Louisiana and Arkansas from voting would perhaps be a breach 
 of faith on the part of the government, and a violation of that courtesy 
 "which is due from one department of it to another. In pursuance of the 
 act of July, 1861, the president, by his proclamation of August 16, 1861, 
 declared Louisiana in a state of insurrection ; by the proclamation of 
 January 1, 1863, he exempted thirteen parishes from the operation of 
 
THE DISCUSSION CONTINUED. 1225 
 
 tlie emancipation proclamation, because the rebellion did not exist in 
 those parishes. And by the proclamation of the 8th of December, 1863, 
 he invited the people of all these states to resume their state rights and 
 state functions, provided one-tenth of them would agree to make the 
 proper organization. The question is, whether we shall carry out that 
 arrangement, or whether we shall violate it. 
 
 Mr. Davis, (Dem.) of Kentucky, held that, under the power to pass all 
 laws necessary to execute all other powers granted by the constitution, 
 the incidental power to pass this joint resolution declaring certain prin- 
 ciples and forms by which the count should be made, might be exer- 
 cised. If Louisiana had voted for a man not a native born citizen, or a 
 citizen at the adoption of the constitution, would it not be the duty of 
 the two houses to decline the vote of Louisiana? The effect of the res- 
 olution simply would be to ascertain whether the votes of certain states 
 had been cast in conformity to the constitution ; and if not, to exclude 
 them from the count. 
 
 Mr. Cowan thought the inquiry ought not to be whether the loyal 
 people constituted a tenth or a twentieth of the inhabitants. If we 
 repulse them and take away their authority, what is left in those states? 
 Will not those loyal men say, " What is the bounty to loyalty that you 
 propose ? Why, that we wait without a state government, that we sub- 
 mit to this military rule and dictation until we can convert more than a 
 majority of the people to establish a state government." 
 
 Mr. Wade, (Rep.) of Ohio, said : " Can any portion of a state govern 
 the whole ? Can one loyal county control the destinies of all the rest of 
 a state ? If you have by military authority within the lines of your en- 
 campment a great city or a portion of a state where there is a population, 
 is it very difficult for a president or for the commanding officers there to 
 get up all the paraphernalia of a state upon a ten acre piece of land ? 
 When you have done that and under the shadows of your armies at- 
 tempt to elect all the magistrates and officers necessary to perfect the 
 machinery of your government and get it in operation, can you be so 
 blind as to suppose that when you have by military power clothed these 
 men with authority to govern, it is a republican government ? It is just 
 as much a military government as it was before you went through the 
 farce of selecting those officers. There is your military governor ; has 
 he ever been withdrawn from Louisiana? Or if another governor has 
 been substituted, by whom was he substituted ? By the commander-in- 
 chief of all the armies of the United States. When the mandate went 
 forth from the president to Mr. Halm, ' Be governor of that state,' he 
 did not consult the senate nor anybody in particular. The mandate was 
 issued, 'Mr. Hahn, be governor, call a convention, declare what youi 
 
1226 THE AMKRICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 status shall be in the republic, elect your representatives, organize iu 
 form the shadow of a state government, and you shall be a state govern- 
 ment.' If a majority of a state will not submit to the authority of the 
 general government, a free government in that state is impossible. What 
 protection would one-tenth have Avhen you' withdraw all external power 
 from them, and leave them to themselves ?" 
 
 Mr. Cowan said : " That is the very question we must now meet. It 
 is whether we will maintain state governments there in connection with 
 the union, or whether we will treat tliese people as a conquered people, 
 as conquered provinces ; whether we will assume the task of governing 
 them entirely, or do what the president is endeavoring to do now. I 
 . very much prefer his plan. I believe one-tenth of the people of a state 
 with the reins in their hands, the means of enforcing its authority, aided 
 by the general government, will finally bring back all these states to 
 obedience, allegiance." 
 
 A motion by Mr. Lane, of Indiana, to postpone the resolution indefi- 
 nitely, was lost — yeas, 11 ; nays, 26 ; absent, 14. 
 
 Mr. Doolittle, (Rep.) of Wisconsin, in opposition to the resolution, 
 said : " Every person knows that there must be some form of govern- 
 ment in these states. If with our armies we enter a country, and take 
 possession of it by military power, some form of government must be 
 established — military, of course, at first. When the people of a district 
 become so far loyal to the government which thus assumes, by military 
 power, to put down an insurrection, an attempt may be made to sur- 
 render the military power and establish a civil administration by the 
 people themselves. For a time, the form may be a mixed form, both of 
 civil and military power. The military power may be more and more 
 withdrawn, and greater power given to the civil administration." Mr. D. 
 cited the case of Louisiana. " When we captured New Orleans and took 
 possession of the rivers and the lands adjoining, there could only be mil- 
 itary government. But after an experience of a few years, the people 
 became so well satisfied of the mistake of going into rebellion against 
 the government of the United States, that they began to come back to 
 their allegiance, and were willing to join in the organization of civil 
 government, and resume their relations to the general government. 
 Eleven thousand four hundred and fourteen loyal citizens joined in form- 
 ing a new constitution, which was submitted to the people and adopted; 
 a legislature and other officers were chosen ; and the whole macliinery 
 of civil government was put into full operation in that state. 
 
 " This policy of the president is denounced as a military usurpation. 
 It is directly the reverse of that. It is an attempt to lay down the mil- 
 
DEBATE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 1227 
 
 itary power, and to put power into the hands of the civilians ; to take 
 it from the army and to give it to the people," 
 
 Ml'. Conness, of California, here asked Mr. D. if he held that congress 
 had the right to act upon the organization or admission of states now in 
 rebellion, only when senators present themselves here ; or if the senator 
 denies to congress a right to participate in the question of their reorgan- 
 ization as states? 
 
 Mr. Doolittle. " The question raised by the senator is a distinct and 
 different one from that which, I am now discussing, and I do not in- 
 tend to go into a discussion of it now. Our decision on that question of 
 the admission of senators is without any appeal ; and no law passed by 
 congress would abridge our supreme jurisdiction over the question. The 
 house and senate act independently of each other. We have Virginia 
 represented on this floor. The house refused Virginia a representation 
 in that body. If we assume to say, as does the senator from Michigan 
 [Mr. Howard], that the states declared to be in insurrection have ceased 
 to be states of the United States, and are to be regarded as mere subju- 
 gated provinces or territories, as if acquired from some foreign power, 
 this other consequence will follow." 
 
 Mr. Howard. " If they are states in insurrection, then, as states, as 
 political communities, they are enemies of the United States. Can a 
 comumnity which is an enemy be treated as one of the United States?" 
 
 The question was taken on the motion to strike out ' Louisiana ' frona. 
 the title, and lost — yeas, 15; nays, 22 ; absent 14. 
 
 A motion to strike out the preamble was lost ; also the motion of Mr. 
 Collamer to strike out the preamble, and to insert his substitute, was lost. 
 
 Other amendments were made, and the joint resolution was passed ; 
 yeas, 29 ; nays 10 ; absent, 12. The resolution was passed as first 
 offered. The only alteration was a slight one in the preamble. 
 
 In the house, January 30, 1865, the joint resolution relative to the 
 counting of the electoral votes was passed. The resolution provides that 
 the states mentioned in the preamble are not entitled to representation 
 in the electoral college for choice of president and vice-president of the 
 United States. 
 
 In the senate, Feb. 6, 1865, Mr. Sumner offered a joint resolution pro- 
 posing to apportion the representatives among the several states accord- 
 ing to the number of male citizens of age, instead of the present mode, 
 according to the whole number of inhabitants in each state. Ref eiTcd to 
 the judiciary committee. 
 
 In the house, Feb. 6th, a joint resolution was adopted, prescribing the 
 manner of conducting the count of the electoral vote. On the 8th, the 
 count was made. The votes were as follows: 
 
1228 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 For Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson — Maine, Y ; New Hamp- 
 shire, 5 ; Massachusetts, 12 ; Rhode Island, 4 ; Connecticut, 6 ; Vermont, 
 5; New York, 33; Pennsylvania, 26; Maryland, 7; Ohio, 21; Indiana, 
 13; Illinois, 16; Missouri, 11; Michigan, 8; Wisconsin, 8; Iowa, 8 ; 
 California, 5 ; Minnesota, 4 ; Oregon, 3 ; Kansas, 3 ; West Virginia, 5 ; 
 Nevada, 2; Total— 212. 
 
 For George B. McClellan — New Jersey, 7 ; Delaware, 3 ; Kentucky, 
 11. Total— 21. 
 
 In the senate, on the 10th of February, a message from the president 
 was read, stating that he had signed the joint resolution declaring certain 
 states not entitled to representation in the electoral college, in deference 
 to the view of congress. In his own view, however, the two houses con- 
 vened for counting the votes had complete power to exclude votes deemed 
 by them illegal ; and it was not competent for the executive to defeat or 
 obstruct that power by a veto, as would be the case if his action were 
 essential in the matter. He disclaimed all right in any way to interfere 
 in the matter of canvassing or counting electoral votes ; and he disclaimed 
 also that, by signing said resolution, he has expressed any opinion on the 
 recitals of the 2:)reamble, or any judgment on the subject of the res- 
 olution. 
 
 In the senate, Feb. iVth, on the presentation of the credentials of 
 Joseph Sogar, successor to L. J. Bowden, of Virginia, deceased, a refer- 
 ence to the judiciary committee was opposed as unnecessary, as no ob- 
 jection to his predecessor had been made, and as the credentials were 
 proper on their face. It was maintained on the other side, that the com- 
 mittee should ascertain if the credentials came from a proper source. The 
 committee should consider whether a state in armed rebellion, like Vir- 
 ginia, should have senators in that body, and whether the gentleman had 
 been chosen legally under the constitution of the United States. The 
 credentials, by a vote of 29 to 13, were laid on the table. 
 
 In the senate, Feb. 23d, the resolution recognizing the government of 
 the state of Louisiana was considered. Arguments similar to those pre- 
 sented in previous debates were in substance repeated. The convention 
 which formed the government was dechued to have been " a stupendous 
 hoax." Said Mr. Sumner : " Military power and injustice to a whole race 
 had been enlisted in forming the constitution. The United States are 
 bound to guarantee to every state a republican form of government. 
 Now it is proposed to recognize an oligarchy of the skin. It is a mere 
 seven months' abortion, begotten by the bayonet in criminal conjunction 
 with the spirit of caste, and born before its time, rickety, unformed, un- 
 finished." No vote upon the question was reached. Prior orders were 
 taken up. 
 
RECONSTRUCTION CONTINUED. 1229 
 
 In the house, Feb. 2d, the committee of conference relative to the bill 
 to enact a Bureau of Freedmen's Affairs, reported a new bill. After 
 considerable discussion, a substitute was offered, which was passed. The 
 act was entitled, " An act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmeu 
 and Refugees." It was established in the war department, to continue 
 during the war of the rebellion and for one year thereafter, and to be 
 under the management of a conmiissioner appointed by the president and 
 senate, and such number of clerks as should be assigned to him by the 
 secretary of war. The secretary was to direct the needful provisions, 
 clothing, and fuel for the suffering refugees and freedmen, and their wives 
 and children. An assistant commissioner for each seceded state was to 
 be appointed, who was to report quarterly the state of his accounts to 
 the commissioner, who was to report annually to the president. Tracts 
 of land within the insurrectionary states which had been abandoned, 
 confiscated, or to which the United States had otherwise acquired title, 
 were to be set apart for the use of loyal refugees or freedmen, not more 
 than forty acres to each freedman, for three years, at an annual rent not 
 exceeding six per cent upon the value of the land ; the occupants to 
 have the right to purchase the lands during the said term. The biU 
 passed both houses, and became a law. 
 
 CHAPTER XCIX. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION CONTINUED. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTI- 
 TUTION. SESSION OF 1866-67. MILITARY RECONSTRUCTION BILL 
 
 PASSED OVER THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO. MEETING OF THE FORTIETH 
 
 CONGRESS. 
 
 Among the subjects relating to the reconstruction of the seceded 
 spates were several propositions to amend the constitution, one of which 
 was a proposition to change the basis of representation in those states. 
 Prior to the abolition of slavery, the slave states were entitled to repre- 
 sentation on three-fifths of the slave population. Allowing them to be 
 represented on the whole would increase the number of the representa- 
 tives from these states between twenty and thirty. Another proposition 
 was to apportion representatives according to the number of male citi- 
 zens of age. Another was to restrict representation to the white popu- 
 lation in states which should refuse to colored citizens the right of suf- 
 
1230 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 frage. And still another prohibited from holding office all persons who 
 had taken an oath to support the constitution of the United States, and 
 had subsequently engaged in insurrection or rebellion. 
 
 To these proposed amendments, the southern members and the 
 northern members of the opposition party, with few or no exceptions, 
 were opposed. The effect would be to exclude from the national legis- 
 lature the representatives of eleven states. It would be unjust to these 
 states to require them to bestow upon colored men the right of suffrage, 
 and, in case of refusal, to suffer the penalty by loss of representation. 
 Also the denial of some twenty-five representatives to these states would 
 relatively increase the representation of the northern states. Opposition 
 was made to the disqualification of rebels who had participated in the 
 rebellion, and who had previously taken the oath to support the consti- 
 tution of the United States ; which disqualification was to continue until 
 removed by a two-thirds vote of each house of congress. Nor did the 
 provision discriminate between those who had been compelled to go into 
 the rebellion and those who went into it voluntarily. 
 
 There were a few republicans who were not in favor of all the condi- 
 tions prescribed as requisite to the readmission of these states, but re- 
 garded them as having resumed, imder the president's guidance and 
 action, their functions of self-government in the union. They would not 
 coerce states into the ratification of these amendments; nor did they 
 think the constitution gave the right to impose such conditions of repre- 
 sentation. They believed, however, that none but loyal men who could 
 take the oath prescribed by congress should be admitted, and that all 
 others should be held disqualified ; and that the freedmen of the South 
 should be given all the rights of citizens in courts of law and elsewhere. 
 
 The debate on the proposed amendments was carried to a great 
 length. The joint resolution for the amendment originated in the 
 house, and was amended during its progress. It was returned from the 
 senate with amendments, which, June 13, 1865, after much discussion, 
 were concurred in* by the house — yeas, 120; nays, 32; not voting, 32. 
 
 The proposed Article contained five sections: 1. All persons born or 
 naturalized in the United States are declared citizens, whose privileges or 
 immunities shall not be abridged, and who shall not be denied equal 
 protection of the laws. 2. Representatives are to be apportioned ac- 
 cording to the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians 
 not taxed. But in case the right to vote for electors of president and 
 vice-president, representatives in congress, the executive and judicial 
 officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, shall be de- 
 nied, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the propor- 
 tion which such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male 
 
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT. 1231 
 
 citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. 3. No person sliall be 
 a representative in congress, or presidential elector, or hold any office, 
 civil or military, under the United States or any state, who, having pre- 
 viously taken an oath as a member of congress or officer of the United 
 States, or as member of a state legislature, or as an executive or judicial 
 officer of a state, to support the constitution of the United States, shall 
 have engaged in rebellion against the same, or have given aid or comfort 
 to the enemies of the same. But congress may, by a- vote of two-thirds 
 of each house, remove such disability. 4. The validity of the 
 public debt, including that incurred for payment of pensions and soldiers' 
 bounties, shall not be questioned. And all debts and obligations in- 
 curred in aid of the rebellion, or any claim for the loss or emancipation 
 of any slave, is to be held illegal and void. 5. Congress shall have 
 power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation. 
 
 The first section provides only for the civil equality of the colored 
 people. A large portion of the republican members were in favor of in- 
 cluding POLITICAL equality, by bestowing the right of suffrage. From 
 the unsubdued feeling still manifested in the South, and the apparent 
 indifference to the welfare of the freedmen and the improvement of their 
 social condition, it was thought due to those who had helped to save the 
 republic, to invest them with this right, as their only means of protec- 
 tion. This was accordingly provided for in the second section. The 
 second section, it was said, did not deny the South a single right. It 
 was deemed unjust to allow those states a representation on their entire 
 population, when only about one-half were really represented. It was 
 in effect clothing a southern rebel with twice as much political power as 
 a northern loyalist. The exclusion from office proposed by the third 
 section, of those who had plotted rebellion and violated their oaths to 
 support the constitution, was considered just. Such men were not to be 
 trusted. The fourth section was necessary to prevent the repudiation 
 of the public debt, to insure the payment of the pensions and bounties 
 of soldiers and sailors, and to guard the loyal people against taxation to 
 pay the expenses of an effort to destroy the government. The necessity 
 of the fifth article is self-evident ; but it may be questioned whether the 
 simple power to enforce the provisions of the article is sufficient to in- 
 sure the enforcement. It is held that, by a refusal to exercise the power 
 conferred, some of the provisions may be rendered nugatory. 
 
 On the 24th of July, 1866, a joint resolution for the restoration of 
 Tennessee to her former relations to the union, having been passed by 
 both houses, was signed by the president. The preamble declared that 
 the law-making power only could restore the state ; that the people of 
 that state had, on the 22d day of February, 1885, adopted a constitution 
 
1232 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 declaring the abolition of slavery in the state, and had ratified the two 
 amendments of the federal constitution. The president, in a message ac 
 companying the resolution returned with his signature, dissented from some 
 of these declarations, particularly the sole right of congress to restore 
 the states. Governments had been previously fonued in these states in 
 accordance with his policy, and had a right to admission. His approval 
 of the resolution, however, was not to be construed as an acknowledg- 
 ment of the right of congress to pass laws preliminary to the admission 
 of duly qualified representatives of any state. 
 
 At the session of 1866-1867, efforts were again made to reconstruct 
 the rebel states. On, the 6th of February, 1867, Thaddeus Stevens, 
 (Rep.) of Pennsylvania, reported, in the house, a bill for the more effi- 
 cient government of the insurrectionary states." The bill provided that 
 these states be divided into five military districts to each of which was 
 to be assigned a military officer not below the rank of brigadier-general, 
 aided by an adequate military force to enable him to discharge his 
 duties. He was to protect all persons in the rights of person and prop- 
 erty ; to suppress insurrections and disorders, and to punish disturbers of 
 the public peace. Offenses might be tried by civil tribunals ; or, if he 
 judged it necessary, he might organize military tribunals for that pur- 
 pose. This bill did not propose a plan of reconstruction, but seems to 
 have been designed chiefly to secure the rights of the people, and to 
 preserve order until some permanent reconstruction should have been 
 adopted. This bill passed the house, Feb. 13 ; yeas, 108, all republicans; 
 nays, 55, of whom 15 were republicans. 
 
 This bill, called the " military reconstruction bill," was taken up on 
 the 15th in the senate, where the Blaine amendment, which had been 
 rejected in the house, was moved as a section of the bill. It provided 
 that, when the proposed 14th article of amendment to the constitution, 
 adopted by the XXXIXth congress shall have become a part of the 
 constitution, and when any confederate state shall have conformed its 
 constitution and laws to the same, and conferred the elective franchise 
 upon all its male citizens of age, it shall be entitled to representation in 
 congress. It was said, in favor of the measure, that it only enabled the 
 general of the army to carry out the dying purposes of Abraham Lincoln, 
 and the early presidential purposes of Andrew Johnson. It was not 
 intended as a measure of reconstruction, but as a necessary adjunct to 
 the bill. 
 
 In the senate, Feb. 16, 1867, the bill was taken up. An amendment, 
 proposing, to adopt the Louisiana bill, was negatived, also the Blaine 
 amendment. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, then offered a substitute, retaining, 
 however in great part, most of the provisions of the original bill ; yeas, 
 
MILITARY RECONSTRUCTION BILL. 1233 
 
 32 ; nays, 3. An amendment offered by Mr. Doolittle, " that no sen- 
 tence of deatli under the act should be carried into execution without 
 the approval of the president," was adopted ; and the bill was passed ; 
 yeas, 28; nays, 10 ; not voting, 13. 
 
 The house, on the 19th, disagreed to the senate amendments, by a 
 vote of is to 98. The bill, with some amendments, was sent to the 
 senate, where the amendments were concurred in the next day [20th]. 
 In the house, the same day, an amendment was adopted, providing that, 
 until the rebel states should be admitted to representation, their civil 
 governments should be provisional only, and subject to the paramount 
 authority of the United States ; and that in the election of officers under 
 such provisional governments, all male citizens of age should be entitled 
 to vote ; and that no person should be eligible to office who was dis- 
 qualified under the provisions of the third article of the constitutional 
 amendment. 
 
 This amendment was concurred in by the senate after a protracted 
 debate and the rejection of one or two proposed amendments ; yeas, 35 ; 
 nays, 7 ; not voting, 10. The bill was sent to the president for his con- 
 sideration, and returned with his veto. »After the veto was read, it was 
 passed over the veto, by more than the requisite two-thirds of both 
 houses. 
 
 Among the reasons assigned by the president for the veto, are the 
 following : The bill places the people of the ten states therein named 
 under the domination of arbitrary rulers. It declares that there are in 
 them no legal government and no adequate protection to life or prop- 
 erty ; whereas, each of them has all the powers of a free state. The 
 fifth section declares that the preceding sections shall cease to operate 
 when certain events shall have happened — when delegates to a state 
 convention are to be chosen, negroes shall be allowed to vote ; the right 
 of suffrage shall be secured to negroes and all white men not dis- 
 franchised for rebellion or felony ; negroes to vote on the ratification of 
 the constitution ; the constitution to be submitted to congress for ap- 
 proval ; the adoption of a certain amendment to the federal constitu- 
 tion by a sufficient number of states to make it a part of the constitu- 
 tion. AU these conditions must be fulfilled before the people of any 
 state can be relieved from the bondage of military domination ; but 
 when fulfilled, the pains and penalties of the bill are to cease, whether 
 there be peace and order or not, and without reference to the security 
 of life or property. He also objected to the nature and powers of the 
 courts, civil and military. 
 
 Notwithstanding the large vote by which the biU was passed, few 
 members in either house were satisfied with all its provisions ; but most 
 52 
 
1234 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of them voted for it because they had no hope of securing a better one. 
 Perhaps a majority concurred in the views of a friend of the bill ex- 
 pressed as follows : 
 
 " As to the military provisions of the bill, they amount in substance 
 to this : the president is clothed with power to maintain order and 
 protect loyal men from outrage and murder in the South. He is to 
 select the commandants in the several districts ; to instruct them in their 
 duties ; to supemse their official actions ; and to revise their judgments. 
 What chance is there of wrong and oppression ? Are not these pro- 
 visions needed ? Read Pike's report on the murder of the three union 
 soldiers on the Savannah River, the escape of these murderers from 
 justice through a writ of habeas corpus issued by Judge Hall, and the 
 general satisfaction with which their return was gi-eeted by their ex- 
 rebel neighbors. Who, then, will say that the punishment of such 
 murders can safely be left to the local authorities of the South ? Again : 
 Negroes have been killed there since the surrender of the rebel armies. 
 Negroes have killed whites, and have been punished therefor, as was 
 right. We know that whites have killed many negroes, and have not 
 been punished. In not a single instance, we believe, has a rebel slayer 
 of a negro been arrested, tried, convicted, and punished, by the local 
 authorities at the South. The ex-rebel whites will not — at all events, do 
 not — punish the assassins of union soldiers or of negroes. Why, then, 
 object to the military features of the bill ? 
 
 " Now as to reconstruction : What is to be gained by the South from 
 a veto ? If this were the beginning of a controversy, it might be well to 
 veto by way of taking an appeal from congress to the people. But the 
 appeal has been taken. It was boldly made by the president a year 
 ago ; and the verdict is overwhelmingly against him. The people have 
 decided that the terms of reconstraction shall be settled by their repre- 
 sentatives in congress. If it was right to make the appeal, how can it 
 be wrong to abide the decision ? The XLth congi-ess is already chosen, 
 and its political character fully decided. It will be quite as radical as the 
 present. The South will gain nothing by delay. 
 
 " Look at the fifth and sixth sections of the bill, and note that they 
 recognize and legalize the existing state government at the South, though 
 as " provisional governments only ; " but who ever contended that the/ 
 were more ? This act legalizes all that has been or may be done by 
 those governments, except that which congress may expressly overrule ? 
 Is this nothing ? The bill authorizes the South to reconstruct herself in 
 a certain way, but commands nothing, compels nothing. The exclu- 
 sions and disfranchisements stipulated are temporary, and will be re- 
 mitted whenever we shall have fully returned to order and peace." 
 
MEETING OF THE FORTIETH CONGRESS. 1236 
 
 Pursuant to previous decision, the XLth congress met on the 4th of 
 March, immediately after the adjournment of the XXXIXth congress. 
 The reasons for holding a session at so unusual a time, were doubtless the 
 unsettled condition of the Southern ^tates and other circumstances 
 growing out of the war. These reasons are thus set forth by a promi- 
 nent friend and advocate of the reconstruction policy of congTess : 
 
 " The XXXIXth congress had a difficult work to perform. It took 
 up the affairs of the nation just as a great war was closing. Its first 
 duty was to pay and discharge an army of a million men. Its attention 
 was next turned to a yet more difficult task. This was to protect loy- 
 alty in the rebel states ; to prevent the freedmen ft-om being reduced to 
 serfdom ; to undo what the president had done during the nine months 
 which intervened between the adjournment of the XXXVIIIth congTess 
 and the meeting of the XXXIXth. It found a policy of reconstruction 
 in force which it had not been consulted in, and could not sanction. It 
 found every rebel state controlled by rebels, and the freedmen subjected 
 to laws framed to keep them in practical slavery. On the first day of 
 the first session, rebel representatives attempted to take part in its legis- 
 lation ; and, at the doors of the capitol, for weeks afterward, pardoned 
 rebels, encouraged by the executive, demanded admission as a right. 
 Its first act was to keep these men out ; its second, to frame a system 
 for the protection of the freedmen and loyal men. It enlarged the 
 powers of the Freedmen's Bureau, and made the Civil Rights bill a law. 
 Independently of the protection these measures afforded, they gave to 
 congress practical control of the rebel states, otherwise removed from its 
 jurisdiction of the state governments organized by order of the presi- 
 dent. If in this session an ineffectual attempt was made to establish a 
 basis of reconstruction by the passage of the constitutional amendment, 
 we need not now regret the rejection of that measure by the rebel states, 
 or its comparative failure in the North. Sheltered by the power, and 
 patronage, and sympathy of the executive, the South chose to decline 
 ■with contempt the too generous offer of congress. A new duty was 
 thrown upon it. Instead of resting on its rejected proposition, it pro- 
 posed to deal yet more efficiently and thoroughly with the remains of 
 the great rebellion. 
 
 " In its first session, congress proceeded upon grounds of expediency. 
 It rose in the second to the assertion of a gi-eat principle. The capital of 
 the nation was redeemed by the law which extended to all citizens the 
 right of suffrage, without respect to color ; and in the territories all laws 
 which proscribed citizens on account of race and color were repealed. In 
 the reconstruction act which congress made a law before it ceased to be, 
 it declared universal suffrage the principle upon which the union shall be 
 
1236 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 reorganized. It oflEers this to the rebel states as the condition upon 
 which representation may be won, and the crimes of treason and rebel- 
 lion forgiven. This is its great and crowning work after two yeai's of 
 agitation, discussion and delib%ation. The body expires tendering it 
 the most thorough approval, and with the most resolute expectation that 
 its successors will abate no jot of its demands." 
 
 In the senate, that body was called to order by Mr. Wade, (Rep.) of 
 Ohio, president pro tern., in the chair. The new members were sworn 
 in, including John W. Thayer and T. W. Tipton, senators elect from the 
 new state of Nebraska. 
 
 In the house, Mr. McPherson, clerk of the house of the XXXIXth 
 congress, called the house to order, and proceeded to call the roll of 
 members of the XLth congress. Mr. Wilson, (Rep.) of Iowa, moved 
 that the house now proceed to the election of a speaker. Mr. Brooks, 
 (Dem.) of New York, rose and said : " I perceive, from the printed list 
 of members, that there are seventeen states unrepresented, ten of which, 
 although on the list, have not been called by the clerk." Mr. Brooks, 
 at some length, argued against the constitutional right of congress to as- 
 semble another without a proclamation of the president ; and he entered 
 a solemn protest, prepared by himself and his friends, against any further 
 revolutionary actions, on the part of the house, until the full congress 
 should be assembled. Naming, in a preamble, the seventeen states not 
 represented, among which seven — New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Con- 
 necticut, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia — were of 
 the original thirteen that, in 1787, met in convention and created the 
 constitution of the United States, they declared : " We, members elect 
 of the XLth congress, do now enter our most solemn protest against any 
 and every action tending to the reorganization of the house until the 
 absent seats be made fully represented." Signed by thirty-one members. 
 
 The clerk said he declined to receive any paper of that sort, or any 
 other matter pending the organization of the house. His duties were 
 clearly defined under the law. Organization was the first duty. Mr, 
 Wilson said that body had assembled in pursuance of law. That such 
 was the case was recognized by the gentleman from New York, by his 
 presence here, and those associated with him, and who had signed the 
 paper which he had read to the house in their presence. He seemed to 
 have forgotten that for more than four years ten of the states named by 
 him had waged war against the government. The fact had not been 
 forgotten by the people nor their representatives here assembled. Mr. 
 W. would not attempt to review the precedents the gentleman had 
 cited in connection Avith extra sessions of congress. This was not an 
 ,extra session ; it was the first regular session of the XLth congress, con- 
 
MB. Sumner's resolutions. 1237 
 
 vened in pursuance of law. The house proceeded to the election of 
 I speaker. Mr. Wilson nominated Schuyler Colfax ; and Mr. Nicholson, 
 (Dem.) of Delaware, nominated Samuel S. Marshall, of Illinois. Mr. 
 Colfax received 127 votes; Mr. Marshall, 30. This was Mr. C.'s third 
 election as speaker. Edward McPherson was again elected clerk of the 
 house. 
 
 The reconstruction of the southern States, which had been so prolific 
 a subject of debate for two years, was far from having been completed. 
 Even before the new congress had been fully organized, the unfinished 
 work was resumed. In the senate, March 5, 1867, Mr. Sumner, (Rep.) 
 of Mass., gave notice of a bill designed " to guaranty a republican form of 
 government in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Flor- 
 ida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, and to pro- 
 vide for the restoration of those states to practical relations to the 
 union." Mr. Wilson, (Rep.) of Mass., on the 7th of March, introduced 
 a bill supplementary to the act " to provide for the more efficient gov- 
 ernment of the rebel states, passed the 2d of March, and to facilitate 
 restoration." On the same day, Mr. Henderson, (Rep.) of Missouri, gave 
 notice that he would ask leave to bring in a bill designed to organize 
 civil governments in the ten unrepresented states. Mr. Sumner, on the 
 15th, offered resolutions declaring certain further guarantees required in 
 reconstruction of the rebel states. 
 
 Scarcely had the discussion of Mr. Sumner's resolutions commenced, 
 when the senate received from the house a bill which had already passed 
 that body " supplementary to the act to provide for the more efficient 
 government of the rebel states, passed March 2, 1867, and to facilitate 
 restoration." This bill from the house was referred to a committee, and 
 reported back with an amendment, which was to strike out all after the 
 enacting clause and insert a substitute ; the principal provisions of which 
 were as follows : 
 
 Section first required a registration, in each district, of the voters 
 therein, being male citizens twenty-one years of age, each of whom was 
 to swear or affirm that he was not excluded from the right to vote by 
 the act of March 2d, and that he would support the constitution and 
 obey the laws of the United States. Section second provided for the 
 election of delegates to a convention to form a constitution and civil 
 government ; the delegates to be loyal to the union and thirty days pre- 
 vious notice to be given of the day of election. Section third presciibed 
 the manner of conducting the election, making returns, notifying the 
 delegates of the time and place of holding the convention, submitting 
 the constitution to the voters for ratification, etc. Section fourth re- 
 quired a copy of the constitution, after its ratification, to be transmitted 
 
1238 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 «by the president of the convention to the pi'osident of the United States, 
 to be by him transmitted to congress ; and if it should be declared by 
 congress to be in conformity to the act to which this is supplementary, 
 the state should be declared entitled to representation. Section jifth 
 required elections to be by ballot ; and all officers making registration of 
 votes and conducting elections to take the oath prescribed by the act of 
 July 2, 1862. Section s/^c^A required the expenses incurred under this 
 act to be paid out of the state treasury. Section seventh provided that 
 each convention should prescribe the fees or salary of its officers. Sec- 
 tion eighth, that the word " article " in the sixth section of the act of 
 March 2d, should be construed to mean section. 
 
 After considerable debate, the bill, with several amendments not 
 affecting materially its leading provisions, passed the senate March 16, 
 by a vote of 38 to 13, and was returned to the house, where it was 
 further amended. After it had passed the revision of a committee of 
 conference, it passed the senate ; and the amendments were concurred 
 in by the house, March 19, 1867. It was sent to the president for his 
 approval, and on the 23d, returned with his veto. It was subsequently 
 passed over the veto ; in the senate, by 40 votes for, and 7 against the 
 bill ; 6 senators not voting. The vote in the house was 114 to 25 ; and 
 25 not voting. 
 
 The following were among the president's objections to the bill : 
 Only those whose names shall be on the registration list may vote. To 
 ascertain who are entitled to registration, reference must be made to the 
 original act and the pending bill. The original act provides that voters 
 shall be white male citizens who have resided in the state for one year. 
 None can be registered who are disfranchised for having aided in the 
 rebellion ; but it is left undetermined what amounts to rebellion. The 
 person to be registered must make oath that he has not been disfran- 
 chised for taking a part in the war. This compels him to decide for 
 himself, under the peril of punishment by a military commission, if he 
 makes a mistake as to what works disfranchisement. Almost all — negroes 
 as well as whites — did, voluntarily or involuntarily, in some way, partici- 
 pate in resistance to the lawful authority of the general government. 
 The commanding generals of the districts are only required to be loyal 
 men ; but they may be military men or civilians, residents of the state 
 or strangers, and are invested with almost unlimited discretion. Ade- 
 quate provision is not made for errors or fraud in the elections. Under 
 the numerous exceptions of these laws, the great body of the people may 
 be excluded from the polls, and from voting for delegates who will faith- 
 fully reflect their sentiments. 
 
 After the supplementary bill had been returned to the house with 
 
SUPPLKMENTARY BILL PASSED. 1239 
 
 amendments it was still further amended in tlie house. One of these 
 amendments was to add to the oath, that the person taking it had never 
 held a legislative, execative, or judicial office in any state, and afterward 
 engaged in insurrection against the United States. The amendment 
 was concurred in. Another required the votes of a majority of the 
 " registered " voters, instead of a majority of the persons voting, to 
 adopt the constitution. But should all opposed to the ratification refuse 
 to vote, the adoption might be defeated. Mr. Wilson, of Ma^s., said : 
 " Who to-day are opposing reconstruction upon the terms we have pro- 
 posed ? The old rebel chiefs and leaders. Howell Cobb was here weeks 
 ago, and went home to Georgia, and advised the people to have nothing 
 to do with it. It is so in other states." After some further debate, 
 the amendment was lost; yeas, 21; nays, 24; and 8 not voting. A 
 proposition to require the votes of at least half of the registered voters 
 was also non-concurred in. A fourth amendment of the house was the 
 addition of a proviso, That if any person shall knowingly and falsely 
 take an oath prescribed in this act, he shall be subject to the pains and 
 penalties of perjury. This was concurred in. 
 
 A committee of conference to wliom the subject was referred, re- 
 ported, that the state constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the 
 votes cast, provided that it shall appear that a majority of the registered 
 voters voted on the question of ratification. And a clause was added, 
 that congress must be satisfied that all the registered voters had an 
 opportunity to vote freely and fairly without fear of interruption, and 
 that the constitution meets the approval of a majority of the qualified 
 voters. With these amendments the bill was passed. 
 
 The reconstruction act having been passed, a number of motions for 
 the adjournment of congress were made by members of both bodies. It 
 was proposed to adjourn to the first Monday of December; to the 15th 
 of October; to the first Monday of November; and to the first Monday 
 in June, and on that day, unless otherwise ordered by the two houses, 
 to the first Monday in December. After several other propositions were 
 disposed of, it was agreed by both houses to adjourn to the first Wed 
 nesday in July. 
 
1240 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER C. 
 
 THE FORTIETH CONGRESS CONTINUED. SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUC- 
 TION BILL. VIOLENT DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. THE PRESIDENT'S 
 
 COURSE FIERCELY ATTACKED AND DEFENDED. 
 
 The XLtli congress, pursuant to adjournment, met on the first Wed- 
 nesday [3d] of July, 1868. There were present 35 senators, of whom 
 but one was a democrat. In the house there were, on the first day, 127 
 members, of whom but four were democrats. There being a quorum 
 in each house, the business of the session commenced. 
 
 In the senate, Mr. Sumner argued against limiting the business of 
 congress to the passage of an amendatory reconstruction act. Mr. Wil- 
 son offered an amendatory bill. Mr. Sumner introduced a bill abolish- 
 ing in all the states political distinctions on account of color. 
 
 Mr. Drake introduced a bill providing for the removal of civil officers 
 in the rebel states, for the appointment of successors by the district 
 commanders, and for the readmission of the states. Mr. Edmunds in- 
 troduced a bill in explanation of the reconstruction act, declaring the 
 military authority paramount in the South. Mr. Frelinghuysen pre- 
 sented a similar bill ; and a resolution was passed requesting the pres- 
 ident to furnish copies of all instructions and correspondence under the 
 reconstruction acts. The senate adjourned to Friday, after arguing in 
 caucus to confine its work to the passage of a declaratory bill. This 
 agreement was earnestly opposed, on Friday, by Mr. Sumner and others, 
 who contendea that the senate could not pei'form its duty under such a 
 limitation. After a protracted debate, the resolution was adopted, by a 
 vote of 23 to 9. 
 
 In the senate, July 8th, pursuant to instructions before the adjourn- 
 ment in March, the judiciary committee, by Mr. Trumbull, reported a 
 supplementary reconstruction bill. The necessity of this legislation 
 arose out of what was conceived to be a misconstruction of the recon- 
 struction acts passed at a former session of congress. Properly inter- 
 preted and carried out, this additional legislation would perhaps have 
 been unnecessary. The occasion which gave rise to these acts was this : 
 Congress believed that no legal government existed in the rebel states, 
 and that these states were still properly subject to military control. 
 This was the theory upon which congress acted. This was the evil 
 
AMENDATORY RECONSTRUCTION BILL. 1241 
 
 which it was designed to remedy ; and these reconstructicvn acts were 
 intended to furnish the machinery for inaugurating proper civil gov^ern- 
 ments in these states, and for restoring them to their legitimate positions 
 in the union. Six years before, these state governments had been over- 
 thrown by force of arms ; and the armies had taken possession of these 
 states and set up hostile governments in them. They raised armies, and 
 sought to maintain their hostile attitude. Loyal authority was utterly 
 overthrown. The government crushed out these inimical governments, 
 in overthrowing the enemy. In the spring of 1865, the rebel states had 
 no civil government ; the governments that existed before the war had 
 been extinguished. Now, as a necessity resulting from this conflict of 
 arms, our military had control over the people of these states. Why ? 
 Because there was no other government there. Of course the enemy 
 government could not be tolerated, because, at an expense of thousands 
 of millions of money, and hundreds of thousands of lives, we had de- 
 stroyed it. The enemies of the government had destroyed the legiti- 
 mate governments. Then, to prevent anarchy and preserve the peace, 
 our military commanders had authority to control temporarily the people 
 they had conquered. This was a vast conquest ; it was the overthrow 
 of the enemy's government ; and the authority of our armies to govern 
 them by the power of the general and soldiers was just as complete in 
 Carolina as in California when we conquered it from the Mexicans. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull thought it would be generally admitted, that the mili- 
 tary had authority to preserve the peace, and to govern the country as 
 far as necessaiy for that pui'pose until civil governments could be estab- 
 lished. The military power should not be continued longer than is 
 necessary to the restoration of civil government in those states ; but how 
 long, was to be decided by circumstances of which the sovereign govern- 
 ment, congress, was to be the judge, not the executive nor the judicial 
 tribunals. This military authority was continued for a time by the pres- 
 ident, and rightfully continued, in the absence of any legislation by 
 congress ; and he undertook to inaugurate civil governments in tliose 
 states. Had these governments been managed by men true to the 
 country and loyal to the flag, this whole question would have been 
 settled long ago. But unfortunately, the enemies of the country, the 
 veiy men who had set up the hostile governments, which it had cost so 
 much money and blood to overthrow, took possession of the now govern- 
 ments ; and congress, when it assembled, finding that the president had 
 withdrawn the military powers, and left these governments in the hands 
 of the men who had controlled them during the war, decided that they 
 were not legal governments, but provisional merely ; not absolutely null 
 and void, but existing by sufferance only. Congress then proceeded to 
 
1242 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 declare that the military power should be restored, and continued until 
 civil governments could be established. Mr. T. then adverted to the 
 opinion of the attorney-general, which he considered in some respects 
 preposterous ; and, in conclusion, he explained the provisions of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Wilson regretted that the committee had reported the section of the 
 bill which authorized the commanding generals to remove civil officers, 
 instead of reporting a section vacating all civil offices in the South. He 
 accordingly moved to amend the bill by striking out the second section, 
 and inserting, in lieu thereof, a section vacating all civil offices in the 
 rebel states, and authorizing the military commanders to fill them by 
 appointments or re-appointments. Most of these officials were disloyal 
 men. There were no military officers in the South to detail for civU 
 duties, as provided in this bill ; and if there were, it would not be proper 
 to use them for that purpose. The operation of the military bill, he 
 eaid, had been good ; but to insure success, the friends of the country 
 should be put into the civil offices. It was not true that there were not 
 loyal men there to hold these offices. There were plenty of them aU 
 through those states. 
 
 After further debate, the question was taken on Mr. Wilson's amend- 
 ment, and disagreed to ; yeas, 11 ; nays, 21. 
 
 . In the house, Mr. Stevens, of Pa., reported the bill above mentioned. 
 The following is a summary of its provisions : 
 
 Section 1. Declares the governments of the rebel states to be illegal 
 and void, and, if continued, to be subject, in all respects, to the author- 
 ity of the district commanders and of congress. 
 
 2. The commander of a military distiict may, if necessary, remove 
 or suspend any municipal or state officer, and appoint another in his 
 place. 
 
 3. The boards of registration in the several districts shall admit to 
 registration only such persons as are entitled to be registered by the acts 
 to which this is supplementary. 
 
 4. No civil court shall have jurisdiction of any action or proceeding, 
 civil or criminal, against any district commander or other person acting 
 by his authority. 
 
 6. No district commander shall be relieved from the command as- 
 signed to him under the acts aforesaid, unless the senate advise and 
 consent thereto, or unless cashiered or dismissed from the army by sen- 
 tence of court-martial, or unless relieved by his own consent. 
 
 6. The time for completing the registration may be extended by order 
 of the district coiamauders to any day prior to 1st of October, 1867. 
 
 As the subject was supposed to be well understood by the house, Mr. 
 Stevens thought discussion to a great extent unnecessary, and trusted it 
 
MILITARY RECONSTRUCTION BILL. 1243 
 
 would not be deemed harsh for him now to demand the previous ques- 
 tion. Mr. Wood, of N. Y., appealed to the gentleman from Pennsylva- 
 nia not to deprive the minority of an opportunity to discuss the bill. 
 They desired some chance to enter their protest and to present to the 
 house and to the country their reasons for voting against the measure. 
 Mr. Eldridge, of Wis., wished to make a suggestion. This is the third 
 bill which has been introduced into this bouse on this subject within the 
 last few months. The necessity, if any exists, for the passage of this 
 bill, arises from the fact that no proper discussion was allowed on the 
 last preceding bill. It is now said that bill was not understood. Meas- 
 ures abolishing the constitution, doing away with all civil power within 
 ten states of this union, are rushed through under the previous question ; 
 and session after session of this congress is called to correct the errors of 
 this course of procedure. He trusted such would not be the case with 
 this bill. Mr. Stevens gave notice that at half-past one, the next day, 
 he should ask for a vote on the bill. 
 
 Mr. Mungen, of Ohio, said the bill seemed to be devised to rivet more 
 firmly the chains of bondage upon the white men of the South ; to de- 
 grade them, and to elevate the negroes to a position of equality and fra- 
 ternity ; and to prevent the people of the South, who, like the laboring 
 classes of the North and West, are borne down by the burden of taxa- 
 tion, from having a vote in the government, while the bondholders and 
 the wealthy nabobs are, through what is called " New England " ideas, 
 ruling the South, the West, and the North, with a rod of iron. The 
 bill did not seem to have been got up with any reference to the consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Mr. Brooks, of N. Y., said, that in a time of peace, a martial bill is 
 introduced, full of pains and penalties, as if we were amid the very roar 
 of cannon, or in the clash of squadrons of infantry and cavalry. The 
 destruction of courts and of all civil law is proposed. The only other 
 war existing is one of those peaceful wars between the democratic and 
 some other ever opposing party, when now the anti-democratic party, in 
 order to keep itself in office, and to keep us out, overrides, obliterates, 
 tramples under foot ten states of our union and the twelve million peo- 
 ple that dwell in them. Mr. B. cited an opinion of Chief Justice ChaSe, 
 " Where peace exists, the laws of peace must prevail." But here, in a 
 time of peace, there is embodied in this bill almost every article of the 
 laws of war — a bill which subverts the constitution, and violates the 
 guarantee which secures to every state of this union a republican form 
 of government. Mr. B. spoke at length, on the unconstitutionality arid 
 the anti-republican character of the bill. He said he would rather lose 
 his life a thousand times than live under the government of these five 
 
1244 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 monarchs as established by the infamous principles of this infamous 
 bill. 
 
 Mr. B. also deprecated the passage of the bill in its effect upon the 
 southern people. It would be far better for that land, from the Potomac 
 to the Rio Grande, to be as it was one hundred and fifty years ago, a 
 howling wilderness, than be subjected to the amalgamation of races which 
 was proposed in the bill. Our country was now made up of many dif- 
 ferent races ; but you have selected the least intelligent, the poorest 
 informed, except the Esquimaux ; you have selected the African to share 
 with you copartnership in this government, while your own wives and 
 children, your minor boys are shut out from the right of suffrage. It 
 was impossible, he said, for these two races ever to live together on 
 terms of intimacy and friendship. There was storing up for them the 
 elements of awful strife which would produce a perpetual conflict of races. 
 
 One race, said Mr. B., was superior to another. No fiat or authority 
 could bring down the Caucasian to the African, nor bring up the Afri- 
 can to the Caucasian. Experiments had shown that governments of 
 mixed races could never succeed. It was proposed to mix and mingle 
 the twelve millions in the Southern states. The most ignorant, the 
 most uneducated, the most brutish of the population are to have abso- 
 lute control in boards of registration or through the ballot-box. It 
 needed not the eye of prophecy, or skill of divination, to foretell the 
 effect of such a crime as this, for all history showed what had been its 
 effect, and what it would be hereafter. 
 
 Ml-. Wood, (Dem.) of N. Y., said : At the close of the war President 
 Johnson, doubtless from proper motives, essayed to restore the rebel- 
 lious states to their proper relations to the federal government. He 
 issued proclamations, appointed provisional governors, and threw the 
 mantle of protection over that people. Though there might be a doubt 
 as to the power of the president to furnish officials for the local govern- 
 ments of states, yet what he did was from patriotic and philanthropic 
 motives. This was the condition of matters on the assembling of the 
 XXXIXth congress in December, 1865. Everything remained in an 
 unsettled state, and continued so until the act of March 2, 1867. In the 
 meanwhile those people were without protection, law, order, or govern- 
 ment. On the 2d of March, 1867, congress passed the act to which it 
 is now proposed to add an amendment. We are told that this session 
 of congress would have had no existence except for the fact that the 
 provisions of that act have been wrongfully construed by the law 
 officer of the government. He [Mr. Wood] thought the act was not 
 difficult of construction, and stated some of its principal provisions, wliich 
 ivere not liable, in this respect, at least, to the objection made to the act. 
 
DEBATE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 1245 
 
 Congress adjourned ; and immediately the present congress commenced 
 its session. 
 
 It was soon discovered that there were defects in the machinery by 
 which the registers were to be made up and the voting was to be done. 
 To remedy these defects, the act of March 23d was passed. Congress 
 adjourned. These generals had been appointed, and had repaired to 
 their several departments. They soon diflEered among themselves in the 
 construction of the provisions of the act. The president asked for a 
 construction of the law by the law olficer of the government. Was there 
 anything wrong in the president's doing this ? Had he acted on his own 
 judgment, and demanded that these military ojfficers should execute the 
 law according to his understanding of its intent, what would have been 
 said in that case ? Upon the opinions of the attorney-general the presi- 
 dent has acted. The present session has been called in consequence of 
 these opinions. Resolutions have been introduced aiming to ridicule the 
 attorney-general. No one attempts to prove these opinions contrary to 
 the spirit and letter of the law. We are told that this is a usurpation of 
 power ; that the president, through- his attorney-general, is determined 
 to throw obstructions in the way of reconstruction ; and hence is fur- 
 nished the pretext upon which this measure is reported to the house. 
 Mr. W. criticised some of the provisions of the bill. It declares that 
 those governments were null and void ; yet the act of March 2d does in 
 letter recognize them as existing through provisional existence. The 
 act was not intended to abelish the regulations for the protection of life 
 and property. All the municipal regulations for this purpose were re- 
 cognized. Mr. W. also questioned the power of these generals to remove 
 or suspend from office any municipal or state officer. The constitution 
 explicitly declares that the president shall appoint subordinate officers. 
 When a commanding general removes a state officer and appoints an- 
 other, the appointee becomes a federal officer, because he is appointed 
 by an officer who obtained his appointment from the president of the 
 United States. Mr. W., after some further remarks deprecating the 
 enormous powers to be exercised in these governments, powers which no 
 monarch in Europe, Asia, or Africa, would dare to exercise, exhorted 
 the friends of the bill to make its provisions so plain that there could be 
 no doubt as to their intent. 
 
 Mr. Stevens, (Rep.) of Pa., closed the debate. He confessed that a 
 small portion of the blame for the acts of the president since congress 
 adjourned, was chargeable to the use of improper language in the bill, 
 and that it was owing to an indistinct knowledge of the condition of the 
 country which we are legislating for. If we had all agreed as we have 
 since agreed, that the states lately in rebellion were conquered territory ; 
 
1246 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and if we had treated them accordingly, we should have had little troa- 
 ble in reconstructing their governments upon the principle of the ad- 
 mission of new states. We were not all perfectly prepared for it in our 
 understanding of the law of nations ; nor was it wonderful that we had 
 been thus wandering in our views. Some 12,000,000 inhabitants 
 claimed that they no longer belonged to this union ; they set up an in- 
 dependent government ; they formed all the machinery of a government, 
 both of a state and a national government. Under that national govern- 
 ment they raised large armies to defend their pretensions. When we 
 declared a blockade, we admitted them to be, not an independent nar 
 tion, but an independent belligerent, rising above an insurrection, and 
 entitled to all the privileges, and subject to all the liabilities of an inde- 
 pendent belligerent. The nations of Europe so treated them ; we so 
 treated them. In short we were then at war as two independent na- 
 tions. It depended upon the conqueror whether he would treat the one 
 that was vanquished after the war as a vagabond nation, or whether he 
 should pvinish him for violation of the sovereign rights of the nation in 
 addition. We conquered. What did we conquer ? We conquered the 
 confederate government, and all the states forming it — a government 
 which, by its own declarations, owed no allegiance to the government of 
 the United States. That they should thereafter pretend that they had 
 one right under the constitution which they had thus repudiated and at- 
 tempted to destroy, and that they were still states within the union, as 
 asserted by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Eldridge], looks to me 
 like a bald absurdity. Yet that was the doctrine of the president — the 
 doctrine which gentlemen were here fighting about. We declared them 
 conquered provinces, and we treated them under military law. 
 
 The law in reference to provinces conquered from an independent bel- 
 ligerent or from a foreign nation, is, that the territory conquered is gov- 
 erned by military power, by the commander-in-chief of the army, who, 
 in this case, was the president until the legislative power of the nation 
 should have directed what laws should govern. But when the legisla- 
 tive power of the nation interposes, the military authorities cease ; and 
 the commander-in-chief has no more to say in it than a corporal in the 
 ranks. He has to say and to do just what the legislative power orders 
 him to say and to do ; nothing else. Mr. S. had no fault to find with 
 his maintaining military rule as commander-in-chief of the army. But 
 he had assumed legislative powers ; he had assumed to establish govern- 
 ments, to appoint civil officers, and to require that that conquered terri- 
 tory should receive back precisely the constitution of the United States, 
 with all the privileges they ever had. No part of that came within the 
 power of the commander-in-chief of the army. The military officers 
 
DEBATE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 1247 
 
 sent as commanding in these states were simply appointed as agents of 
 congress. True, originally the bill provided a military supervision sim- 
 ply, and we had intended to follow it up with a law putting reconstruc- 
 tion into the hands of civilians. If congress chose to take them from 
 the army and assign them to that duty, they then became agents of con- 
 gress, and neither the president nor any person under him had a right to 
 interfere. It was plain that congress alone had the power to reconstruct 
 and admit these states. The constitution of the United States, he said, 
 did not apply to any territory or conquered province. One thing is 
 clear, that territory not yet declared by congress to be in a state of peace 
 or restoration, is under the military authority of the government ; and 
 any tribunal constituted by the military authority, any court-martial, 
 could try any one who had belonged to the belligerent forces. 
 
 The bill, with the amendments previously offered by Mr. Wilson, of 
 Iowa, and Mr. Benjamin, and the modification made by Mr. Stevens's 
 fifth section, was passed, 119 to 31 ; not voting, 18. 
 
 The bill was sent to the senate for concurrence, where it was amended 
 by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting another bill in 
 lieu thereof. The bill was said to be substantially about the same aa 
 the house bill. It was proposed by members to pass it without referring 
 it to a committee ; but it was finally agreed to refer it to the committee 
 on reconstruction. This committee reported back to the house the 
 senate amendment with several amendments. 
 
 Mr. Wood, (Dem.) of N, Y., wanted a bill which there would be no diffi- 
 culty in understanding;; he wanted the question now disposed of at once 
 and forever. He wanted the states back in the union, even under the 
 conditions which congress is dis])Osed to impose upon them. He did 
 not wish to examine the details of the bill ; but he believed it contained 
 scarcely a section about which honest men might not differ as to its 
 meaning. In one section it refers to municipal officers, in another to 
 state officers. In one section it says the commanding generals may do 
 certain things ; in another it provides that only the general of the army 
 may do those things. There is confusion, uncertainty, and doubt, which 
 even a Philadelphia lawyer could not unravel. He hoped, therefore, that 
 whatever was adopted might be made intelligible and plain. 
 
 Mr. Eldridge, (Dem.) Wis., said the gentleman from N. Y. finds diffi- 
 culty in understanding this bill ; and cong^-ess has had some difficulty in 
 understanding it. I will suggest to him that he offer an amendment 
 that will cover the whole case conclusively ; and that is an amendment 
 proposing to abolish the constitution and all the laws of the United 
 States, and the constitutions and laws of these ten states. That would 
 make the matter entirely clear, and do away with all difficulty. 
 
1248 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Wood. The gentleman from Wisconsin is an old fogy. He 
 ought to know that the constitution of the United States has been obso- 
 lete for some time. 
 
 Mr. Eldridge. I want it declared to be obsolete, that gentlemen here- 
 after shall not refer to it. 
 
 Mr, Robinson, (Dem.) of N. Y., said a short time ago, during the present 
 congress, gentlemen [designating Messrs. Stevens, Bingham, and Butler], 
 and gentlemen from every state in the union then represented here, voted 
 the sympathy of the American people with the people of Ireland, suffer- 
 ing under cruel wrongs and oppressive laws inflicted upon them by Eng- 
 land. But here are ten states with a population twice as numerous — our 
 own territory, our own people, our own flag, enduring oppression such 
 as no British government ever attempted to force upon Ireland. Have 
 we not heard that a military governor, under a law now to be made 
 more stringent and despotic, has removed municipal and state oflScera 
 without trial or any given reason ? Has not a military governor stopped 
 a civil procession till they procured and consented to carry a certain flag, 
 and to salute that flag ? During the seven centuries of British misrule 
 in Ireland, no military commander ever dared remove from oflfice with- 
 out accusation and trial, even an alderman of Cork, or Dublin, or any 
 other Irish city. And though the Irish people had cursed the British 
 flag, no military governor or tyrant dared to ask them to carry that flag 
 in any of their processions. 
 
 Mr. Kelley, (Rep.) of Pa., by permission of Mr. Robinson. I beg 
 leave to say to the gentleman from Ireland [la^jghter] that, no longer 
 ago than yesterday, I introduced on this floor a very devoted son of the 
 Emerald Isle, who has been for some years a naturalized citizen of the 
 United States and a resident of North Carolina, who appealed to the 
 members to whom I introduced him, to overthrow, by express letter, 
 everything in the form of government in the South, save the laws of 
 congress as administered by the military commanders ; and he presented 
 to us the argument that the very life was being crushed out of every 
 loyal man by the pretended state and local governments. Nine out of 
 every ten of the Irish American citizens there look to congress to pro- 
 tect them from oppression greater than they endured in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I doubt not there are a thousand Irishmen living under 
 British rule, who would appeal to the British parliament, if introduced^ 
 on its floor, to overthrow, by express letter, everything but British rule 
 in Ireland as administered by her Castlereaghs and Derbys, and would 
 present that the very life would be crushed out of every loyal man, if 
 the Fitzgeralds and Emmets and O'Briens had succeeded in overthrow- 
 ing British role in Ireland. Not one in ten of the loyal men in Ireland, 
 
DEBATE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 1249 
 
 who feed and fatten on the patronage of British rule in that starving 
 country, could be found who does not look to the British parliament to 
 protect them from the calamity of granting to Ireland her rights and 
 liberties. Mr. R. continued his speech at considerable length, inter- 
 spersed with brief colloquies with republican members. In the coarse 
 of his remarks, he took occasion to defend the course and character of 
 the president. He said : " There is one in our list of presidents, who is, 
 and I trust ever will be, supreme in the affections of the American peo- 
 ple. Upon his pinnacle of glory he now stands, and there let him stand 
 forever. With that one exception, perhaps without exception at all, no 
 one of our presidents could have stood the searching investigation Avhich 
 Andrew Johnson has successfully endured from this energetic committee. 
 That investigation has proved that he is the purest man, with that one 
 exception, who ever occupied the presidential chair. I doubt whether 
 the household of George Washington or of Thomas Jefferson or of any 
 other than that of his own, could have stood the ordeal. Mr. R. charged 
 the committee with keeping an attendant to hunt up information for 
 them, descending to visit haunts of perjury and crime and convicts' cells, 
 to see if any one can be found to be bribed or suborned to testify against 
 the executive head of the nation ; eavesdropping and keyholing around 
 the back entrances of the White House, and kneeling to its scullions to 
 see what the president eats or drinks, or what he does before he goes to 
 bed. 
 
 Mr. Broomall. I must raise the question of order, that the gentle- 
 man's remarks are not relevant to the question under discussion. 
 
 The Speaker. The chaii did not like to check the gentleman from 
 New York, who seems disposed to take a wide range ; but he does not 
 see what relevancy the examination of the scullions of the White House 
 has to the military reconstruction bill. 
 
 Mr. Robinson continued his speech, further eulogizing the president, 
 and again giving occasion for calls to order. 
 
 Mr. Logan, (Rep. ) of Illinois, said : Mr. Speaker : It was not my in- 
 tention to take any part in this debate ; but I cannot consent to sit and 
 listen quietly any longer to such extraordinary speeches as hsA'C again 
 and again been uttered on this floor within the last few days. If the 
 wisdom of the policy of excluding the South from a representation in 
 this hall had ever cost me a doubt, it could never cost me another. More 
 earnest advocates of their political theories, and more eloquent apologists 
 for their darkest crimes, traitors have not spoken, not in the South or 
 elsewhere than they have here. A resolution blotting out the constitu- 
 tions of the United States and the respective states, is recommended by 
 one gentleman, who evidently means thereby to intimate that this house 
 79 
 
1250 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tas already destroyed everything like fundamental law in the land, and 
 trampled ruthlessly in the dust the liberties of the people. 
 
 Mr. Eldridge. That is what I thought and what I mean. 
 
 Mr. Logan. I so understood the gentleman ; and the thought oc- 
 curred to me at the time, that it was strange, passing strange, that the 
 gentleman did not discover, during those four years of blood and car- 
 nage, through which the true friends of humanity, liberty, the constitu- 
 tion and the union had to pass to deliver them from inipending destruc- 
 tion, who it was assailing them then. 
 
 Mr. Eldridge. Will the gentleman yield? 
 
 Mr. Logan. I decline. Why did it not occur to him, when mighty 
 armies of brave men, commanded by skillful generals, were hovering 
 around this devoted city, spurning our country's flag, mocking our pa- 
 triotic professions, insulting loyal citizens, ignoring private rights, and 
 perpetrating public outrages, that the constitution, the union, and 
 liberty, were in danger then ? Why does he wait till the war is over, 
 the constitution no longer in peril, and all those who stood finnly by it 
 are attempting to devise the most politic means to restore to this whole 
 land permanent and healthful tranquillity and prosperity ? 
 
 Mr. Eldridge. Does- the gentleman desire me to answer his question? 
 
 Mr. Logan, No sir; one interruption encouraged invites another. 
 Is it not strange, I repeat, that the same gentlemen who are now so easily 
 alarmed about the perils of the constitution and the liberties of the peo- 
 ple, while peace is smiling upon us, saw no terror in the glitter of bay- 
 onets or the frown of batteries, when our beloved land was swarming 
 with millions of open enemies, and the earth was trembling under the 
 martial tread of serried hosts, and the loud roar of angry artillery ? Then, 
 when there was war, they could raise the cry of " peace, peace ;" and 
 when peace has at last come, they aver it has not come, but that we are 
 still in the midst of a bloody war, a war upon the constitution and liber- 
 ties we fought to save. " Treat your southern brethren kindly ; win 
 them by affection," is the cry of the democracy. Our dead, I suppose, 
 are to sleep in forgotten graves, while the rebel slain must be apothe- 
 osized ; *and we who fought with and survive the brave boys in blue, are 
 to be stigmatized with opprobrious epithets, while the traitors who 
 thirsted for our blood are to be meekly and sweetly called " oui! 
 brethren." 
 
 The truth is, the great wrong that discomfited democracy feels deep- 
 est is, that the people at home neither feel nor think that there ought to 
 be northern rebels enough in this house to let southern rebels in. The 
 next greatest wrong they have to complain of is, that the men who had 
 the pluck to stand by those who had to fight our country's battles, pre- 
 
PRESIDENT Johnson's veto. 1251 
 
 sumptuously aspire to make our laws. The people will never require us 
 to fight on one principle and legislate on another ; to shed our blood on 
 the field, and then come here to make apologies for it to men who 
 wanted us whipped. No man has a right to claim a seat on this floor 
 who did not dare, during the war, to stand openly by and claim the 
 protection of the flag that floats over this capitol. This government can 
 have no enemies in the South half as much to be dreaded as that whin- 
 ing northern friend who would clothe with power to-morrow the man 
 whose blade was drawn to stab the constitution and the union but yes- 
 terday. When the South can be loyally represented oh this floor, upon 
 the basis proposed by congress, the problem of reconstruction will cease 
 to vex the discussions of this hall. 
 
 Mr. L. maintained that the only true plan of reconstruction was by 
 virtue of an organization of military governments ; and the principal ob- 
 jection he found in the bill now pending was, that it did not state ex- 
 plicitly enough that the governments of these states were entirely de- 
 stroyed by the treason and rebellion of the people, and that no legal civil 
 governments had existed there since. 
 
 Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said this debate had taken a range whol- 
 ly unexpected. He had supposed a few gentlemen would discuss the 
 merits of the bill, and that a vote would then be taken. He did not feel 
 at liberty to extend the time ; and if the house agreed with him, he 
 would withdraw the motion to recommit, and, before calling the previous 
 question, ask gentlemen if they have amendments to offer. Many amend- 
 ments were offered, most of which were adopted ; and the question was 
 taken on the senate amendment as amended, and passed; yeas, lllS; 
 nays, 32; not voting, 25. 
 
 CHAPTER CI. 
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON VETOES THE BILL. ITS PASSAGE. SUMNEr's BILL 
 
 FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF RACES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 ADJOURNMENT OF THE SUMMER SESSION. FALL SESSION OF THE FOR- 
 TIETH CONGRESS. OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION OF THE TENNESSEE 
 
 DELEGATION. STEPS TOWARD IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 The senate having disagreed to the amendments of the house, a com- 
 mittee of conference was appointed, whose report was agreed to by both 
 houses in the house, by a vote of 112 to 22 ; not voting, 36 : in the 
 
1252 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 senate, 31 to 6 ; absent, 16. It was sent to the president, and by him 
 returned with his veto, July 19, 1867. 
 
 After the reading of the veto message, a brief discussion was had, in 
 which — 
 
 Mr. Boutwell, of Mass., said : The language of this document con- 
 vinces me of that of which I had but little doubt before, that from the 
 oppression which, through the instrumentality of this man, has rested 
 upon twelve million people, and which has been only temporarily re- 
 moved by the measures against which the president in this document 
 vainly protests, there is no relief except in the assertion of that great 
 power which resides in this house alone. And for the neglect to exer- 
 cise that power, the people of the country will hold us to a strict ac- 
 count. Posterity, not intimidated by the fears which seem to control 
 us, will render its stern verdict against us If we hesitate to arraign the 
 president for the crimes and misdemeanors of which he is guilty before 
 the country and the world. It is in vain that you seek by legislation to 
 protect the freedmen of the South, to institute loyal governments in that 
 region, or to infuse justice into the public policy of ten states, while the 
 executive authority of the country, the command of the army and the 
 navy, the power of nominating to office, are in the hands of Mr. 
 Johnson. 
 
 He declares that he will never willingly surrender the power of the 
 chief executive ; that it rests with him alone to see that the laws are 
 faithfully executed, and that he will never consent to their execution 
 through any other instrumentality or agency. If there be any bearing 
 in this document, it is that he will not execute this law though we pass 
 it by the constitutional two-thirds majority, which is the substitute for 
 the executive signature, which makes it as much a law as though he had 
 willingly given it his assent. 
 
 Once for all, I say for myself, that a man who, by the exercise of un- 
 constitutional authority for twelve or eighteen months, encouraged war 
 and rapine and bloodshed throughout ten or eleven states of the union ; 
 that a man who, by his authority 'alone, has, as appears by the public 
 record, declared that he would set at naught your laws which enact that 
 no man shall be appointed to office, or receive the pay or emoluments of 
 any office, until he had taken the oath prescribed by the law of 1862 ; 
 that the man who deliberately, intentionally set aside that law, and ap- 
 pointed men to office, and, by illegal processes, procured for them compen- 
 sation for services in those offices, knowing, when he appointed them, 
 that they could not take the oath without adding perjury to the other 
 crimes then resting upon their souls, at once provokes and demands the 
 highest and gravest duty of this house. 
 
DEBATE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 1253 
 
 Mr. Butler, (Rep.) Mass., protested, in the name of this house and the 
 people against the executive calumny, in the declaration in an official 
 paper, which, by the constitution, we must enter upon our journal, that 
 congress has, by its action, fastened a despotism upon twelve million 
 people more intolerable than was ever conceived of to be borne by any 
 other people. Either that is true, or it is false. If true, we are unwor- 
 thy of our places here ; if false, the man who makes the charge ought 
 not to hold his place an hour longer than the necessary steps can be 
 taken to remove him from it. He charges also that congress has de- 
 clared these rebel governments illegal with one breath, and sustained 
 them as valid with another. He instances several occasions where we 
 have spoken of these states in our legislation as states, and then argues 
 that we have affirmed their legal existence as states in this iinion. The 
 answer is that this has been done only as a matter of convenience in re- 
 organizing these forfeited governments, and in restoring their rights lost 
 in war. Mr. B. answered several other allegations of the president ; one 
 of which was, that no part of ^hese southern states ever became the 
 property of the United States by conquest. He averred that every foot 
 of land repossessed by the power of our arms from the armed control of 
 our public enemies, belongs to the United States as a conquest ; and to 
 say that the title by conquest only pertains to personal property is to 
 ignore the entire law of nations. 
 
 Mr. Butler noticed other assertions in the veto message which he con- 
 sidered misstatements of facts and wrong conclusions of law ; and he 
 would vote for the bill, notwithstanding the objections of the president, 
 and leave it to him to execute it or to refuse to do so, as he threatens. 
 
 Mr. Boyer, of Pennsylvania, said the president had not in his message 
 said or intimated that he would resist any act of congress after it shall 
 have become a law ; nor that he would be unwilling to execute it. He has 
 declared, however, that he will not willingly surrender the constitutional 
 powers which are vested in him as president of these United States. 
 
 Mr. Pruyn, (Dem.) of New York, proposed to say nothing about the 
 merits of the bill in general, but to notice some of the extraordinary 
 things which have developed themselves in the senate. I agree with the 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens], as to those first principles 
 which lie at the foundation of international law to which he has referred. 
 But the difficulty in regard to the question before us is this : In the 
 XXXVIIIth congress the gentleman announced what I believed a start- 
 ling position, that by reason of the proclamation of the president, the 
 war had become a war of nationalities ; that henceforth it was a struggle 
 between two great nations ; and that the conquering party had a right 
 to do with the conquered what it pleased. After the first battle of Bull 
 
1254 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Run, congress- declared that it was a war to enforce the provisions of tlie 
 constitution, acknowledged the rights of the states, and declared that 
 when the struggle should be terminated, these states should be restored 
 to their relations to the union. 
 
 Mr. Stevens : A single word in regard to the condition of the country. 
 The president asserts what, if true, makes out all the rest of his argu- 
 ment legitimately. He says the constitution is theoretically operative in 
 all the conquered states. If that be true, then all we have been doing is 
 rank usurpation, and all he has been doing is legitimate action. I deny 
 that the constitution is any more in operation in any of those states than 
 it is in a territory. Not all of our statesmen and judges, learned as they 
 are, seem to have looked sufficiently deep into the law of nations to 
 understand the true condition of a conquered people. How long would 
 it take to refute all that has been said against our absolute power over 
 these provinces as conquered belligerents, whose whole property we own 
 and may dispose of as we please ? A slight examination, if his excel- 
 lency will begin and patch up his knowledge upon this subject, will be 
 sufficient. One page of Grotius, one-half chapter or lecture of Ruther- 
 foi'd, one page of Vattel, and even less from that last, best, and 
 tersest of publicists, Sargent Wildman, must convince every unprejudiced 
 man in regard to the states being of a mongrel character, part in and 
 part out of the union, that they are conquered territory of the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. S. then called the previous question. But several gentlemen suc- 
 cessively asked and obtained his consent to speak five or ten minutes. 
 The question was then taken upon the passage of the bill, notwithstand- 
 ing the veto, and was decided in the affirmative ; yeas, 108 ; nays, 25 ; not 
 voting, 33. 
 
 On the same day, July 19, 1867, the joint resolution of the house "to 
 carry into effect the several acts providing for the more efficient govern- 
 ment of the rebel states, and appropriating for that purpose the sum of 
 $1,000,000, was returned to the house, with the veto of the president. 
 It was passed over the veto, 100 to 22 ; not voting, 48. In the senate 
 the vote was 32 to 4 ; absent, 17. 
 
 In the senate, July 19th, Mr. Sumner called up his bill to amend the 
 charter of the city of Washington, providing that " in the District of 
 Columbia no person shall be excluded from any office by reason of race 
 or color." 
 
 Mr. Hendricks, (Dem.) of Indiana, said the senator from Massachu- 
 setts was the author of the proposition that the colored peop.e should 
 vote. He made the commencement of that policy with the District of 
 Columbia. He now claims — and I believe his friends have come up to 
 
JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE. 1255 
 
 his position — that that is to be made universal throughout the states. I 
 sui^pose he will be frank enough to inform us whether it is intended as 
 the commencement of the policy, that negroes shall be allowed to be- 
 come ofBce-holders throughout the country ; whether he regards this as 
 the inauguration of that policy. He expressed, with much warmth, the 
 other day, the desire to see colored senators here in a short time. K 
 this is intended to be the policy, it is well enough to know it. 
 The bill was passed, 25 to 5; absent, 23. 
 
 On the same day a resolution was offered in the house, proposing an 
 adjournment the next day at noon. A resolution had. been previously 
 adopted for an adjournment till November. An adjournment without 
 day was opposed in both houses by some members, on the ground that 
 it would be unsafe to leave the execution of the reconstruction acts en- 
 tirely with the executive for four and a half months, till the meeting of 
 congress in December. The language of his veto message indicated an 
 intention not to execute them. Mr. Chandler, of Michigan, cited the 
 following passages: 
 
 " Within a period of less than a year, the legislation of congress has 
 attempted to strip the executive department of some of its essential 
 powers." * * * « While I hold the chief executive power of the 
 United States, while the obligation rests upon me to see that all the laws 
 are faithfully executed, I can never willingly surrender that trust or the 
 powers given for its execution." And, said Mr. C, he never will wil- 
 lingly surrender that power. He does not intend to execute your law ; 
 and yet you propose to go away, and leave him with the absolute power, 
 for four months and a half, to remove your commanders and nullify 
 your laws. 
 
 The two houses disagreeing on the question of adjournment, a com- 
 mittee of conference was appointed, and agreed to adjourn to the 21st 
 day of November. That day being within ten days from before the 
 commencement of the regular session, congress might as well adjourn 
 sine die. Said senator Howard, of Michigan : The necessity of a session 
 between this time and that will be greater than that which has heretofore 
 existed. The president says the constitution, in conferring the power to 
 see that the laws are executed, gives him " the choice of the agents, and 
 makes them subject to his control and supervision." He tells us in his 
 message, speaking of his power over the military commanders, that " it 
 is to be feared that these military officers, looking to the authority given 
 by these laws, rather than to the letter of the constitution, will recognize 
 no authority but the commander of the district and the general of the 
 army." I have seen nothing in any of the executive messages so mena- 
 'cing, so revolutionary, so unconstitutional and so treasonable, as is con- 
 
1256 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tained in the passage I have read. If there ever was a time when it was 
 the duty of congress to be in an attitude to check the progress of usur- 
 pation, this is the occasion. 
 
 The question on adjournment to the 21st of November, was decided 
 in the afRrmative : in the senate, lY to 14 ; not voting or absent, 22 ; in 
 the house, 60 to 45 ; not voting, 65. 
 
 Pursuant to adjournment on the 20th of July, 1867, congress reas- 
 sembled on the 21st of November. On the first day of the session, a 
 joint resolution pledging tlie faith of the United States to the payment 
 of the public debt in coin or its equivalent, was introduced by Mr. Ed- 
 munds in the senate. Similar resolutions were introduced by several 
 members of the house. 
 
 George W. Woodward, of Pa., and Samuel F. Gary, of Ohio, 
 members elect, were sworn into office. There were present also eight 
 members elect from the reconstructed state of Tennessee, who were 
 called. Mr. Eldridge, (Dem.) of Wisconsin, objected to Mr. Stokes 
 being sworn in, he being first called ; and Mr. E. moved that his creden- 
 tials be referred to the committee of elections for investigation. Mr. 
 Brooks, (Dem.) of N. Y., objected to the swearing in of the whole of 
 the Tennessee delegation, for two reasons : First, three of them, if not 
 more, have been guilty of treason to this government ; and one of them 
 has served in tlie secession legislature of Tennessee, and taken an oath of 
 allegiance to the confederate government. Second, there does not exist, 
 and did not exist, at the time of this election in that state, a republican 
 form of government such as is required by the constitution of the 
 United States to entitle a state to a representation. Mr. B. said he 
 grounded the substance of his argument upon the elective franchise law 
 of Tennessee passed in 1865. That state had bestowed the right of suf- 
 frage upon the colored people and disfranchised a large portion of the 
 white population. These members were elected by negro ballots; 
 45,000 white voters only voting ; 40,000 white voters being disfran- 
 chised under the law of the state. An oligarchy exists and reigns in the 
 state ; and that is not such a republican form of government as the con- 
 stitution prescribes. Mr. B. proposed two resolutions ; one against the 
 admission of all the members ; the other, that the certificates of Messrs. 
 Butler, Stokes, and Arnell, previous to their being sworn in, be referred 
 to the committee of elections. 
 
 As a reason for opposing the admission of Mr. Stokes, a letter written 
 by him after Mr. Lincoln had called out the 75,000 troops, in which he 
 disapproved that measure, and opposed coercion, believing that it was 
 better to recognize the independence of the southern confederacy, than 
 to attempt to coerce the states back. 
 
RECONSTRUCTION CONTINUED, 1257 
 
 Mr. Logan, (Rep.) of Illinois, said in support of Mr. Stokes, if any 
 man can wipe out a wrong, this man has done it, and done it well. For 
 two long years he traveled by my side, through the smoke of many a 
 battle on the side of the union army ; and if that wipes out an eiTor of 
 this kind, it applies with the greatest force to the case of Mr. Stokes. 
 But the gentlemen who are so charitable to the men who have fought for 
 years against the government, who would give them power to control 
 this vast country, have no charity for the men who fought side by side 
 with the union soldiers for the preservation of this country, when some 
 of you were publishing articles in papers that were treasonable to that 
 country. No wonder that gentlemen are so desirous that this man who 
 fought so faithfully for the union should be kept out of this house. As 
 to another member from Tennessee, the charge is based upon the jour- 
 nals of the confederate state legislature. I am willing to refer his cre- 
 dentials to the committee of elections to be investigated, as in the case 
 of the Kentucky members. Mr. Eldridge moved to refer the credentials 
 of Mr. Stokes to the committee, and that he be not sworn in pending the 
 examination and decision. 
 
 Mr. Dawes, (Rep.) of Mass., moved, as a substitute, that the creden- 
 tials of Mr. Butler be referred to the committee of elections, and that he 
 be not sworn in pending the investigation. He said : I understand the 
 gentleman from New York makes a charge in good faith, against the 
 loyalty of this gentleman who asks to be sworn in. At the last session 
 the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] took the position that no 
 charge of disloyalty was sufficient to exclude any person coming here 
 bearing the certificate of the governor of his state, but claimed that, how- 
 ever black in treason he might be, the house should first qualify him as 
 a member, and then, if it were able, to expel him by a two-third vote. 
 I congratulate the country and the gentleman from New York upon this 
 wonderful conversion. There is no parallel to it since the celebrated 
 journey to Damascus ; and I trust, with this encouragement before him, 
 he will continue journeying on till even he shall see more clearly than we 
 do now what constitutes loyalty and what disloyalty. He also takes the 
 position that it is proper for this house, upon a case made out, to look 
 into the status of a state of this union, and to decide for itself whether 
 that state government be republican in form or not. In this matter, 
 also, I congratulate him upon the wonderful advance he has made ; 
 and I am happy to stand with him and to vote with him. as I shall, 
 on the original motion he has made in reference to Mr. Butler, of 
 Tennessee. 
 
 The debate was continued at some length. Mr. Marshall, (Dem.) of 
 Illinois, in the course of his remarks, said : The whole state government 
 
1258 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of Tennessee as at present organized and administered is a disgrace to 
 the nation and to the civilization of the age. Union soldiers, who 
 fought in the union army in Tennessee, have been excluded from the 
 polls under the Brownlow usurpation, because they would not bow the 
 knee to the negro government which lords it over the white freemen of 
 that once noble state. 
 
 The amendments offered by Mr.. Brooks were disagreed to, and the 
 substitute of Mr. Dawes was adopted. The resolution thus amended, 
 was decided in the affirmative; yeas, 117 ; nays, 28 ; not voting, 29. 
 
 The debate on this question was not terminated by this vote. Soon 
 after the vote was taken. 
 
 The speaker remarked : If there be no objection, the remaining mem- 
 bers from Tennessee will now be sworn in — meaning, probably, all ex- 
 cept Mr. Stokes, whose letter of the 10th of May, 1861, had been read 
 as evidence of his disloyalty when the war broke out. The proceedings, 
 however, do not show that these members were not then sworn in. 
 
 Mr. Eldridge offered a resolution, that the credentials of Mr. Stokes, 
 with the letter alluded to, be referred to the committee of elections, and 
 that he be not sworn in pending the investigation. Mr. Brooks offered 
 a similar resolution, with papers designed to show that he had, in 1861, 
 declared himself, in a public speech, in favor of the rebel cause. It was 
 suggested by a republican member, that it be left to every member elect 
 to decide, according to his own conscience, whether he could take the 
 oath or not — that he had never aided or encouraged the rebelUon. This 
 suggestion seems to have met but little favor. Mr. Shellabargar (Rep.) 
 of Ohio, remarked, in reply : Let us, in the utmost good faith, hold up 
 the standard where the law has fixed it, and require that vigilance shall 
 be used to see that none shall be sworn in as members who can not take 
 that test-oath truthfully. 
 
 Republican members were taunted with having previously opposed the 
 admission of members from Kentucky whose case was similar to that of 
 the Tennessee applicants. 
 
 Mr. Butler, (Rep.) of Mass., pointed out the distinction between the 
 two cases. In the Kentucky case, the house settled the principle, that, 
 if a member upon his responsibility, or upon sworn testimony — necessa- 
 rily ex 2}arte, because no hearing had then been had — would charge a 
 member elect about to be sworn with present disloyalty — mark, present 
 disloyalty — the house, upon that showing, would refer that case to the 
 committee of elections. The case at the bar is a very different one. 
 The gentleman from New York does not say that he will vote for this 
 reference, or that he believes in the present disloyalty of the gentlemen 
 at the bar. He gives us nothing upon his responsibility ; he produces 
 
JUDICIARY REPORT ON IMPEACHMENT. 1259 
 
 no evidence; therefore tlie case is presented in a very different light. 
 But if the letter produced here were sworn to, it does not meet the pre- 
 cedent, because in the Kentucky case there was testimony of present dis- 
 loyalty. All that is shown is what was written and spoken in 1861, 
 leaving six years during which the gentlemen may have entirely i-epented 
 of any disloyal sentiment they may have entertained. The gentleman 
 from New York seems to think it impossible for any one to change his 
 political views. It would hardly seem possible that a man who was for 
 years a leader of the Know Nothing party persecuting Irishmen and 
 holding that every Irish vote was improper and anti-American, would, 
 after a few year^, be heard boasting in this house by what a majority of 
 Irish votes he could be returned in case he should be expelled for mis- 
 conduct. 
 
 After some further explanations in the case of some of the Tennessee 
 members, the resolutions were disagreed to, and the Tennessee members 
 with the exception of Mr. Butler, namely Messrs. Maynard, Stokes, Mul- 
 lins, Trimble, Arnell, Hawkins, and Nunn, were qualified by taking the 
 oath prescribed by law. 
 
 • In the house, Nov. 25, 1869, Mr. Boutwell, of Mass., from the com- 
 mittee on the judiciary, reported the testimony taken in relation to the im- 
 peachment of the president. The report charged him with the high crimes 
 and high misdemeanors alleged. A minority report also was made by 
 Mr. Wilson, (Rep.) of Iowa, and Mr. Woodbridge, (Rep.) of Vermont, 
 who declared, that the testimony did not disclose such high crimes and 
 misdemeanors, within the meaning of the constitution, as require the in- 
 terposition of the power of this house ; and they recommended the 
 adoption of a resolution discharging the committee from the further 
 consideration of the proposed impeachment, and that the subject be laid 
 upon the table. 
 
 • Mr. Marshall, of Illinois, and Mr. Eldridge, (Dem.) of Wisconsin, 
 members of the committee, concurred in the resolution just offered by 
 the chairman of the committee, and in the argument presented by the 
 chairman in regard to the law governing the case. But on some points 
 there was a difference between them and their associates of the minority ; 
 and they asked to have their views separately printed. The majority 
 report and the two minority reports were ordered printed ; and the sub- 
 ject was postponed until the 4th of December, and made the special 
 order from day to day till disposed of. /">' '>'^f ,-''»l!('')- U ■ 
 
 On the 26th of November, a concurr6fitrei4oluti6ri wad' adopted, that 
 the president of the senate and the speaker of the house, do adjourn 
 44jeir respective houses without day on Monday, the 2d of December 
 next, at twelve o'clock, m. It will be seen that the adjournment was to 
 
1260 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 take place at the very moment when, according to custom, congress 
 commences its regular sessions. 
 
 The reason for running the first session of the XLth congress into the 
 second session, appears from a brief debate on the question of adjourn- 
 ment, in the senate. The resolution, which originated in the senate, 
 fixed the time to adjourn at 11.30 a. m. Mr. Sumner suggested "at 
 twelve o'clock," and gave his reason for adjourning at the precise time 
 when the next session was to commence : " The point in my mind is 
 just this : Will you leave to the president of the United States one-half 
 hour within which he may take advantage of the absence of congress, 
 and issue commissions which would then run perhaps — 'I do not under- 
 take to decide the point now, but which I say might run then to the last 
 day of the next session of the senate ? That may be mid-summer or 
 autumn ; we may not leave here before autumn. I take it that an ap- 
 pointment made during that interim of half an hour, might possibly be 
 valid to the last day of the next session of congress." Although some 
 did not think the amendment important, the proposed modification was 
 agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Sherman thought it unnecessary to adjourn. Why not allow the 
 two sessions to merge ? Why not let this session go on and expire by 
 the limitation fixed by the constitution ? 
 
 Mr. Trumbull was indiflierent as to the time of adjourning sine die ; 
 but he protested against any such reason as was advanced here in the sen- 
 ate. While we have a president, he said, I am for treating him as presi- 
 dent; and I will not anticipate his doing some terrible thing during five 
 minutes between eleven o'clock and fifty-five minutes next Monday, and 
 twelve o'clock. Let him take the consequence of his acts. Let us do 
 our business and adjourn without reference to rumors about the town 
 that a certain thing is to be done or not to be done. The adjournment 
 was made at the time fixed, twelve o'clock, when the second session of 
 the XLth congress commenced. 
 
 The reader is aware that although the existence of each congress com- 
 mences on the 4th of March, every second year, its first regular session 
 does not begin until the first Monday of December following. This con- 
 gress, without being convened in extra session on the call of the presi- 
 dent, met immediately after the adjournment of the preceding congress, 
 on the same day, and sat during three short periods before the first 
 Monday of December, the day fixed by the constitution for the com- 
 mencement of the first regular session of each congress. The three 
 short periods of service commencing on the 4th of March, the 3d of 
 July, and the 21st of November, are together called the first session ; and 
 
FEELING IN THE SOUTH. 1261 
 
 the session commencing at the time fixed by the constitution for con- 
 gress to convene in its first regular session, was called the second session 
 of the XLth congress. 
 
 CHAPTER CII. 
 
 STATE OF FEELING IN THE SOUTH.— THE JOHNSON-GRANT-STANTON IM- 
 BROGLIO. FULL ADMISSION OF ARKANSAS, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH 
 
 CAROLINA, LOUISIANA, GEORGIA, ALABAMA, AND FLORIDA. 
 
 Much dissatisfaction was caused by the removal of Gen. Sheridan 
 from the command of the 5th military district created by the act of 
 March 2, 1867. His district embraced the states of Louisiana and Texas, 
 the two most disloyal states. Hence, upon no other district commander 
 was imposed so weighty a responsibility. He had been appointed to 
 this trust just after the war, in May, 1865, by President Lincoln. With 
 an inadequate military, as was alleged by some, he had to enforce justice, 
 with the rebel states against him ; and yet he was said to have dis- 
 charged his dutid^ prudently and successfully. He had rendered signal 
 services to the country in the war ; and his friends resented this act of 
 the president, which, they believed, was intended to disgrace him. 
 He endeavored to reorganize the states under his command ; but he 
 preferred doing so upon the plan of congress as a basis, rather than 
 that of the president. This, it was presumed, was the cause of his 
 removal. 
 
 It was the expectation among the people of the North during the re- 
 bellion, that, if the cause of the union should prevail, the people of the 
 South would acquiesce in the result, and peace and fraternal feeling be- 
 tween the two belligerent sections of the union would soon be restored. 
 This consummation so devoutly wished, unfortunately had not yet been 
 fully reached. It soon appeared that the spirit of the rebellion had not 
 been subdued. A warm and decided opposition to the reconstruction of 
 the governments of the seceded states was for years maintained by the 
 leading men of those states, who were opposed to the plan of admitting 
 the colored population to an unrestricted participation in the government. 
 And the reorganization of those state governments was materially re- 
 tarded by the opposition in congress of a large portion of the northern 
 members, who were too conservative in their views to adopt the radical 
 
1262 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 policy of the majority. Anxious to effect the most speedy return of 
 those states to tlieir former place in the union, they were willing to 
 make important concessions to the demands of the South, where feelings 
 of hostility still rankled in the minds of the people, and found vent 
 through the southern press as well as in political conventions. This 
 hostility .was doubtless promoted by the course of the president, who 
 had assumed an attitude on this question favorable to the wishes of the 
 people of those states. 
 
 The following expression of southern sentiment appeared in the Wil- 
 mington Dispatch of December 18, 1866 : 
 
 "The people of the South are united as one man, in opposition to 
 the threatening policy of congress. They cannot be made slaves through 
 ignorance ; they cannot be held in subjection to tyranny. At the right 
 time, if the president stands firm in his purpose to protect the constitu- 
 tion, the check to the march of despotism and fanaticism will be given 
 by these forces combined. They will drive the usurpers from their seats 
 of power." * * * " There can be no reasonable doubt of the re- 
 sult. Already have the southern people given evidence of their capacity 
 as soldiers. With the North united against them, many of their own 
 people against them, no organized government to commence with, no 
 army, no navy, no resources, nothing to coalesce them but a principle, 
 and on that thousands refusing to stand, they kept up an u;ieven contest 
 for independence for four years with a valor unexampled, a fortitude un- 
 paralleled, and a determination unexcelled. In this approaching conflict, 
 for conflict there will be, if congress attempts to destroy the states, they 
 will have nearly half of the North as allies, and will be themselves united. 
 There will be no room for compromise after the first blow. There will 
 be no divisions of sentiment on the side of conservatism and freedom 
 and union. The conservatives will be animated by the most powerful 
 considerations. . They will fight to the knife, and then to the hilt." 
 
 A Memphis paper continued its proscription of union men of that 
 city, and published a black list of business men who were opposed to the 
 rebellion. It said : " From this time henceforth and forever, let every 
 true Southern man who was an ex-rebel, or whose son, brother, father or 
 kin was one — let him avoid the business houses of Wolcott, Snaith & Co. 
 and W. R. Moore. 
 
 Not a few, however, of the most honorable and distinguished citizens 
 of the South, cordially acquiesced in the results of the war. Governor 
 Orr, of South Carolina, who was a member of the constitutional conven- 
 tion in that state, in which were several colored members, made a speech 
 before the convention, in which he recommended an intelhgence test for 
 all voters, black and white, after 1871, and said: 
 
PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND GENERAL GRANT. 1263 
 
 " If I can contribute an\ thing to your deliberations, I will do so with 
 the extremest pleasure. I am not one of those who sneer at this con- 
 vention. I think this a convention of gravity. I think its deliberations 
 are of importance to the people of the state ; if you make a constitution 
 liberal, fair, and just, I pledge you my word I will advocate publicly its 
 ratification by the people of South Carolina. This brings me to say that, 
 in South Carolina, at least, there is no reason why any man, white or 
 colored, should be excluded from the privilege of voting or holding 
 office." 
 
 Others, after ample exhibition of sincere loyalty, received appoint- 
 ments to important public offices, the duties of which they discharged 
 with fidelity. 
 
 An interesting correspondence appeared in 1867-68, between Presi- 
 dent Johnson and General Grant. The latter, it will be recollected, had 
 been appointed lieutenant-general of the army of the United States^ 
 which office he held when he was appointed by the president to dis- 
 charge the duties, ad interim, of secretary of war during the suspension 
 of Edwin M. Stanton. The senate at its next session having decided 
 the reasons for the suspension to be unauthorized by law, Mr. Stanton 
 resumed the functions of his office. The question now arose whether 
 the lieutenant-general should obey the law or the orders of the president, 
 who, in violation of the tenure-of-office act, had removed Mr. Stanton, 
 professing to believe the law unconstitutional. 
 
 The general states that he distinctly told the president that the law 
 left him no discretion, and that, if the senate re-instated Stanton, he had 
 nothing to dp but acquiesce. The president undertook to argue the 
 question ; but the general says he left the president no room to doubt 
 his conception of duty, and made no promise to see him again. In a 
 second letter, drawn out by an order from the president to disregard the 
 orders of Stanton, Grant says he shall not disregard them until Stanton's 
 authority in the war department is limited or impaired by direct order 
 from the president. The president responds in a long letter, in which 
 he states that Grant did agree to have " further conference before surren- 
 dering the office." He says his desire was to keep Stanton out of office, 
 " whether sustained in the suspension or not," and that if he had known 
 Grant's purpose, he should have asked his resignation, or suspended him 
 by nominating a successor. The president sustains his statement by 
 citing the authority of members of the cabinet who were present. 
 
 General Grant replies in a sharp letter, charging that the president mis- 
 represents his action. He says : " You know we parted without any 
 promise, express or implied, to hold on to the office, or to notify you 
 before su^-endering it." He tells the president that he accepted the 
 
1264 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 place to keep out a secretary wlio would embarrass reconstruction, and 
 that lie is satisfied that it is the good of the country and not the office 
 that Stanton desired. He closes his letter thus : 
 
 " And now, Mr. President, when my honor as a soldier and my integ- 
 rity as a man have been so violently assailed, pardon me for saying that 
 I can but regard this whole matter, from beginning to end, as an attempt 
 to involve me in the resistance of law, for which you hesitated to assume 
 the responsibility, in order and thus to destroy my character before the 
 country. I am in a measure confirmed in this conclusion by your recent 
 orders directing me to disobey orders from the secretary of war. My 
 superior and your subordinate, without having his authority counter- 
 manded, I am to disobey." 
 
 The southern elections in the spring of 1868 indicated the speedy re- 
 construction of the seceded states. The new constitution of South 
 Carolina was adopted by a majority of about 45,000, and six republican 
 members of congress were elected. The state legislature was also repub- 
 lican ; and would probably elect two republican United States senators. 
 In North Carolina, the majority for the new constitution was about 
 38,000. In Georgia, the majority was about 15,000; and Bullock, the 
 republican candidate for governor was elected by about 7,000. Louisi- 
 ana'ratified her new constitution by about 18,000; elected republican 
 state officers and legislature, and three republicans out of four represen- 
 tatives to congress. Arkansas adopted the 14th amendment of the 
 constitution of the United States, and fulfilled all the conditions prece- 
 dent to full restoration, and was admitted the 2 2d of May. Louisiana 
 adopted her constitution by 17,000 majority. The impediments to the 
 admission of most of these states were not entirely removed until the next 
 year. The action of Congress concerning them may be briefly stated as 
 follows : 
 
 In the house, May 8, 1868, Mr. Stevens reported a bill to admit the 
 state of Arkansas to representation in congress. The preamble stated that 
 the provisions of the act of May 2, 1867, had been complied with, and 
 that the 14th article of amendment to the constitution had been ratified. 
 The bill, after discussion, passed the house, 110 to 32 ; not voting, 47. 
 It was amended in the senate ; a conference ensued, and the bill passed 
 in the senate, June 6th ; in the house, June 8th. On the 20th of June, 
 the president returned the bill to the house with his veto. He objected 
 to the bill because the approval of it would be an admission that the 
 reconstruction acts were proper and constitutional. If Arkansas is not 
 in the union, this bill does not admit it into the union ; if in the union, 
 no legislation is necessary to its admission. Also because it provided, as 
 a fundamental condition, that the constitution of the state sl|puld never 
 
,|v, 
 
 IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON. 1265 
 
 be so changed as to deprive citizens of the right to vote who are entitled 
 to vote by the constitution herein recognized ; which provision congress 
 had no power to impose upon the people of a state. He had several 
 other objections. It was passed the'same day by the senate over the 
 eto, and by the house on the 2 2d. 
 The states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, 
 Alabama, and Florida having, in pursuance of the provisions of the re- 
 construction acts, framed constitutions, and adopted them by large ma- 
 jorities of the votes cast at the elections, it was enacted that these states 
 be entitled and admitted to representation in congress, when their legis- 
 latures shall have ratified the 14th article of amendment. This bill also 
 was vetoed by the president, and subsequently passed over the veto by 
 both houses of congress. 
 
 CHAPTER CHI. 
 
 IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON. THE INITIATORY STEPS. THE 
 
 TRIAL AFTER A YEAR OF SUSPENSE AND DELAY. ARGUMENT OF MAN- 
 AGER LOGAN. 
 
 On the 7th of January, 1867, the initiatory step in the proceedings of 
 the house of representatives which resulted in the impeachment of An- 
 drew Johnson, president of the United States, was taken by Hon. James M. 
 Ashley, of Ohio. Mr. Ashley, on introducing a resolution, spoke as 
 follows : 
 
 " Confident that the loyal people of this country demand at our hands 
 the adoption of some such proposition as I am about to submit, I am 
 determined that no effort on my part shall be wanting to see that their 
 expectations shall not be disappointed. On my responsibility as a rep- 
 resentative, and in the presence of this house, and before the American 
 people, I charge Andrew Johnson, vice-president and acting president of 
 the United States, with the commission of acts which, in contemplation 
 of the constitution, are high crimes and misdemeanors, for which, in 
 my judgment, he ought to be impeached. I therefore submit the 
 following : 
 
 " I do impeach Andrew Johnson, vice-president and acting president 
 of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. I charge 
 him with a usurpation of power and violation of law : In that he has 
 80 
 
1266 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 corruptly used the appointing power : In that he has corruptly 
 used the pardoning power: In that he has corruptly used the veto 
 power : In that he has corruptly disposed of public property of the 
 United States : In that he has corruptly interfered in elections, and 
 committed acts which, in contemplation of the constitution, are high 
 crimes and misdemeanors : Therefore, 
 
 " Be it resolved, That the committee on the judiciary be authorized to 
 inquire into the official conduct of Andrew Johnson, * * * and to re- 
 port to this house whether, in their opinion, the said Andrew Johnson 
 lias been guilty of any act, or has conspired with others to do acts, 
 which, in contemplation of the constitution, are high crimes and misde- 
 meanors," etc., etc. 
 
 On the 29th of March, 1867, pending the question of ^adjournment, 
 Mr. Clark, (Rep.) of Kansas, submitted a resolution reciting the facts as 
 to the reference of the impeachment resolution to the judiciary commit- 
 tee at the last session, the report made subsequently, and its recommit- 
 tal to the present committee, declaring that it would be a failure of duty 
 on the part of congress to adjourn, and abdicate its control over the ad- 
 ministration of the government into the hands of an officer known to be 
 hostile to congress, and known to entertain the opinion that its acts are 
 unconstitutional, and therefore resolving on adjournment from Saturday 
 to the first Monday in June, for the purpose of receiving the report of 
 the judiciary committee, and take such action thereon as the interests of 
 the government might demand. 
 
 Mr. Woodbridge, (Rep.) Vermont, a member of the judiciary commit- 
 tee, said the committee had attended to its duties, and had made an 
 arrangement, that if the house adjourn now, to come together about the 
 first of May, and continue the investigation, 
 
 Mr. Wood, (Dem.) of New York, wished to know when the majority 
 of the house would cease this frivolous and aosurd agitation. If it 
 meant impeachment, why were not articles of impeachment made out, 
 and a vote taken? The committee had been agitating this subject for 
 nearly a year, and yet was not able to present anything except the lame 
 . and impotent conclusion of the report of last session. 
 
 Mr. Butler, (Rep.) of Mass., supported the idea of impeachment by 
 stating that an important piece of evidence had been laid before the 
 committee, showing that the president had, for political reasons alone, 
 pardoned 193 deserters from a West Virginia regiment, that they might 
 vote for the democratic candidate for congress. The result of the pardon 
 of this batch of deserters was to entitle them to claims to the amount of 
 $75,000, which would otherwise have been forfeited to the national asy- 
 lum for dibbled soldiers, of which he [Butler], was president of the 
 
ARTICLES OF' IMPEACHMENT. 1267 
 
 board of directors. He also stated that Col. Thomas B. Floi*ence had 
 received $1,000 for his services as intermediary in this matter. 
 
 Mr. Wood moved to lay Mr. Clark's resolution on the table, which 
 ■was disagreed to, by a vote of 52 to 56. Mr.Broomall, (Rep.) of Penn- 
 sylvania, moved a substitute for the resolution, providing for an adjourn- 
 ment until the first Wednesday in July. The substitute was adopted ; 
 yeas, 88 ; nays, 26. Mr. Clark's resolution was again offered, modified 
 so as to request the judiciary committee to report on the impeachment 
 question on the first day of an adjourned session, which was adopted. 
 The senate amendment to the adjournment resolution was then concurred 
 in, 53 to 45. It provided for an adjournment to the first Wednesday 
 in July, when, if no quorum of both houses should be present, the ses- 
 sion would be adjourned to December. 
 
 On Monday, the 3d of*March, 1868, articles of impeachment were 
 agreed upon by the house of representatives, and on the 5th they were 
 presented to the senate by the managers on the part of the house, who 
 were accompanied by the house, the grand inquest of the nation, as a 
 committee of the whole on the state of the union. Mr. Bingham, of 
 Ohio, chairman of the managers, read the articles of impeachment. 
 There were eleven in number, of which the following is a synopsis : 
 
 1. The removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary of 
 War. Iklr. Stanton had been duly appointed August 12, 1867 ; and, dur- 
 ing the recess of the senate, he was suspended from office by the presi- 
 dent. Within twenty days after the commencement of the next session 
 of the senate, the president reported to the senate the suspension with 
 the evidence and reasons for his action, and the name of the person de- 
 signated to perform the duties of the office until the next meeting of the 
 senate. The senate, after due consideration, on the 13th of January, 
 1868, refused to concur in the suspension; and, pursuant to the provis- 
 ions of the act of March 2, 1867, "regulating the tenure of certain civil 
 offices," Mr. Stanton forthwith resumed the functions of his ofiice, which 
 he continued to perform until the 21st of February, when he was re- 
 moved by order of the president, which order was unlawfully issued. 
 
 2. On the 21st of February, 1868, in violation of the constitution and 
 of the- act aforesaid, the senate being in session, he appointed Lorenzo 
 Thomas secretary of war ad interim, without the advice and consent of 
 the senate, when there was no vacancy in the office. 
 
 3. He unlawfully conspired with Lorenzo Thomas and other persons 
 unknown, with intent, by intimidation and threats, to hinder and prevent 
 Edwin M, Stanton from holding the oflSce aforesaid, in violation of the 
 constitution and the law. 
 
 4. He unlawfully conspired with Lorenzo Thomas to seize and possess 
 
1268 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the property of the United States in the department of war, and in the 
 custody of Edwin M. Stanton. 
 
 5. He has, by public speech declared, in substance, that the XXXIXth 
 congress was not a congress of the United States authorized by the con- 
 stitution to exercise legislative power under the same, but was a congress 
 of only a part of the states, therefore denying that its legislation was 
 valid or obligatoiy upon him, and denying to that congi-ess the power to 
 propose constitutional amendments ; and he afterward, in disregard of 
 his obligation to see the laws faithfully execiated, attempted to prevent 
 the execution of the " act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices," 
 and unlawfully devised and contrived means to prevent Edwin M. Stan- 
 ton from forthwith resuming the functions of his office, notwithstanding 
 the refusal of the senate to concur in the suspension ; and he attempted 
 to devise and contrive means to prevent the execution of " an act mak- 
 ing appropriations for the support of the army ;" and also to prevent the 
 execution of an " act to provide for the more efficient government of the 
 rebel states." 
 
 The managers chosen by the house from its members to conduct the 
 impeachment, were John A. Bingham, George. S. Boutwell, James F. 
 Wilson, Benjamin F. Butler, Thomas Williams, Thaddeus Stevens and 
 John A. Logan. 
 
 Counsel for the respondent were Henry Stanbery, B. E.. Curtis, Jere; 
 miah S. Black, William M. Evarts and Thomas A. R. Nelson. 
 
 The trial commenced on the 13th of March, 1868, and closed the 26th 
 of May. It is needless to state, that a detailed account of the proceed- 
 ings, which fill several volumes, cannot be given in this work. The most 
 that can be done is to present such portions of the arguments of counsel 
 on both sides as shall enable the reader to form an intelligent opinion as 
 to the innocence or gvlilt of the party accused. 
 
 Manager Logan, in his argument, asked if an officer could be im- 
 peached for any other than an indictable offense. He said the authori- 
 ties sustain the managers in asserting that he may be. And he cited, 
 in favor of this assertion, a number of authorities, American and English. 
 He said, in the course of his argument, that impeachment was not a pun- 
 ishment for crime. An officer may be impeached, technically, for a 
 crime, either by common or statute law; but he can not be punished 
 therefor as a part of the judgment of impeachment. He can only be 
 removed from office ; and his punishment, if any, is left to the ordinary 
 courts. * * * Will any one say, if the president should veto every ^ 
 bill that should pass the congress, and there be not a two-thirds vote 
 against his veto, and thereby defeat all appropriations, so as to block 
 the wheels of government, that he could not be impeached for im- 
 
ARGUMENTS ON IMPEACHMENT. 1269 
 
 proper use of said power, although he is authorized by the constitution 
 to use such power ? Here would be a case wherein the exercise of law- 
 ful power was done in such a way as to become so oppressive and 
 obviously wrong, that there must be a remedy ; and impeachment would 
 be the only one. 
 
 Having shown that a party can be impeached for offenses iiot punisha- 
 ble by statute law, he gave definitions of crimes and misdemeanors from 
 acknowledged authorities, from which to determine what culpability, if 
 any, attached to the acts of the president. A crime or misdemeanor, 
 says Blackstone, is " an act committed or omitted in violation of a public 
 law. This general definition comprehends both crimes and misde- 
 meanors, which, properly speaking, are mere synonymous terms ; though 
 in common usage the word crimes is made to denote such offenses as 
 are of a deeper and roore atrocious dye ; while smaller faults and omis- 
 sions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misde- 
 meanoi-s only. Private wrongs or civil injuries are an infringement or 
 privation of the civil rights which belong to individuals merely as indi- 
 viduals ; public wrongs or crimes and misdemeanors are a breach and 
 violation of the public rights and duties due the whole community, con- 
 sidered as a community in its social aggregate capacity. 
 
 " When the words high crimes and misdemeanors are used in prosecu- 
 tions by impeachment they have no definite signification, but are used 
 merely to give greater solemnity to the charge." 
 
 He cites another authority : " To misconduct is to misbehave ; to mis- 
 behave is to misdemean ; to misdemean is to be guilty of a misdemeanor — 
 nothing more — nothing less. This term is technical, signifying a crime : 
 lience it follows as a conclusion from these premises, that misconduct or 
 misbehavior, in its legal interpretation, can signify nothing less." 
 
 In relation to intention, Mr. Logan said. When the unlawful act is 
 shown, how do we gather the intention ? It can be done only from all 
 the circumstances surrounding the commission of the act. I believe it is 
 a rule, both in law and morals, that every man is presumed to intend the 
 natural and probable consequences of his own act. And are we to be 
 told that, in the case at bar, this violation of law carries with it no bad 
 motive ? that the law was broken merely to test its strength or constitu- 
 tionality ? Are the opinions of a man against the soundness of a law to 
 shield him from punishment for its violation ? This doctrine would jus- 
 tify every traitor in the land, believing that secession was no violation of 
 the constitution. And the accused claims as an excuse that he was ad- 
 vised by his cabinet ministers. This furnishes no justification or excuse 
 in law. Jefferson Davis, the great criminal of the rebellion, believed he 
 was doing no wrong in breaking the law, as it was his opinion that he 
 
1270 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 was maintaining a great principle. Adopt this new theory, and you 
 open wide the prison gates, and give safe conduct to every criminal in 
 the land. 
 
 Mr. L. thus noticed the respondent's defense to the first two charges : 
 The respondent admits the facts upon which the first charge rests, but 
 denies that they constitute an offense for which he is answerable to this 
 senate sitting as a court of impeachment. This denial involves two in- 
 quiries : 1. Had the president the power to remove the secretary of war, 
 under the circumstances, and by virtue of the constitution and the laws 
 as they stood prior to the passage of the tenure-of-ofiice act ? 2. Had 
 he the right to remove that ofiicer under the tenure-of-office act ? 
 
 It was gratuitous in this respondent to attempt, by his answer, to 
 purge himself of an intent to violate the constitution and laws. His an- 
 swer stands upon what he conceives to have been an undisputed preroga- 
 tive of the presidential office since the days of Washington, by virtue of 
 the constitution. If he was right, the motive, good or bad, can not 
 make him answerable ; if he was wrong, the motive follows. The inno- 
 cent violation of law is not supposable. If the president exercised a 
 rightful power, he must be acquitted ; if he acted outside and in viola- 
 tion of law, he must be convicted, whatever the motive. 
 
 Mr. L. then examined the two questions above stated : 
 
 I hold that the president possesses no power other than that given him 
 by the constitution and the laws. I mean by this that there are no in- 
 herent powers in the executive — no reserved authority — no implied pre- 
 rogatives other than those which ai'e necessarily dependent upon and de- 
 rivable from the expressed constitutional provisions and the laws. The 
 framers of the constitution sought to surround the president with such 
 checks as to make him a mere executive officer. He was stripped of aU 
 attributes of sovereignty ; he was given no jurisdiction over the legisla- 
 tive or judicial branch, but, on the contrary, was made amenable to the 
 former for his official conduct. He can create no office, and his appoint- 
 ing power is only conditional. He can not make war or treaties alone. 
 His authority is mainly negative, confined chiefly to offering suggestions 
 to congress, to granting pardons and reprieves, and to concluding treaties 
 and appointing ambassadors and other public officers, " by and with the 
 advice and consent of the senate." He is the executive only, and "shall 
 take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He is without the least 
 judicial attribute. Mr. Kent says : " When the laws are duly made and 
 promulgated, they only remain to be executed. No discretion is sub- 
 mitted to the executive officer. It is not for him to deliberate and de- 
 cide upon the expediency of the law. What has been once declared to 
 be law under all the cautious forms of deliberations prescribed by the 
 
OS IMPEACHMENT. 1271 
 
 constitution, ought to receive prompt obedience." To the legislative is 
 given the power to supervise the executive's acts, and to remove him 
 from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors." So jealous were the 
 people of their rights, so fearful that the president might assume undue 
 authority, that the public mind could only be reconciled to the placing 
 of the executive power in the hands of one man, by being shown that 
 the executive was subject to removal by congress. The people then saw 
 the great danger attending the exercise of the appointing power, unre- 
 stricted, 
 
 Mr. L. referred to Sedgwick on construction to prove that " where 
 there is no obscurity in the effect of the laws, and the object aimed at 
 by the legislature, we are not permitted to inquire into the motives of 
 the legislature, in order to defeat the law itself." He insisted that the 
 constitution is perfectly clear on the subject of appointment. He also 
 quoted from Attorney-General Legare : " The people were wisely jealous 
 of this great power of appointing the agents of the executive department, 
 and chose to restrain it by requiring it in all cases to nominate ; but to 
 appoint only in case it had the concurrence of the senate." The con- 
 stitution says : " But the congress may by law vest the appointment of 
 such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone." From 
 the naming, particularly, of those inferior officers, and no others, the le- 
 gitimate inference is, that he alone should appoint no others. 
 
 But the power of removal, as implied from the power of appointment, 
 is further shown to rest in the senate and the president, conjointly, by 
 the third section of the second article : " The president shall have power 
 to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, 
 by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of the next ses- 
 sion." Mr. Wirt says : " The meaning of the constitution seems to me 
 to result in this : that the president alone can not make a permanent ap- 
 pointment to those offices ; that to render the appointment permanent it 
 must receive the consent of the senate ; but that whenever a vacancy 
 shall exist which the public interests require should be immediately filled, 
 and in filling which the advice and consent of the senate can not be im- 
 mediately asked, because of their recess, the president shall have the 
 power of filling it by an appointment, which shall continue only until the 
 senate shall have passed upon it, or, in the language of the constitution, 
 " till the end of the next session." 
 
 Here is strong evidence that the appointing ptiwer was intended to be 
 kept undivided in the senate and president, except in those cases where 
 the two could not, from necessity, act at the same time. Hence Mr. 
 Story says : " If the senate are in session when offices are created by 
 law, and nominations are not made to them by the president, he can not 
 
1272 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 appoint to such offices during the recess of the senate, because a vacancy 
 does not happen during the recess. In many instances where offices are 
 created by law, special power is, on this very account, given to the pres- 
 ident to fill them during the recess ; and it was then said that, in no 
 other instances had the president filled such vacant offices without the 
 special authority of law." 
 
 He says further : " There was but one of two courses to be adopted : 
 either the senate should perpetually be in session, in order to provide for 
 the appointment of officers, or the president should be authorized to 
 make temporary appointments during the recess, which should expire 
 when the senate should have had an opportunity to act on the subject." 
 
 In a long list of casualties given by Mr. Wirt, in the opinion referred 
 to, he had in mind only those causes which could not be seen as prevent- 
 ing the co-operation of the senate. It has been uniformly held, that, if 
 vacancies are known to exist during the session of the senate, and nomi- 
 nations are not then made, they can not be filled by executive appoint- 
 ment during a recess of the senate. It is urged here, that the president 
 has not only the power to appoint, but that he may also remove, as a 
 necessary incident to the power to appoint. But I shall show hereafter, 
 that the doctrine of incidental power goes no further than to extend to 
 the president when he alone has the appointing power. 
 
 Reference was also made to the passage of the tenure-of-office act over 
 the veto. Both the senate and the house, on the 2d of March, 1867, 
 united in this expression ; and in this they spoke for every representative 
 element of this government, and for the whole people. In addition to 
 this chain of uniform decision Mr. L. mentioned the last vote of the 
 senate given on the 21st day of February, within twelve hours after the 
 respondent had made the attempt to remove Mr. Stanton. He said, it is 
 plain to my mind that those who voted with the majority in 1789 were 
 not understood to give license to wholesale and causeless removals by 
 the president. [The reader will find a statement of the number of re- 
 movals made by the several presidents from Washington to John Quincy 
 Adams, p. 480.] Mr. L. mentioned several cases of removal made by the 
 earlier presidents, and contrasted their principles and practice with those 
 of later times. 
 
 Jefferson held that removals were only to be made for cause. Soon 
 after his induction into office, he wrote to Mr. Monroe : " Some re- 
 movals, I know must be made. They must be as few as possible, done 
 gradually, and bottomed on some malversation or inherent disqualifica- 
 tion." To Governor Giles, of Virginia, he wrote : " Good men, to whom 
 there is no objection but a difference of political opinion, practiced 
 only so far as the rights of a private citizen will justify, are not proper 
 
ON THE APPOINTING POWER. 1273 
 
 subjects of removal." And to Elbridge Gerry thus : " Mr. Adams's last 
 appointments, when he knew he was appointing counselors and aids for 
 me, not for himself, I set aside as fast as depends on me. Officers who 
 have been guilty of gross abuse of office, such as marshals packing juries, 
 etc., I shall remove, as ray predecessor ought to have done. The in- 
 stances will be few, and governed by strict rule, and not by party pas- 
 sion. The right of opinion shall sufEer no invasion from me." 
 
 How did Jefferson proceed to displace incompetent or untrustworthy 
 officers ? If there was a vacation of the senate, he appointed a successor, 
 and gave notice to the incumbent of his action. The successor then 
 became the legal officer, and the incumbent was removed by virtue of 
 the new appointment. If the senate was in session, he sent the nomina- 
 tion to that body, and their concurrence in the new appointment worked 
 the revocation. If the senate was not in session at the time, he sent the 
 nomination to that body at its next meeting, and the confirmation con- 
 cluded the appointment. And this has been true of every administra- 
 tion except the present one. Jefferson did not create vacancies. In 
 making new appointments, he selected his friends, and for cause he dis- 
 placed incompetent men by appointing successors ; but his action was 
 always subject to review by the senate. The supreme court said upon 
 this point : " The removal takes place by virtue of the new appointment 
 by mere operation of law." In another case, the supreme court re- 
 marked : " No one denied the power of the president and senate, jointly, 
 to remove where the tenure of the office was not fixed by the constitu- 
 tion ; which was a full recognition that the power of removal was inci- 
 dent to the power of appointment." 
 
 The subject most elaborately discussed in this trial, was that of the 
 power of removal ; and for the reason that the charge against the presi- 
 dent of a violation of the constitution could not be sustained unless it 
 were proved that the constitution required the advice and consent of the 
 senate in the removal. One of the most able arguments in favor of this 
 theory by an American statesman, was made in the senate of the United 
 States by Daniel Webster: It will be found in this work, on pages 
 526-28. 
 
 As evidence of the fact that, prior to the meeting of the congress, and 
 at the time when the constitution was adopted, none of its friends claimed 
 the power for the president which is now urged. Mr. Story is again 
 quoted. Of the effect of these opinions upon the public mind at that 
 time, Mr. Story says : 
 
 " This was the doctrine maintained with great earnestness by the Fed- 
 eralists ; and it had a most material tendency to quiet the just alarms of 
 the overwhelming influence and arbitrary exercise of this prerogative of 
 
1274 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the executive, whicli might prove fatal to the personal independence and 
 freedom of opinion of public officers, as well as to the public hberties of 
 the country." 
 
 Mr. L. next notices the action of the congress, in 1789. In or- 
 ganizing the departments of foreign affairs and war, this question of the 
 executive power of removal without the consent of the senate arose ; 
 and, after considerable debate, it was decided by the house in the affirm- 
 ative, 34 to 20 ; in the senate by the casting vote of the president of the 
 senate, vice-president John Adams. [See pages 76 and 77 of this work.] 
 He says, as much of the argument hinges on the law organizing the de- 
 partment of war, it is important to know just what was said and done at 
 the time. The language of the law is, in the first section, " there shall 
 be a principal officer ;" in the third section, " that the said principal of- 
 ficer and every other person to be appointed or employed in said depart- 
 ment," &c., " shall take an oath," &c. ; in section four, " that the secre- 
 tary to be appointed in consequence of this act, shall forthwith, after the 
 appointment, be entitled to have custody and charge of all records," &c. 
 No provision was made in the law organizing either of the executive de- 
 partments as to how the principal officers were to be appointed ; all were 
 therefore appointed by and with the consent of the senate. On the same 
 day the war department was created, congress passed an act expressly 
 giving the president power to remove the governor and other officers of 
 the territory organized under the ordinance of 1787 ; and yet these offi- 
 cers were, by the same act, required to be appointed by the consent of 
 the senate. Would congress have made special provision in this case, 
 and not in the other, for the exercise of power, if they supposed the 
 power of removal to be incident to the power of appointment ? Con- 
 gress evidently regarded legislation necessary to confer the power, else it 
 was needless to legislate at all upon the subject. 
 
 Mr. L. then refers to No. 76 of the Federalist, written by Mr. Hamil- 
 ton, who says : 
 
 "To what purpose, then, require the co-operation of the senate? I 
 answer, that the necessity of the concurrence would have a powerful, 
 though in general silent, operation. It would be an excellent check upon 
 a spirit of favoritism. in, the president, and would tend greatly to prevent 
 the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family 
 connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In 
 addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in an ad- 
 ministration." * * * "It will readily be comprehended that a man 
 who had himself the sole disposition of offices would be governed much 
 more by his private inclinations and interests than when he was 
 bound to submit his choice to the decision and determination of a differ- 
 
ARGUMENT OF MANAGER LOGAN. 1275 
 
 snt and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legis- 
 lature." 
 
 The following was quoted from No. 77 of the Federalist, also from the 
 pen of Mr. Hamilton : 
 
 " It has been mentioned as one of the advantages to be expected from 
 the co-operation of the senate, in the business of appointments, that it 
 would contribute to the stability of the administration. The consent of 
 that body would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint. The 
 change of the chief magistrate, therefore, would not occasion so violent 
 or so general a revolution in the officers of the government as might bis 
 expected if he were the sole disposer of offices. When a man in any 
 station had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new presi- 
 dent would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a person 
 more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that discountenance of the 
 senate might frustrate the attempt and bring some degree of discredit upon 
 himself." * * "To this union of the senate with the president, in the 
 article of appointments, it has, in some cases, been objected that it would 
 serve to give the president an undue influence over the senate because 
 the senate would have the power of restraining him. This is an absurd- 
 ity in terms. It can not admit of doubt, that the entire power of ap- 
 pointment would enable him much more efEectually to establish a danger- 
 ous empire over that body, than a mere power of nomination subject to 
 their control." 
 
 Now I aver that, when Hamilton wrote, he expressed not only his own 
 views, but the -sdews of the people who adopted the constitution. 
 
 But it is urged that the second section of the war department act does 
 confer this power absolutely. I say not. It provides for the appoint- 
 ment, by the secretary of war, of an inferior officer to be called " chief 
 clerk," who, whenever the principal oflacer shall be removed by the presi- 
 dent, or iti any other case of vacancy, shall, during such vacancy, have 
 charge, (fee. The most that can be claimed from this grant is a qualified 
 and limited power over the secretary of war, in case his removal should 
 become necessary at a time when, by the exercise of it, a vacancy would 
 be made when the senate could not assist in filling it. 
 
 On the bill to organize the department of foreign affairs, arose most of 
 the discussion relied on by the counsel for the respondent. I am not in- 
 clined to underrate the value of that debate ; but as forming any rule or 
 guide for us, I can not give it great importance. The leading mind that 
 controlled the removal party was that of Mr. Madison, who argued 
 against the views he had expressed before the constitution was adopted. 
 The argument turned largely upon the necessity of that power resting 
 Bomewheie when there was a pressing emergency for its exercise. The 
 
12^6 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 first proposition was made by Mr. Madison to establish an executive de- 
 partment, comprising the three departments, of foreign affairs, of war, 
 and of the treasury, the heads of these departments to be called secreta- 
 ries ; to be appointed by the president, by and with the advice and con- 
 sent of the senate, and "to be removable by the president." The resolu- 
 tion was finally made the basis of three bills, one for each of the depart- 
 ments, all expressed in similar language. The bill ci-eating the depart- 
 ment of foreign affairs was first taken up, and gave rise to a long discus- 
 sion. It was amended by inserting, in the second article, words imply- 
 ing the right of the president to remove the secretary, and was subse- 
 quently amended by striking out of the first article the authority of the 
 president to make such i-emovals. This last amendment was cari'ied by 
 31 ayes to 19 noes; and the bill, as amended, passed the house, by a 
 vote of 29 to 22. In the senate, the bill was carried by the casting vote 
 of the vice-president. It is an easily understood principle, that, where 
 two or more unite in an act, they may delegate the authority of all to 
 any one of their number ; and this, we may say, was done inferentially 
 by the vote I have noticed. 
 
 But the senate has since spoken upon this very subject many times, 
 as I shall show, and on every occasion in condemnation of the principle 
 laid down by the respondent. When John Quincy Adams instituted in 
 1826, what was termed the " Panama jMission," the encroachment upon 
 legislative prerogative was sturdily resisted ; the senate insisting upon its 
 rights, and contending that, when a new mission is created, a new office 
 is created, which does not come under the class of vacancies ; and there- 
 fore the president has no right to till it by a temporary appointment. 
 
 [Mr. Logan, it is believed, errs in the statement of this case. Com- 
 mittees in the senate were appointed by the presiding oflicer, Mr. Cal- 
 houn, the vice-president. Being an opponent of the administration, a 
 majority of opposition members were placed upon the committee, who 
 reported adversely on the plan of the mission. It however received the 
 assent of both branches of congress. And as the commissioners to the 
 Panama congress were nominated by the president to the senate then in 
 session, and confirmed by the senate, the office was constitutionally 
 created. For the facts connected with the history of this " mission," 
 see chapter XXVI, of this work, pages 352-361.] 
 
 Mr. L. referred to Jackson's administration, during which this power 
 of removal came before the senate several times, and never but to receive 
 a decided condemnation. Among the cases mentioned is the summary 
 removal of secretary Duane, which act was condemned by the senate. 
 
MANAGER LOGAn's ARGUMENT. 1277" 
 
 CHAPTER CIV. 
 
 CONTINUATION OF MANAGER LOGAn's ARGUMENT FOLLOWED BY MANA- 
 GER BOUTWELL, HON. T. A. R. NELSON FOR RESPONDENT, AND MANAGER 
 STEVENS, AND HON. W. M. EVARTS FOR RESPONDENT. 
 
 Manager Logan came now to the second branch of the offense in- 
 volved in the first charge, namely : Had the president power to remove 
 the secretary of war in violation of the tenure-of-office act ? 
 
 The first section of this act provides that every person appointed to a 
 civil ofiice by the president, by and with the ad\dce and consent of the 
 senate, is entitled to hold such office until a successor shall have been 
 appointed by the president with the consent of the senate ; and that the 
 secretaries and other members of what is termed " the cabinet," shall 
 hold their oflRces during the terra of the president appointing them, and 
 for one month thereafter, subject to removal by the president and 
 senate. 
 
 The accused, to evade the consequences of a violation of this act, 
 alleges first, that it is unconstitutional ; and second, that it does not 
 reach Mr. Stanton's case. Let us consider these two points : 
 
 First : Is the tenure act constitutional ? It would seem idle to dis- 
 cuss the question, so far as the senate is concerned. 
 
 But the question is before the senate again. The arguments of coun- 
 sel do not differ materially from those in the message vetoing the act of 
 March 2, 1867. These did not prevail before the senate then, why 
 should they now ? We are told that the question was settled in the dis- 
 cussion of 1789, when the foreign and war departments were created. 
 The question was not whether congress had power to legislate upon the 
 subject, but whether the power of removal ought to be conferred upon 
 the president. If this power inheres in him the act was unnecessary. 
 The determination to put into those acts a clause impliedly giving to the 
 president the power of removal, proves their belief in the power of con- 
 gress to legislate upon the subject ; and that, without legislation, the 
 president would not have the power to remove. If congress was com- 
 petent to grant the power, it was competent to withhold it. 
 
 The constitution is silent on the subject of tenure. Hence congress 
 may provide whenever and however they choose, both for appointment 
 and removal. The object of the constitution was to provide the means 
 
1278 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of filling offices which congress might establish. No intention was ex 
 pressed to control, absolutely, the tenure of office, or to prohibit congres? 
 from prescribing means of removal. Many unsuccessful efforts, at differ- 
 ent periods of our national history, were made to pass laws similar to the 
 present tenure act ; and they were supported by members of different 
 politics. The constitutionality of such laws was not questioned, but the 
 bills failed from executive influences brought to bear upon congress. 
 Benton, Clay, Webster and Ewing, have left, on the records of the sen- 
 ate, arguments not only showing the constitutionality of such laws, but 
 giving the most weighty reasons for passing them. 
 
 Second. Does the tenure act apply to the present secretary of war ? 
 It is well known that the act was intended to prevent the very thing Mr. 
 Johnson attempted in the matter of Mr. Stanton's removal. The presi- 
 dent, in his veto message, admits. Substantially, this construction. The 
 act first provides that all persons holding civil offices at the date of its 
 passage, appointed by and with the advdce and consent of the senate, 
 shall only be removed in the same manner. This applies to the secre- 
 tary of war. The proviso merely gives a tenure running with the term 
 of the president, and one month thereafter, subject to removal by the 
 advice and consent of the senate. The law clearly gives Mr. Stanton the 
 right of the office from the 4th of March, 1865, till one month after the 
 4th of March, 1869 ; and he can only be disturbed in that tenure by the 
 president, the senate concurring in the removal. 
 
 Yet, Mr. Stanton having been appointed by Mr. Lincoln in his first 
 term, when there was no tenure to the oflSce fixed by law, and continued 
 by Mr. Lincoln in his second terra, it is argued that his term expired one 
 month after the passage of the tenure-of-office act, March 2d, 1867, for 
 the reason that Mr. Lincoln's term expired at his death. This is false 
 reasoning. The president's terra is fixed at four years, and by law com- 
 mences the 4th of March. Should Mr. Johnson be deposed by a verdict 
 of the senate, will it be said that the oflScer who succeeds him will serve 
 for four years ? He would only serve out a part of the unexpired term 
 of Mr Lincoln, 
 
 What, then, is the violation here charged upon this respondent ? and 
 what are the proofs to sustain it? Upon the 21st of February, 1868, he 
 sent to Edwin M. Stanton an official order, declaring him removed from 
 office, and directing him to transfer to General Lorenzo Thomas, who 
 had that day been appointed secretary of war ad interim, the records, 
 books, papers, and other property in his custody and charge. And on 
 the same day he authorized Thomas to enter upon the discharge of the 
 duties of that oflSce. This was a plain violation of the law. The order 
 was made absolute and without conditions. The president ignored all 
 
MANAGER LOGAN CONTINUED. 1279 
 
 advice and consent of the senate, and planted himself upon his own opin- 
 ion as to his inherent power to act outside of the law, and in violation of 
 it The proofs of his guilt are therefore placed beyond dispute. And 
 the sixth section of the act declares every removal made contrary to the 
 provisions of this act to be a high misdemeanor. 
 
 Although Mr. L. considered it unnecessary to pursue the question of 
 intent, he said the circumstances connected with this removal were proof 
 positive of a criminal purpose. On the 12th of August, 1867, the presi- 
 dent suspended Mr. Stanton, and appointed General Grant secretary ad 
 interim. This suspension purported to be in conformity to law, and was 
 acquiesced in. The removal, as the law required, was reported to the 
 senate within twenty days after its next meeting ; and after due consid- 
 eration of the reasons assigned by the president for the suspension of Mr, 
 Stanton, the senate expressed their non-concurrence in the suspension ; 
 and, as the law provided, Mr. Stanton resumed the functions of his oflSce, 
 and the secretary ad interim vacated the oflBce. The criminal intent to 
 disregard the law was never more manifest in the mind of the accused 
 than at this time. The law told him if he should remove the secretary, 
 he must do so with the concurrence of the senate. But knowing the 
 concurrence of the senate would not be given, he usurped a power no- 
 where given, and issued his mandate accordingly. With what effrontery, 
 then comes in the plea, that his only motive was to innocently assert his 
 prerogatives ! Did he not know that the law enjoined duties which he 
 could not lay aside ? 
 
 The second article was next briefly noticed. The respondent is charged 
 with violating the tenure-of-ofBce act, in the appointment of Lorenzo 
 Thomas as secretary of war, on the 21st of February, 1868, there being 
 no vacancy in said office. This appointment was made simultaneously 
 with the removal of Mr. Stanton, with the full knowledge that no vacancy 
 existed, and that the senate had so decided ; and in defiance of repeated 
 warnings that congress would regard the act as an open violation of law. 
 And it was made with the reasonable apprehension, on his part, that it 
 would lead to his impeachment. The law pronounces such an act a high 
 misdemeanor in oflSce, and made it the same offense to accept such ap- 
 pointment and attempt to discharge its duties. 
 
 The respondent rests his case upon the law of 1795. But according 
 to that law there must be a vacancy in the office, or a disability on the 
 part of the secretary, before the president can make such an appointment. 
 Neither a vacancy nor a disability existed when Lorenzo Thomas was 
 appointed. If the accused has violated a law constitutionally made, he 
 has violated the constitution itself, which he has sworn to support, 
 ; The alleged conspiracy was next noticed. The parties to it were the 
 
1280 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 president and Lorenzo Thomas and others unknown. The acts of these 
 parties upon which the charge of conspiracy is based have been elsewhere 
 stated [p. 1267]. An act to prevent and punish conspiracies, passed July 
 31, 1861, defines the offenses here charged, as follows : " If two or more 
 persons shall conspire together to oppose, by force,- the authority of the 
 government of the United States, or by force to prevent, hinder or de- 
 lay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, 
 take, or possess any property of the United States, against the will or 
 contrary to the authority of the United States, or by force, intimidation, 
 or threat, to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office of 
 trust or place of confidence under the United States, each and every per- 
 son so offending shall be guilty of a high crime." The acts which he 
 has himself admitted, and those proved against him, bring his conduct 
 within the letter of the law. 
 
 What are the evidences of a conspiracy ? Under articles fourth and 
 sixth, we are confined, in our definition, to a conspiracy or agi-eement to 
 do the things alleged. To determine whether there is a conspiracy in 
 violation of law, we are to scan the circumstances attending the transac- 
 tion ; to inquire into the character of the act to be performed ; the means 
 and the instrument employed, the declarations of the conspirators, the 
 mind and temper of the accused and his co-conspirators, and every thmg 
 that can throw light upon their motives and intentions. 
 
 The manager here quoted from the testimony of Samuel Wilkeson, as 
 follows : " He [Thomas] told me he had taken as a witness of his action 
 General Williams, and gone to the war department, and had shown to 
 Edw^in M. Stanton the order of the president, and demanded possession 
 of the department and its books and papers. He told me that Stanton 
 had asked him if he would allow him time to gather his books, papers, 
 and other personal property, and take them away with him ; that he told 
 him he would, and had then withdrawn from Stanton's room. He fur- 
 ther told me, that day being Friday, that the next day would be the an- 
 niversary of Washington's birth-day, when he had directed that the war 
 department should be closed ; and that on Monday morning he should 
 demand possession of the war department and of its property, and if that 
 demand was refused, or resisted, he should apply to the general-in-chief 
 of the army for a force sufficient to enable him to take possession ; and 
 he added that he did not see how the general of the army could refuse 
 to obey his order for that force. He then added that, under the order 
 of the president to him, he had no election to pursue any other course 
 than the one he indicated ; that he was a subordinate officer directed by 
 an order from a superior officer." 
 
 A Mr. Burleigh had an interview with Thomas on the subject of the 
 
MANAGER LOGAN ON IMPEACHMENT. 1281 
 
 appointment of the latter, and testified to the following : " I asked him 
 what he would do if Stanton objected or resisted. He said he would use 
 force, or resort to force. Said I : Suppose he bars the doors ? His re- 
 ply was : I will break them down." 
 
 The ninth article charges that the accused instructed General Emory 
 that the act approved March 2, 1867, was unconstitutional and in con- 
 travention of the commission of Emory, with intent to induce him, as 
 commander of the militar}^ forces, to violate the provisions of that act ; 
 and with the further intent thereby to enable the accused to prevent the 
 execution of the tenure act ; and also to prevent Stanton from discharg- 
 ing the duties of his office. In a conversation between the president and 
 General* Emory, the latter testified as follows: "I told him I thoaght 
 no changes had been made ; that, under a recent order issued for the 
 government of the armies, founded upon a law of congress, all orders had 
 to be transmitted through General Grant to the army, and, in like man- 
 ner, all orders from General Grant to his subordinate officers must come, 
 if in my department, through me ; that, if by chance^ an order had been 
 ■given to any junior officer of mine, it was his duty at once to report the 
 fact. The president asked me what order I referred to. I called his 
 attention to order 17 of the series of 1867 ; that it had been passed in 
 an appropriation bill, and I thought it might have escaped his attention. 
 He read the order, and observed : ' This is not in conformity to the con- 
 stitution ; that makes me commander-in-chief; or with the terms of your 
 commission.' I replied : That is the order which you have approved, 
 and issued to the army for our government. He said : ' Am I to under- 
 stand that the president can not give an order except through the gen- 
 eral of the army V I said that that was my impression, and the opinion 
 of the army. I also said, when this order came out, several eminent law- 
 yers were consulted — I, myself, consulted one — and the opinion was 
 given to me decidedly, that we were bound by the order, constitutional 
 or not constitutional. The president observed that the object of the law 
 was evident. [Among these lawyers were Robert J. Walker and Rev- 
 erdy Johnson.] 
 
 There is in this, not the naked procuration to violate law, but a trea- 
 sonable attempt to poison the mind of a high army officer, to sow dis- 
 sension, insubordination, and treachery in the army ; this, too, by the 
 commander-in-chief. Such conduct in an officer or soldier is, by the ar- 
 ticles of war, punishable with death. The moral sense of the army and 
 the country must be shocked at such an exhibition from a chief magis- 
 trate. 
 
 A brief allusion was made to the tenth article of impeachment, which 
 is based on the public speeches of the president at Cleveland, St.. Louis, 
 81 
 
1282 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and Washington. It charged him with the intention *' to set aside the 
 rightful authority of congress, and to bring it into disgrace, ridicule, ha- 
 tred and contempt;" and, in pursuance of this intent, with delivering in- 
 temperate, inflammatory harangues, uttering loud threats and bitter men- 
 aces against congress and the laws duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, 
 jeers, and laughter of the multitudes." He accused congress of " en- 
 deavoring to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony and union," " of 
 having taken pains to poison their constituents against him." These 
 were read as testimony in the trial, to show their ludicrous character, 
 being interspersed thickly with " cheers," " laughter," mock " applause," 
 " bully for you," " bully for the veto," &c., &c. The tenth charge con- 
 tains the following extract from his speech at St. Louis : 
 
 " I have been traduced, I have been slandered, I have been maligned, 
 I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my countrymen 
 h-ere to-night, it is very easy to indulge in epithets ; it is easy to call a 
 man a Judas and cry out traitor ; but when he is called upon to give ar- 
 guments and facts, he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot — 
 Judas — there was a Judas, and he was one of the twelve apostles. Oh ! 
 yes, the twelve apostles had a Christ ; and he never could have had a 
 Judas unless he had had twelve apostles. If I have played the Judas 
 who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with ? Was it 
 Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charies Sumner? 
 These are the men that stop and compare themselves with this savior ; 
 and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and to try and stay and 
 arrest the diabolical and nefarious policy, is to be denounced as a Judas." 
 
 " Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action ; if 
 you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance, soldiers 
 and citizens, to participate in these offices, God being willing, I will kick 
 them out. I will kick them out just as far as I can. Let me say, in 
 concluding, that, what I have said, I intended to say. I was not pro- 
 voked into this, and I care not for their menaces, the taunts, and the 
 jeers. I care not for threats. I do not intend to be bullied by my ene- 
 mies, nor overawed by my friends. But, God being willing, with your 
 help, I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me." 
 
 As to his speeches upon which the tenth article is based, look at them, 
 read them ; there they stand in history as a monument of his everlasting 
 disgrace. The great labor of explaining and justifying such speeches 
 and conduct is in able hands. It is defended and justified as one of the 
 great privileges of the president to be guilty of such indecency, impro- 
 priety, vulgarity, profanity, and impiety of speech as to offend the moral 
 sense of the whole people. It is for them to show how far the liberty 
 of indecent speech in a high official may be indulged, before it reaches 
 
MR. EVARTS ON IMPEACHMENT. 1283 
 
 that unwarrantable license Where the only power that can, z..7/ step in 
 and correct the wrong. -^ 
 
 Thus has the reade'r been conducted through the principal portions of 
 Manager Logan's argument. Though but a synopsis of his speech it ha 
 been earned to far greater length than was at first intended. 'The pot 
 
 No piesident had ever been impeached, and a deep interest was felt in the 
 ssue. Also, important constitutional questions were involved in the 
 case, the most promment of which is the executive power of removal 
 wh.ch has been, at times, the subject of controversy between ounl; 
 emnient statesmen, from the first session of the first congress to the pres- 
 ent time. But on no other occasion has it been so ful^ discussed as t 
 
 J~fTZr '' ''^, '■''' ^^' '' '' P^-^^^-'^ ^'- ^^^^-te 
 argum nts of the able counsel in this trial, will be examined, carefully 
 
 and often, by our rising statesmen, foraid in forming their opinions upon 
 this long controverted political question ^ 
 
 Manager Boutwell followed Mr. Logan. His argument evinced .reat 
 ab.hty and he concluded his speech with the expression of his btl 
 that the accused would be found guilty. He said : " His conviction is 
 the triumph of law, of order, of justice. I do not contemplate his ac- 
 quittal-it IS impossible. Therefore I do not look beyond. But, sena, 
 tors, the people of America will never permit an usurping executive to 
 break down the securities for liberty provided by the constitution. The 
 cause of the republic is in your hands. Your verdict of .uilt, is peace 
 to our beloved country." ^ y 1/ ^ 
 
 Thomas A. R. Nelson, of Tennessee, counsel for the respondent, next 
 addressed the senate, and was followed by William S. Groesbeck, on the 
 same side. ' 
 
 Thaddeus Stevens, one of the managers, followed, and was succeeded 
 by Ihomas Williams, in behalf of the house. 
 ^^ William M. Evarts made the final argument in behalf of the respond- 
 
 , John A. Bingham closed in behalf of the house of representatives. 
 
 An attempt to present even a brief abstract of the arguments of all 
 the managers and counsel, would have proved fruitiess. Nor were the 
 Jwo from which the writer has drawn selected for the supposed superior 
 ability of their authors, but rather in view of the extent of the field they 
 explored. On few occasions, it is believed, has there been displayed 
 greater egal acumen, than in the efforts of several of the gentiemen in 
 this trial. ^ 
 
 ,^^r:^' ^^^^^' ''''""''^ ^^' ^^'^ respondent, commenced his argujiient 
 the 28th of April, 1868. After some remarks of a general character, he 
 
1284 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 combated the idea of Manager Butler advanced by him in his opening of 
 the trial, in which he insisted that this tribunal had none of the attributes 
 of a judicial court, as they are generally received and understood ; that 
 the question must be largely determined by the express provisions of the 
 constitution ; and there is in it no vi^ord which gives the slightest color- 
 ino- to the idea that it is a court, save that in the trial the chief-justice of 
 the supreme court must preside. He said : I never heard, till now, of a 
 plaintiff or a prosecutor coming in and arguing that there was not any 
 court. Nobody is wiser than the intrepid manager [Mr. Butler] who as- 
 sumed the first assault upon this court ; and he knew that the only way 
 he could prevent his cause from being turned out of court was to turn 
 the court out of his cause ; and if this expedient succeeds, his wisdom 
 will be justified by the result, and yet it would be a novelty. Mr. E. 
 cited authorities English and American, to show that "the same rales of 
 evidence, the same legal forms which obtain in the courts below, will be 
 observed in this assembly." [Lord Thurlow.] 
 
 The next day, on resuming his argument Mr. E. said : If indeed we 
 have arrived at a settled conclusion that this is a court, that it is gov- 
 erned by the law, that it is to confine its attention to the facts applicable 
 to the law, and regard the sole evidence of those facts to be embraced in 
 the testimony of witnesses or documents produced in court, we have 
 made great progress in separating at least from your further considera- 
 tion much that has been impressed upon your attention heretofore. 
 
 We see why the effort was to make this an inquisition of office in- 
 stead of a trial of personal and constitutional guilt. In the trial of 
 Judge Peck, Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, chairman of the managers, 
 said : " What is an impeachable offense ? This is a preliminary ques- 
 tion which demands attention. It must be decided before the court can 
 rightly understand what they have to try. The constitution declares 
 the tenure of the judicial office to be ' during good behavior.' Official 
 misbehavior, therefore, in a judge, is a forfeiture of his office. But when 
 we say this, we have advanced only a small distance. Another question 
 meets us. What is misbehavior in office ? In answer to this question, 
 and without pretending to furnish a definition, I freely admit we are 
 bound to prove that the respondent has violated the constitution or some 
 known law of the land. This, I think, was the principle fairly to be de- 
 duced from all the arguments on the trial of Judge Chase, and from the 
 votes of the senate in the articles of impeachment against him." 
 
 Mr. Evarts did not consider the acts charged against the president as 
 " high crimes and misdemeanors : " and, consequently they were insuffi- 
 cient to sustain the impeachment. In support of this opinion, he quoted 
 from Mr. Burke in the famous English case of Hastings's impeachment : 
 
CONCLUSION OF MR. EVART's ARGUMENT. 1285 
 
 "As to the crime which we charge, we first considered well what it was 
 in Its nature, and under all the circumstances which attended it We 
 weighed it with all its extenuations, and with all its aggravations On 
 that review we are warranted to assert that the crimes with which we 
 charge the prisoner at the bar are substantial crimes ; that they are no 
 eiTors or mistakes such as wise and good men might possibly fall into • 
 which might even produce very pernicious effects without being, in fact' 
 great offenses." ' 
 
 ^ When a court sits only for a special trial, when its proceedings are 
 incapable of review, when neither its law nor its fact can be dissected 
 even by reconsideration within its own tribunal, when you come to- make 
 up your judgment, either you must take, as for granted, all that we ot 
 fered to prove, all that can be fairly embraced as to come in, in form in 
 substance, m color, and in fact, by the actual production of such proof 
 so that your judgment may thus proceed ; or else it is your duty before 
 you reach the inevitable step of judgment and sentence, to resmne the 
 trial, and call in the rejected evidence. I submit to you that a court 
 without review, without new trial, without exception, and without possi- 
 ble correction of errors, must deal with evidence in this spirit and upon 
 this rule. In determining the measure of a crime and misdemeanor, we 
 must look at its punishment. Epithets, newly-invented epithets, used in 
 laws, do not alter the substance of things. Your legislation of March 2, 
 1867, introducing into a statute law the qualifying word "high," applied 
 to a misdemeanor, is its first appearance in a statute law of this country 
 or of the parent country from which we draw our jurisprudence It 
 means nothing to a lawyer. There is in the conspiracy act of 1861 the 
 same introduction of the word "high," as applied to the body or the 
 offense there called "a crime." A "high crime" it is called in this 
 httle conspiracy act of 1861 ; and there in the one instance and here in 
 the other an epithet is thrown into an act of congress. When you put 
 mto a statute that the offense shall be punished by death, you need no 
 epithet to show that it is a great crime ; and the framers of the constitu- 
 tion put into it, as the result of the trial and conviction of the president, 
 that his punishment should be deprivation of office, and that the public 
 should suffer the necessity of a new election, that showed you what they 
 meant by " high crime or misdemeanor." 
 
 
1286 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER CV. 
 
 ARGUMENT OF MR. EVARTS CONTINUED. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF MANA- 
 GER BINGHAM. A SYNOPSIS OF THE POINTS TAKEN BY COUNSEL FOR 
 
 PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE. ACQUITTAL OF MR. JOHNSON. 
 
 Mr. E. considered the general traits and qualities of the oflEense charged. 
 It was a political offense, and not in its character impeachable. What 
 he did was all in writing ; it was all public and official, and was communi- 
 cated to all the authorities of the government having relation to the sub- 
 ject. Therefore you have at once proposed for your consideration a 
 fault, not of personal delinquency, not of immorality or turpitude ; it 
 is, as senator Williams truly said, a " new offense," also, an offense " not 
 invohdng turpitude, and rather of a political character." The conse- 
 quence of the offense charged was simply a change in the head of a de- 
 partment. It was not a change of the department. It was not an at- 
 tempt to wrest a department, or to apply an office against the law, or 
 turn its power against the safety or peace of the state ; not in the least. 
 The whole criminality of the offense is a formal contravention of a 
 statute. When you consider that this new law really "reverses the 
 whole action of this government," in the language of senators and repre- 
 sentatives who spoke in its behalf during its passage ; that, in the lan- 
 guage of the same debaters it " revolutionizes the practice of the govern- 
 ment ;" and when you know that, by at least debated contests, it was 
 claimed that the president had the right to remove, and that an inhibi- 
 tion upon that right was a direct assertion of congressional authority 
 aimed at the president in his public trust, of carrying on the executive 
 government ; you see at once that no argument, that no politics what- 
 ever, can fix upon the offense any other quality than this : a violation of 
 a law, if it shall be so held, in support of and obedience to the higher 
 obligation of the constitution. Mr. E. claimed for the president the right, 
 in respect to a law operated upon him in his public capacity, to raise a 
 question under the constitution to determine what his right and what his 
 duty is. He says nobody ever violates an unconstitutional law, because 
 there never is such an obstacle to a man's action, freedom, duty, right, 
 as an unconstitutional law. The question is whether a man violates law, 
 not whether he violates a written paper published in a statute-book, but 
 whether he violates law ; and a law unconstitutional is no law at all. 
 
ARGUMENT OF MR. EVARTS CONTINUED. 1287 
 
 Respecting tlie power of removal, Mr. E. said, it is, and always has 
 been claimed and, exercised by the executive, separately and independ- 
 ently of the senate. Until the act of March 2, 1867, the actual power 
 of removal by the senate has never been claimed. Some constructions 
 upon the affirmative exercise of the power of appointment by the exec- 
 utive, have at times been suggested, and received more or less support, 
 tending to the conclusion that the senate might have some hold of the 
 question of removals ; and now this act which we are considering does 
 not, in terms, assume to give the senate a participation in the distinct 
 and separate act of an executive nature, the removal from office. Un 
 able, apparently, to find adequate support for the pretension that the 
 senate could claim a share in the distinct act of removal or vacating of 
 office, the scheme of the law is to change the tenure of office ; so that 
 removability as a separate and independent governmental act, by whom- 
 soever to be exerted, is obliterated from the powers of this government. 
 
 Speaking of the debate of 1789, he said : I believe it is the most im- 
 portant debate in the history of congress. I think it included among 
 its debaters as many of the able and wise men, the benefit of whose pub- 
 lic service this nation has ever enjoyed, as any measure that this govern- 
 ment has ever entertained or canvassed. Probably the question of re- 
 moval from office, as a distinct subject, had never occurred to the minds 
 of men in the convention. The point raised Avas this, and may be briefly 
 stated : Those who, with Mr. Sherman, maintained that the concurrence 
 in removals was as necessary as in appointments, put themselves on a 
 proposition that the same power that appointed have the power of re- 
 moval. This was a little begging of the question — speaking it with all 
 respect — as to who the appointing power was really under the constita- 
 tion. His argument seemed to be that, primarily, the whole executive 
 power was vested in the president, including the whole business of offi- 
 cial subordinate action with the exception of the advice and consent of 
 the senate in appointment, it must be understood that this is the limit of 
 the exception, and that the executive power in all other respects stands 
 unimpaired. 
 
 In the great debate in the congress of 1789, Mr. Madison said: 
 
 " It is evidently the intention of the constitution, that the first magis- 
 trate should be responsible for the executive department. So far, there- 
 fore, g,s we do not make the officers who are to aid him in the duties of 
 that department responsible to him, he is not responsible to his country. 
 Again, is there no danger that an officer, when he is appointed by the 
 concurrence of the senate, and has friends in that body, may choose 
 rather to risk his establishment on the favor of that branch than rest it 
 upon the discharge of his duties to the satisfaction of the executive 
 
1288 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 branch, which is constitutionally authorized to inspect and control his 
 conduct ? And if it should happen that the officers connect themselves 
 with the senate, they may mutually support each other, and, for want of 
 efficacy, reduce the power of the executive to a mere vapor; in which 
 case, his responsibility would be annihilated, and the expectation of it 
 unjust. The high executive officers, joined in cabal with the senate, 
 would lay the foundation of discord, and end in the assumption of exec- 
 utive power, only to be removed by a revolution in the government. I 
 believe no principle is more clearly laid down in the constitution than 
 that of responsibility." 
 
 Mr. Boudinot, in the same debate, supposing a case in which the pres- 
 ident should be obliged to consult the senate, said : 
 
 " If the president complains to the senate of the misconduct of an 
 officer, and desires their advice and consent to the removal, what are the 
 senate to do ? Most certainly they will inquire if the complaint is well 
 founded. To do this they must call the officer before them to answer. 
 Who, then, are the parties ? The supreme executive officer against his 
 assistant ; and the senate are to sit as judges to determine whether suffi- 
 cient cause for removal exists. Does not this set the senate over the 
 head of the president ? But suppose they shall decide in favor of the 
 officer ; what a situation is the president then in, surrounded by officers 
 with whom, by his situation, he is compelled to act, but in whom he 
 can have no confidence, reversing the privilege given him by the consti- 
 tution, to prevent his having officere iinposed upon him who do not meet 
 his approbation." 
 
 Notwithstanding the lai^e space already devoted to this subject of 
 removals, the writer is induced to present the following sketch of the 
 action of the congress of 1789 upon this question, from the pen of the 
 distinguished statesman of that day, Fisher Ames, who was one of the 
 participators in the debate : 
 
 " Four days' unceasing speechifying has furnished you with the merits 
 of the question. The transaction of yesterday may need some elucida- 
 tion. In the committee of the whole it was moved to strike out the words 
 ' to be removable by the president,' &c. This did not pass, and the words 
 were retained. The bill was reported to the house, and a motion made 
 to insert in the second clause, ' whenever an officer shall be removed by 
 the president, or a vacancy shall happen in any other way,' to the intent 
 to strike out the first words. The first words ' to be removable,' &c., 
 were supposed to amount to a legislative disposal of the power of re- 
 moval. If the constitution had vested it in the president, it was im- 
 proper to use such words as would imply that the power was to be ex- 
 ercised by him in virtue of this act. The mover and supporters of the 
 
ARGUMENT OF MR, EVARTS CONTINUED. 1289 
 
 amendment supposed that a grant by the legislature might be resumed, 
 and that, as the constitution had already given it to the pi*esident, it was 
 putting it on better ground, and, if once gained by the declaration of both 
 houses, would be a construction of the constitution, and not liable to 
 future encroachments. 
 
 ' " Others, who contended against the advisory part of the senate in re- 
 movals, supposed the first ground the most tenable, that it would include 
 tlie latter, and operate as a declaration of the constitution, and at the 
 same time expressly dispose of the power. They further apprehended 
 that any change of position would divide the victory, and endanger the 
 final decision in both houses. There was certainly weight in this last 
 opinion. Yet, the amendment being actually proposed, it remained only 
 to choose between the two clauses. I think the latter, which passed, and 
 which seems to imply the legal (rather constitutional) power of the presi- 
 dent, is the safest doctrine. This prevailed, and the first words were 
 expunged. This has produced discontent, and possibly in the event it 
 ■vyill be found disagreement, among those who voted with the majority. 
 
 " This is in fact a great question ; and I feel perfectly satisfied with 
 the president's right to exercise the power, either by the constitution, or 
 the authority of an act. The arguments in favor of the former fall 
 short of full proof, but in my mind they greatly preponderate." 
 
 Considering the constitutionality of the power of removal without the 
 advice and consent of the senate settled by the authorities above cited, 
 Mr. Evarts regarded the late law of congress, introducing a revolution in 
 the doctrine and pi-actice of the government, a legislative construction 
 binding no one, and being entitled to little respect, the question arises, 
 whether a doubt or an act in reference to the constitutionality of this 
 law on the part of the executive department is a ground of impeach- 
 ment. And he repeated what he had previously said, that nobody could 
 violate an unconstitutional law, for it is not a rule binding upon any one. 
 
 Mr. Evarts endeavored to exhibit to the apprehension of this court the 
 view that all that possesses weight and dignity, that really presents the 
 agitating contest which has been proceeding between the departments 
 Qf our government, is political and not criminal, or suitable for judicial 
 cognizance. The eternal principles of justice are implied in the consti- 
 tution of every court ; and none are more immutable than that no man 
 should be a judge in his own cause, and that no man shall be a judge in 
 a matter in which he has already given judgment. The crimes that may 
 bring a president into judgment of the senate, are crimes against the 
 constitution or the laws involving' turpitude or personal delinquency.- 
 The records of the senate show that you yourselves have voted upon this 
 law whose constitutionality is to be determined, and that the question of 
 
1290 THE AMERICAN 3TATES>IAN. 
 
 guilt or innocence arises upon constitutionality or judgment of constitu- 
 tionality, where you have, as a senate, undertaken, after the alleged 
 crime committed, as an act suitable, in your judgment, to be performed 
 by you in your relation to the executive authority, to {)ronounce, as you 
 did by resolution, that the removal of Mr. Stanton and the appointment 
 of General Thomas were not authorized by the constitution and the laws, 
 you either did. or did not regard that as a matter of political action ; and 
 if you regarded it as such, then you regarded it as a matter that could 
 be brought before you in your judicial capacity for you to determine 
 upon any personal consequences to the executive. If you, on the other 
 hand, had in your minds the possibility of this extraordinary jurisdiction 
 being brought into play by a complaint to be moved by the house of 
 representatives before you, what a spectacle do you present to yourselves 
 and the country. 
 
 The honorable managers do not always draw together about these ar- 
 ticles. They seem to have an original production, and then a sort of 
 after-birth added to the compilation ; and, as I understand the opening 
 manager [Mr. Butler], if there is nothing in the first article, you need 
 not trouble yourself to think there is anything in the eleventh ; and Mr. 
 Manager Stevens thinks if there is nothing in the eleventh, you need not 
 bother yourself in looking for anything in the first ten, for he says a 
 county court lawyer could get rid of them. Let me give you his exact 
 words : 
 
 " I wish this to be particularly noticed, for I intend to offer it as an 
 amendment. I wish gentlemen to examine and see that this charge is 
 nowhere contained in the articles reported ; and unless it be inserted, 
 there can be no trial upon it; and if there be the shrewd lawyers, as I 
 know there will be, and caviling judges ; and if, without this article, 
 they do not acquit him, they are greener than I was in any case I ever 
 undertook before the court of quarter sessions." 
 
 Mr. Evarts noticed the conspiracy articles, in which the president was 
 charged with havmg conspired with Lorenzo'Thomas, to prevent and hin- 
 der the execution of " an act to define and punish certain conspiracies, 
 approved July 31, 1861 ;" and with intent to violate and disregard "an 
 act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, passed March 2, 1867." 
 Here we have an act passed at the eve of the insurrection intended to 
 guard the public offices from the intrusion of intimidation, threats and 
 force found in the public service. It is a law wholly improper in a time 
 of peace, for it may include more than what should be made criminal, 
 except in times of public danger. The law was intended to prevent reb- 
 els at the South and their sympathizers at the North from intimidating 
 pfficers in the discharge of their public duty. To apply it to an indict- 
 
ARGUMENT OF MR. EVARTS CONCLUDED. 1291 
 
 ment and trial of a president and an officer of the army under a written 
 arrangement to take possession of and administer one of the departments 
 of the government, is wresting a statute wholly from its application. 
 Besides, there was no meditation, or application, or threat, or force, au 
 thorized on the part of the president. 
 
 Respecting ad interim appointments, he said, if the office was full, 
 then there could be no appointment by the authority of the president 
 or otherwise. The whole action of the president manifestly was based 
 upon the idea that the office was to be vacated before an ad interim ap- 
 pointment could be made, or was intended to take effect. But ad interim 
 appointments do not come under the constitution at aU. They have 
 never been regarded as an exercise of the appointing power in the sense 
 of ffiling an office. They are regarded as falling within either the exec- 
 utive or legislative duty of providing for a management of the duties of 
 the office before an appointment is or can be properly made. Supposing 
 that the appointment of General Thomas was not according to law, it was 
 not against any law that prohibits it in terms, nor against any law that 
 has a penal clause or a criminal qualification upon the act. 
 
 Mr. E. discussed at length the claims of an unconstitutional law to 
 obedience. We argue that if this act be unconstitutional, we had a 
 right to obey the constitution, at least in the intent and purpose of a 
 peaceful submission 6f the matter to a court ; and that our honest and 
 deliberate judgment on the matter is entitled to support us against ftn 
 incrimination. To meet that, the honorable manager [Mr. Boutwell] 
 says that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of 
 the law makes no difference ; and that, though the law be unconstitu- 
 tional, its violation would render the president worthy of removal. Mark 
 the result to which the reasoning of the managers, under the pressure of 
 our argument, has reduced them. If the question of constitutionality or 
 unconstitutionality is permitted to come into your considerations of ciime, 
 you would be punishing the president for an error of judgment, releasing 
 ot condemning him, according as he happened to decide right or wrong. 
 
 The argument of Mr. Evarts was one of great length, about four days 
 having been occupied in the delivery ; and the points discussed were 
 numerous. The synopsis, however, which is given in the foregoing 
 pages, contains replies to all or nearly all the more prominent points 
 made by the managers. Although the space devoted to this trial has far 
 transcended the limits at first prescribed fpr it, remarks from Mr, Bing- 
 ham, one of the managers, in reply to some of the arguments of the re- 
 spondent's counsel seem called for, in order to enable the reader to form 
 a correct judgment in relation to certain questions at issue between the 
 parties. 
 
1292 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Manager Bingham dissented emphatically from the doctrine asserted 
 by the respondent's counsel, that public officers were not bound to per- 
 form duties enjoined by laws which they deemed unconstitutional. 
 Power, he said, is claimed for the president judicially to construe the 
 constitution for himself, and determine whether the laws, declared by 
 the constitution to be supreme, are not, after all, null and of no effect, 
 and not to be executed, because it suits his pleasure to suspend their ex- 
 ecution. The position is assumed, that he is invested with the power to 
 determine the force and effect of the constitution, of his own obligations 
 under it, and the force and effect of every law passed by congress. If 
 every official, especially if the president may, at his pleasure, declare any 
 act of congress unconstitutional, reject, disregard, and violate its provis- 
 ions, and this, too, by the authority of the constitution, that instrument 
 is itself a constitution of anarchy, authorizing a violation of law, not en- 
 joining obedience to law. 
 
 The whole defense of the president rests upon the startling proposi- 
 tion, that he can .not be held to answer for the violation of any written 
 laws of the United States, because of his asserted right, under the con- 
 stitution, to interpret for himself, and to execute or disregard any provis- 
 ion of the constitution or statute of the United States. This is the 
 issue. It is all there is of it. It is all that is embraced in the articles 
 of impeachment. In spite of the technicalities and futile pleas inter- 
 posed iiere in the president's defense, that is the issue. It is the head 
 and front of his offending, that he has assumed the executive prerogative 
 of interpreting the constitution and deciding upon the validity of the laws 
 at his pleasure, and suspending them and dispensing with their execution. 
 
 The senate, having the sole power to try impeachments, must, of 
 necessity, be vested, by every intendment of the constitution, with the 
 sole power to decide every question of law and of fact involved in the 
 issue. What meant the long-continued discussion on the part of the 
 president's counsel, resting upon a remark of my colleague [Mr. Butler] 
 in his opening on behalf of the people, that this was not a court ? Was 
 it an attempt to divert the senate from the express provision of the con- 
 stitution, that the senate should be the sole and final arbiters between 
 the people and the president? My colleague simply followed the plain 
 words of the constitution, that " the senate shall have the sole power to 
 try all impeachments." I will not dwell upon this miserable device to 
 raise an issile between the senate and the courts, because that is what it 
 resulted in. I care not if the gentleman choose to call the senate sitting 
 in the trial of an impeachment a court. The constitution calls it a 
 senate. The senate sitting upon such a trial is the highest judicial tri- 
 bunal of the land. 
 
SPEECH OF MANAGER BINGHAM. 1293 
 
 , I stand upon the plain letter of the constitution, which declares that 
 " the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments ;" that it 
 necessarily invests the senate with the exclusive power to determine, 
 finally and forever, every issue of law and fact arising in the case. 
 What, then becomes of the long drawn out sentence about the right of 
 ; this accused and guilty man to be heard first in the supreme court of the 
 I United States, before the senate shall proceed to trial and judgment? 
 The supreme court has no more power to intervene, either before or after 
 judgment, in the premises, than has the court at St. Petersburg. It has 
 . been insisted on here that the supreme court is the final arbiter for the 
 • decision of all questions arising under the constitution. There are many 
 i questions so arising, which, by no possibility, can be considered as origi- 
 ,iial questions, either in the supreme court or in any other court. The 
 discussion of the senate in cases of impeachment, can neither be re- 
 stricted by judgments in advance, by any civil court, nor can the final 
 .•judgment of the senate be subjected to review by the civil courts, or 
 to reversal by executive pardon. Impeachment is not a case in " law 
 iQT equity" in the meaning of the constitution. 
 - As to the obligation of the heads of the departments to learn their duty 
 •under the law through the will of an executive, the senate will remem- 
 ber, that the learned gentleman from New York handled the great 
 ,'case of Marbury vs. Madison with wondrous skill. He took great care 
 •,not to quote that part of the decision which absolutely settles this ques- 
 (tion as to the obligation of the secretaries to respond to the will of the 
 executive in questions of law ; he kept it in the background. 
 
 I read now the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Mar- 
 < bury vs. Madison, touching this alleged obligation of the heads of de- 
 partments to take the will of the executive as their law. Marshall says 
 on page 158 of 1 Cranch: " It is the duty of the secretary of state to 
 vcottform to the law ; and in this he is an ofiicer of the United States, 
 •bound to obey the laws. He acts in this respect, as has been very prop- 
 erly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instruc- 
 tions of the president." As for the other proposition, that he may sit in 
 judicial judgment upon the validity of your laws, that question also has 
 been ruled in the supreme court of the United States, in the case of 
 Kendall vs. the United States, 12 Peters. By an act for the relators in 
 the case, the solicitor of the treasury was directed to audit their claims 
 for certain services, and the postmaster-general was directed to credit 
 them with the sum found due. The postmaster-general, upon the settle- 
 ment of the claim by the solicitor, credited the relators with a part of 
 the amount found due, but refused to credit them with the remainder. 
 A mandamus was issued by the circuit court of the District, whereupon 
 
1294 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the postmaster-general brought the case before the supreme court by a 
 writ of error. The supreme court pronounced the unanimous judgment 
 of the court as follows : 
 
 " It was urged at the bar that the postmaster-general Avas alone subject 
 to the direction and control of the president, with respect to the execu- 
 tion of the duty imposed upon him by this law ; and this right of the 
 president is claimed as growing out of the obligation imposed upon him 
 by the constitution to take care that the laAvs be faithfully executed. This 
 is a doctrine that can not receive the sanction of this court. It would 
 be vesting the president with a dispensing power, which has no counte- 
 nance for its support in any part of the constitution, and is a principle 
 which, if carried out in its results to all cases falling within it, would 
 clothe the president with a power entirely to control the legislation of 
 congress, and paralyze the administration of justice. To contend that 
 the obligation imposed on the president to see the laws faithfully exe- 
 cuted, implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construc- 
 ■ tion of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible." 
 
 Mr. B. referred to several other cases in support of his views on this 
 subject. And he noticed a point that was made by the president's coun- 
 sel to support the assumption of the right of the executive to suspend 
 and dispense with the execution of the laws, referring to certain acts of 
 President Lincoln. He considered it a slander upon that " martyred 
 president " to say he violated our laws, or that he assumed the power 
 claimed by this apostate president to suspend our laws and dispense with 
 their execution. In his first inaugural, alluding to the fugitive slave law, 
 which violated every conviction of his nature, he said, however much we 
 may dislike certain laws on our statute-books, we are not at liberty to 
 disregard them or set them aside ; but we must await the action of the 
 people and their repeal through the law-making power. 
 
 Counsel had spoken of Mr. Lincoln's suspension of the habeas corpus 
 act. The gentleman knows that it has been settled law, that, in the 
 midst of arms, the laws are silent, and that it is written in the constitu- 
 tion, that " the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be sus- 
 pended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety 
 may require it." You can not prosecute war with a magistrate's warrant 
 and a constable's staff. Abraham Lincoln simply followed the accepted 
 law of the civilized world, in doing what he did. John Quincy Adams 
 said that, in the presence of puftic war, all the limitations of your con- 
 stitution are silent, and in the event of insurrection in any of the states, 
 all the institutions of the states within which it rages " go by the 
 board." 
 
 But, say the gentlemen, you passed your indemnity acts. Now, who 
 
SPEECH OF MR. BINGHAM CONTINUED. 1295 
 
 does not know that it is in vain tliat you pass indemnity acts to protect the 
 president, if his acts were unconstitutional — to the hurt of private right. 
 That was not the purpose of the act. It is not unknown to the legisla- 
 tion of this country and of other countries. A similar act was passed in 
 1862. The general act to which I refer was passed in 18G7. That act 
 was simply declaring that the acts of the president during the rebellion, 
 and of those acting for the president in the premises, should be a bar to 
 prosecutions against them in the courts. What was the object of it ? 
 If it be in the power of the nation to defend itself, if it be constitutional 
 to defend the constitution, if it be constitutional for the president to 
 summon the people to the defense of their own laws and firesides and 
 their nationality, the law said that this should be authority to the courts 
 to dismiss the proceeding. 
 
 The constitution — the supreme law of the land — has settled this ques- 
 tion beyond doubt. It declares expressly, that " every bill which shall 
 have passed the house of representatives and the senate" shall become a 
 law, when signed by the president, or, in case of his disapproval, when 
 
 .passed by two-thirds of both houses; or, if not returned within ten days, 
 provided congress do not prevent its return by adjournment before the 
 expiration of the ten days. Who dares to say, in the face of this plain 
 text of the constitution, that it shall not he a law? The assumption 
 upon which the defense of the president rests, that he shall execute only 
 such laws as he approves or deems constitutional, is an assumption which 
 invests him with legislative and judicial power. To suspend laws or to 
 dispense with their execution until it may suit his pleasure to test their 
 validity, is to repeal them for the time being. And allow him to be his 
 own interpreter of the constitution, and he may virtually annihilate the 
 government. 
 
 From a pamphlet on the subject of " Executive Power," written in 
 1862, by Benjamin R. Curtis, for many years a justice of the supreme 
 court of the United States, and in this trial one of the counsel of the 
 president. Manager Bingham quoted as follows : 
 
 " The president is the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, not 
 only by force of the constitution, but under and subject to the constitu- 
 tion, and to every I'estriction therein contained, and to eveiy law enacted 
 
 'by its authority, as completely and clearly as the private in the ranks. 
 He is general-in-chief ; but can a general-in-chief disobey any law of his 
 own country ? When he can, he superadds to his rights as commander 
 the powers of a usurper ; and that is military despotism; * * The 
 
 •mere authority to command an army, is not an authority to disobey the 
 laws of the country. Besides, all the powers of the president are execu- 
 tive merely. He can not make a law. He can not repeal one. He can 
 
1296 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 only execute the laws. He can neither make nor suspend nor alter them. 
 He can not make even an article of war." 
 
 Mr. B. also quoted from Sedgwick in his work on constitutional and 
 statutory law : 
 
 " Good faith is no excuse for the violation of statistics. Ignorance 
 of the law can not be set in defense ; and this rule holds good in civil as 
 well as in criminal cases." 
 
 Counsel for the respondent have argued that criminal intent is to be 
 proved. I deny it. There is no authority which justifies such a state- 
 ment. The law has declared for centuries that an act done deliberately 
 in violation of the law by a person of sound mind, implies that the party 
 doing it intended the consequences of his own act. In support of this 
 doctrine, Mr. B. cited a number of authorities of high repute. His chief 
 effort was directed to show that the president had violated the constitu- 
 tion and the law in the removal of Mr. Stanton ; and that the acts were 
 impeachable offenses. Reference had been made to the acts of 1792 
 and 1795, with the view of justifying the president. Mr. B. denied that 
 those laws went to the extent now claimed. But whatever construction 
 may have been given them when enacted, they were repealed by the act 
 of 1867. 
 
 The manager stated, in substance, all the charges against the president, 
 and declared the several acts to be impeachable offenses ; and he cited 
 from Kent's Commentaries what the respondent's counsel had been care- 
 ful not to read : declaring that, in the absence of an indictable offense, 
 " the constitution has also rendered him directly amenable by law for 
 maladministration ;" and that, " if he will use the authority of his station 
 to violate the constitution or law of the land, the house of representa- 
 tives can arrest him in his career by resorting to the power of impeach- 
 ment." It was also a rule that " an attempt to commit a misdemeanor 
 is a misdemeanor, whether the offense is created by statute, or was an 
 offense at common law." And the law violated by the president pro- 
 vided that " the making, signing, sealing, countersigning or issuing of 
 any commission or letter of authoi'ity for or in respect to such appoint- 
 ment or employment, shall be deemed, and are hereby declared to be, 
 high misdemeanors." 
 
 That the president did issue the letter of authority set forth in the 
 second article, he states in his letter of the 10th of February, in which 
 he says it was his object to violate that law, and to prevent the secretary 
 of war from resuming the functions of the office, notwithstanding the 
 law declares that he shall do so in case the senate shall non-concur in hia 
 suspension. But counsel deny the constitutionality of this tenure-of-of- 
 fice act. In addition to the reasons given in favor of its validity, Mr. B. 
 
REVIEW OF THE CASE. 1297 
 
 said the constitution expressly grants to congress the power " to make 
 all laws which shall be necessar}- and proper [or *' adapted to," according 
 to the interpretation of Chief Justice Marshall], in carrying into execu- 
 tion the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitu- 
 tion in the government of the United States, or in any department or 
 officer thereof." Here is a grant of power plain enough to sanction the 
 enactment of the tenure-of-office act. 
 
 Passing over, without notice, several other points discussed by the 
 manager, we give the following as a brief summing up and review of the 
 case : 
 
 I hold that these articles are substantially established upon the proofs 
 in the case, upon the confessions of the president himself in his answer, 
 in that he issued his order for the removal of the secretary during the 
 session of the senate in violation of the act of March, 1867, with intent 
 to violate it. 
 
 That he did issue his letter of authority to Thomas, in violation of 
 that act, with the intent, as he himself declared, to prevent the secretary 
 from resuming the functions of his office, after he had himself suspended 
 him, in pursuance of the provisions of the act, and submitted the same 
 to the senate according to its requirements. 
 
 That he did unlawfully conspire with Lorenzo Thomas, as charged, 
 with or without force, with or without intimidation, to prevent and hin- 
 der the secretary from holding the office, in direct violation of the ten- 
 ure-of-office act. 
 
 That he did attempt to induce General Emory to violate the act mak- 
 ing appropriations for the support of the army, the violation of which, 
 is, by the second section, declared a high misdemeanor in office. 
 
 That, by his intemperate and scandalous harangues, he was guilty of 
 great public indecency, and of the attempt to bring the congress of the 
 United States into contempt, and to incite the people to sedition and 
 anarchy. 
 
 That, by denying the constitutionality of the XXXIXth congress, and 
 by his acts before referred to, he did assume to himself the prerogative 
 of dispensing with the Jaws, of suspending their execution at pleasure, 
 until such time as it might suit his own convenience to test the question 
 of their validity in the courts of the United States. 
 
 And that, by contriving with those lately in insurrection, he did fur- 
 ther attempt to prevent the ratification of the fourteenth article of amend- 
 ment of the constitution ; and by all these several acts did attempt to 
 prevent the execution of the tenure-of-office act, the execution of the 
 army appropriation act, and the execution of the act for the more efficient 
 government of the rebel states. 
 82 
 
1298 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 It is answered by tlie president that he claims the power to suspend 
 indefinitely the heads of departments during the session of the senate, 
 "without their consent, and to fill the vacancies thus made by appoint- 
 ments ad interim ; and that he claims the right to interpret the consti- 
 tution for himself, and to pronounce for himself, upon the validity of 
 every act of congress which may be placed upon the statute-book. 
 
 Mr. B. reminded the senators that the civil tribunals had no power to 
 determine any such issue between the president and the people ; that if 
 the courts are allowed to intervene, and in the first instance to decide 
 such a question, it necessarily results that the courts, at last, may decide 
 every question of impeachment which may arise by reason of the malfea- 
 sance and guilty acts of a president in office, and defy the power of the 
 people to impeach him and to try him in the senate. 
 
 The arguments closed on Wednesday the 6th of May. The senate, 
 after some time spent in motions and propositions as to the manner and 
 place of taking the vote on the question of the guilt or acquittal of the 
 president, on the next day [7th], adjourned to Monday, the 11th, 
 and from that day to the 12th. On Saturday, the 16th, when the 
 vote was, according to the rule, taken on the last article [the eleventh], 
 35 senators voted "guilty," and 19 "not guilty." No vote was 
 taken upon any other articles until Tuesday, the 26th, when a vote was 
 taken upon the second and third articles, with precisely the same result 
 —35 voting "guilty," and 19 " not guilty." 
 
 No other articles appear, from the journal, to have been voted on ; 
 and, two-thirds of the senate not having voted to sustain the impeach- 
 ment, the senate adjourned Avithout day. 
 
 After the trial had closed, and before the last votes were taken, the 
 senators met several times for deliberation. 
 
 A rule had been adopted allowing senators to place on file their opin- 
 ions. » Of the fifty-four twenty-six availed themselves of the privilege. 
 Some of these opinions are of great length, and are appended to the 
 proceedings of the trial in the Supplement to the Congressional Globe. 
 On a cursory examination, most of these opinions are, in substance, em- 
 braced in the synopses of the arguments of the managers and counsel in 
 preceding pages. 
 
 Of those voting for the acquittal of the president, four were republi- 
 cans : Trumbull, of 111. ; Grimes of Iowa ; George F. Edmunds, of Vt. ; 
 William P. Fessenden, of Me. 
 
 None of these senators, probably, justified all the acts of the president 
 charged as criminal; but they did not consider them as intentional vio- 
 lations of the constitution and laws, and therefore not properly impeach- 
 able oifenses. 
 
ACTS OF SECOND SESSION FORTIETH CONGRESS. 1299 
 
 CHAPTER CVI. 
 
 SECOND SESSION OF THE FORTIETH CONGRESS—REPORT ON REGISTRATION 
 IN THE SOUTH.-ADOPTION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT—PRESIDEN- 
 TIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1868— SYNOPSIS OF PLATFORMS— ELECTION OF 
 GRANT AND COLFAX. 
 
 The XLth congress commenced its 2d session on Monday, December 
 2, 1867. 
 
 ^ Among the acts passed at the 2d session of the XLth congress, are 
 the following : 
 
 _ An act to provide for the exemption of cotton from internal tax. 
 Ihe large increase of the public debt had rendered it necessary to tax 
 this great staple of the southern states. To relieve them from this bur- 
 then this act was passed, which exempted from taxation all cotton grown 
 in the United States after the year 1867; and cotton imported from 
 foreign countries to be exempt after the first of November. 
 An act to suspend the further reduction of the currency 
 An act constituting eight hours a day's work for all laborers, workmen 
 and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the government of the 
 United States. 
 
 Congress passed an act to continue in force, for the term of one year 
 from the 16th of July, 1868, the acts for the establishing and continuing 
 the bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees. And the secretary of 
 wax was directed to re-establish said bureau where it had been wholly or 
 in part discontinued; provided that he should be satisfied that the per- 
 sonal safety of the freedmen required it. He was also to discontinue 
 the operations of the bureau in any state whenever it should have been 
 fully restored to the union and represented in congress, unless, upon ad- 
 vice and full consideration of the freedmen's affairs in such state its 
 continuance should appear to be necessary ; provided, however, that 'the 
 educational division should not be affected, or in any way interfered 
 ¥ith, until such state should have made suitable provision for the educa- 
 tion of the children of freedmen within such state. 
 
 The Territory of Wyoming was organized at this session. The ex- 
 ecutive power was to be vested in a governor, appointed for the term of 
 four years. A secretary was to be appointed, also for four years. The 
 legislative power was vested in the governor and a legislative assembly ; 
 
1300 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the assembly to consist of a council of nine members, elected for two 
 years, and a house of representatives elected for one year. The council 
 might be increased to thirteen in number ; the house to consist of thir- 
 teen members, which number might be increased to twenty-seven. The 
 judicial power was to be vested in a supreme court, district courts, pro- 
 bate courts, and justices of the peace. The governor and the secretary 
 were, as is usual in the governments of territories, appointed by the 
 president of the United States, by the advice and consent of the senate. 
 An act concerning the rights of American citizens in foreign states 
 was passed at this session. Most of the European governments have 
 denied the right of their subjects to absolve themselves from their alle- 
 giance to the government of their native country ; by which is meant 
 the right of expatriation. Their doctrine is, " Once a subject, always a 
 subject." Hence, a foreigner naturalized in the United States, who 
 sbould be found in his native country, would be claimed and held as still 
 a citizen of that country and subject to its laws, and, in case of war, 
 might be made to take up arms in its defense. In the preamble to this 
 act, the right of expatriation is declared to be an inherent right of all 
 people. And as our government has freely received emigrants from all 
 nations and invested them with the rights of citizenship, they are en- 
 titled to the protection of our government in foreign countiies to which 
 our native born citizens would be entitled. The preamble declares it 
 necessary to the maintenance of the public peace, that this claim of 
 foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed. The act 
 declares that any insti-uction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers 
 of this government which denies, restricts, impaii-s, or questions the right 
 of expatriation, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this 
 government ; and pledges protection as before stated. And if a citizen 
 of the United States is unjustly deprived of his liberty in a foreign coun- 
 try, it is the duty of the president to demand his release, and if release 
 be refused, to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may 
 think proper to effect such release. 
 
 A proposition of the president to hasten the liquidation of the public 
 debt, became the subject of discussion at this session. Mr. Cattell, of 
 New Jersey, offered, Dec. 14, 1868, a resolution, declaring, "That the 
 senate receive, with profound regret, the proposition of the president in 
 his annual message, to repudiate a portion of the national obligations, 
 and regard this and all foitns of repudiation as a national crime." The 
 president assumed, that the holders of the government securities had 
 already received upon their bonds a larger amount than their original 
 investment, measured by a gold standard ; and he thought it just and 
 equitable, that the six per cent interest now paid by the government, 
 
SECOND SESSION FORTIETH CONGRESS. 1301 
 
 should be applied to the reduction of the principal. The interest payable 
 semi-annually in gold, at six per cent being about equal to nine per 
 cent in currency, this with other advantages derived from their invests 
 ments, would afford to creditors a fair compensation for the use of their 
 capital, with which they should be satisfied ; and the public debt could 
 be paid in seventeen yeais. 
 
 Mr. Cattell thought this a proposition favoring the repudiation of the 
 public debt, and should not go to the country without a prompt and 
 decided expression, by the senate, of their unqualified disapprobation. 
 It was proposed to pay the creditor simply the interest for a given num- 
 ber of years, and then repudiate the principal of the debt. After some 
 remarks by Messrs. Edmunds, Conness, Nye, and Hendricks, it was re- 
 ferred to the committee on finance. It was suggested by a senator, that 
 the resolution should state, unequivocally, that the debt should be paid in 
 real money — in coin. The proposition of the president would tend to 
 impair the credit of the government, at home and abroad. The resolu- 
 tion was not reported on by the committee. Mr. Edmunds reported a 
 joint resolution, pledging the faith of the United States to pay the 
 public debt in coin or its equivalent ; which was reported and amended, 
 but no further acted on at this session. But to strengthen the public 
 credit, an act was passed at the next session, »March 18, 1869, designed 
 to remove all doubt as to the purpose of the government, and to settle 
 conflicting interpretations of the laws, by declaring that the faith of the 
 United States is solemnly pledged to the payment, in coin or its equiva- 
 lent, of all its obligations not bearing interest, known as United States 
 notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations, except in cases wher^ 
 the law has provided that the same may be paid in lawful money or 
 other currency than gold and silver. 
 
 The question of the executive power to grant amnesty and pardon to 
 rebel was raised at this session. Mr. Ferry, of Ct., Jan. 5, 1869, offered a 
 .resolution requesting the president to transmit to the senate a copy of 
 any proclamation of amnesty made by him since the last adjournment of 
 congress ; and also to communicate to the senate by what authority of 
 law the same was made. He said he approved the act of amnesty, but 
 had some doubts as to the authority of the executive department to 
 make such proclamation of general amnesty ; and that a precedent may 
 not be made that shall hereafter be unsafe, and that an authoritative ex- 
 position of the law relating to amnesties may be made for the future 
 guidance of the government, he desired an answer to the request made 
 in the resolution. The points discussed were, whether the executive had 
 power to pardon offenses before trial and conviction ; whether the power 
 to grant amnesties was included in the pardoning power ; and also 
 
1302 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 whether persons should not be pardoned by name. The cases cited by 
 those who claimed this power for the president, favor the presumption 
 that it was authorized. The question, however, being that of reference, 
 merely, it was not argued. The president responded to the request, and 
 asserted that the proclamation was in strict conformity with judicial ex- 
 positions, and with precedents established by Washington, Adams, and 
 Madison. 
 
 On the 26th of February, 1869, a joint resolution was passed by con- 
 gress, proposing an amendment to the constitution, now the 15th amend- 
 ment. It provides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote 
 shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state, on 
 account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. [See Amend- 
 ments to the Constitution, Appendix.] 
 
 The registration of voters in the seceded states under the reconstruc- 
 tion act was at this time in progress. In response to a resolution of in- 
 quiry in December, 1868, the senate received from Lieutenant-General 
 Grant a report of the number of voters registered, the proportion of 
 ■whites and blacks, and the number of each color voting for or against 
 the conventions ; also the number of each color disfranchised for refus- 
 ing to register. General Grant inclosed the reports from the district 
 commanders. General Schofield's report gave the whole number of voters 
 registered in Virginia as 225,933, of which 120,111 are whites, and 
 105,832 are colored. Of these, 4,417 whites and 12,687 blacks failed 
 to vote on the question of calling a convention. Judging from the tax- 
 list and other data, the number who failed to register was 16,343. 
 There was no report of the number of disfranchised in Virginia under 
 the reconstruction laws. General Canby reported 106,721 white and 
 72,932 colored voters in North Carolina, nearly all of whom voted. It 
 was estimated that 19,476 whites and 3,289 blacks failed to register ; 
 and of these 11,686 whites were disfranchised. In South Carolina there 
 were 46,882 whites and 80,550 blacks registered, and 10,992 whites and 
 4,167 blacks failed to register. About seventy-five per cent of the 
 whites were disfranchised. In Georgia 96,333 whites and 95,165 col- 
 ored voters registered, of whom 60,333 whites and 24,758 coloi-ed failed 
 to vote. 10,000 whites were disfranchised, and 8,500 refused to regis- 
 ter. In Alabama there were 61,925 white and 104,518 black voters, 
 of whom 37,158 white and 32,947 colored failed to vote. No data to 
 show the number disfranchised. 
 
 In Florida a few were disfranchised and nearly all were registered and 
 voted. The number of whites was 11,914, blacks 16,079. General 
 Gillem said no data had been kept from which to ascertain the number 
 of voters of difEerent colors who registered in Mississippi. In Arkansas 
 
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION. 1303 
 
 25,697 failed to vote. General Hancock reported that 45,218 whites 
 and 84,436 blacks were registered in Louisiana, of which number 50,480 
 failed to vote, but what proportion the general was unable to say ; nor 
 could he report the number disfranchised. In Texas 59,533 white 
 and 59,497 colored voters registered, of whom 1,757 whites and 36,932 
 blacks voted. The number disfranchised not ascertained. 
 
 The 14th amendment of the constitution having been ratified by 
 three-fourths of the state legislatures, its adoption as a part of the con- 
 stitution was duly proclaimed by the secretary of state. 
 
 Its provisions are briefly as follows : 
 
 1. No state can abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the 
 United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Equal protection is 
 guaranteed to all without exception. 
 
 2. The basis of representation is altered. If the colored citizens of 
 the South are deprived of the right of suffrage, the southern states lose 
 the representation based upon the number of the colored population. 
 
 3. No person who has violated an official oath to support the constitu- 
 tion of the United States by aiding the rebellion, can hold a civil or mili- 
 tary office under either a state or the federal government. But the dis- 
 ability may be removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of congress. 
 
 4. The validity of the public debt, including the debts incurred for 
 the payment of soldiers' pensions and bounties, is placed beyond question. 
 All obligations incurred in aid of the rebellion are declared illegal and 
 void. 
 
 The Republican National Convention for nominating candidates for 
 president and vice-president, met at Chicago on the 20th of May, 1868. 
 General Carl Schurz was chosen temporary chairman. and Gov. Joseph 
 Havk'ley, of Connecticut, permanent chairman. The delegates from the 
 southern states were admitted. After the platform was adopted the roll 
 of states and territories was called, and General Grant received every 
 vote in the convention as candidate for president. On the first ballot 
 for vice-president Benjamin F. Wade received 149 votes; Reuben E. 
 Fenton, 132; Henry Wilson, 119; Schuyler Colfax, 118; Andrew G. 
 Curtin, 52; Hannibal Hamlin, 28; James Speed, 22; and several scat- 
 tering. To nominate 326 votes were necessary. On succeeding ballots 
 Wade reached 200 ; Gov. Fenton, 148\ the others falling off or with- 
 drawing. On the fifth ballot Colfax received nearly all the votes, except 
 those of New York and Ohio, and was nominated. 
 
 Of the platform adopted by the convention it is needless to give even 
 an abstract. It is sufficient to say that it indorses the principles and 
 approves the acts which have characterized the party during its existence, 
 and which, have been recorded in preceding chapters of this work. As 
 
1304 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 might have been anticipated, the couvention congratulated the country 
 on the success of the reconstruction policy ; and the president was no- 
 ticed as having betrayed the party that elected him, and as liaving usurped 
 high legislative and judicial functions and refused to execute the laws. 
 The doctrine of Great Britain and other European powers, that a man 
 once a subject is always a subject must be resisted ; and foreign emigra- 
 tion should be encouraged. On motion of General Schurz, the two fol- 
 lowing resolutions were unanimously added : 
 
 Resolved, That we highly commend the spirit of magnanimity and 
 forbearance with which men who have served in the rebellion, but who 
 now frankly and honestly co-operate with us in restoring the peace of 
 the country and reconstructing the southern states' governments upon the 
 basis of impartial justice and equal rights, are received back into the 
 communion of the loyal people ; and we favor the removal of the dis- 
 qualifications and restrictions imposed upon the late rebels in the same 
 measure as their spirit of loyalty will direct, and as may be consistent 
 with the safety of the loyal people. 
 
 JResolved, That we recognize the great principles laid down in the im- 
 mortal declaration of independence as the true foundation of democratic 
 government ; and we hail with gladness every effort toward making these 
 principles a living reality on every inch of American soil. 
 
 The Democratic National Convention for the nomination of candi- 
 dates for president and vice-president, met in the city of New York on 
 Saturday, the 4th of July, 1868. Mr. Palmer, of Wisconsin, was chosen 
 temporary chairman, and Judge Perrin, secretary. The two-thirds rule 
 was adopted ; and after the reading of the declaration of independence 
 the convention adjourned until Monday. Horatio Seymour was made 
 permanent chairman. In the evening session it was decided that a plat- 
 form be adopted before the nominations were made, and the convention 
 again adjourned. On Tuesday the convention adopted a platform and 
 took several ballots for president. George H. Pendleton, of Ohio, was 
 largely ahead of the other candidates, but failed of a two-thirds vote. 
 The last ballot stood for English, of Conn., 6 ; Gen. Hancock, 47 ; Pen 
 dleton, 122|; Sanford E. Church, of N. Y., 33; Packer, 27 ; Andrew 
 Johnson, 21 ; James R. Doolittle, 12 ; Hendricks, 30; Blair, 5. Having 
 accomplished nothing, the convention, on motion, adjourned until 10 
 o'clock Wednesday morning, when Horatio Seymour, of N. Y., having 
 received the requisite number of votes, was duly nominated for president, 
 and Francis P. Blair, Jr., for vice-president. 
 
 The chief principles enunciated in the platform are the following : 
 
 The democratic party, reposing its trust in the intelligence, patriotism, 
 and the discerning justice of the people, standing upon the constitu- 
 
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. 1305 
 
 tion as the foundation and limitation of the powers of the government, 
 and the guarantee of the liberties of the citizen, and recognizing the 
 questions of slavery and secession as having been settled for all time to 
 come, by the war or the voluntary action of the southern states in con- 
 stitutional conventions assembled, and never to be renewed or re-agitated, 
 do, with the return of peace, demand 
 
 First — The immediate restoration of all the states to their rights in 
 the union, under the constitution and civil government of the people. 
 
 Second — Amnesty for all the past political offenders, and regulation 
 of the elective franchise in the states by their citizens. 
 
 Third — Payment of the public debt of the United States as rapidly 
 as practicable, all moneys drawn from the people by taxation, except so 
 much as is requisite for the necessities of the government economically 
 administered, being honestly applied to such payment ; and where the 
 obligations of the government do not expressly state upon their face, or 
 the law under which they were issued does not provide, that they shall 
 be paid in coin, they ought, in right and justice, to be paid in the lawful 
 money of the United States. 
 
 Fourth — Equal taxation of every species of property according to its 
 real value, including government bonds and other public secuiities. 
 
 Fifth — One currency for the government and the people, the laborer 
 and the office-holder, the pensioner and the soldier, the producer and 
 the bondholder. 
 
 Sixth — Economy in the administration of the government ; the reduc- 
 tion of the standing arAy and navy ; the abolition of the Freedman's 
 Bureau, and all political instrumentalities designed to secure negro su- 
 premacy ; simplification of the system of assessing and collecting the in- 
 ternal revenue ; the repeal of all enactments for enrolling the state mili- 
 tia into national forces in time of peace ; and a tariflE for revenue upon 
 foreign imports, and such equal taxation under the internal revenue laws 
 as will afford incidental protection to domestic manufactures. 
 
 Seventh — Reform of abuses in the administration ; the expulsion of 
 corrupt men from office ; the abrogation of useless offices ; the restora- 
 tion of rightful authority to and the independence of, the executive and 
 judicial departments of the government ; the subordination of the mil- 
 itary to the civil power ; to the end that the usurpations of congress and 
 the despotism of the sword may cease. 
 
 Eighth — Equal rights and protection for naturalized and native-born 
 citizens at home and abroad. 
 
 The contest during the political campaign of 1868 was an animated 
 one. General Grant had had no practical experience in civil affairs, 
 except the few months' service as secretary of war ad interim under 
 
1306 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 president Johnson ; his popularity having been acquired ahnost exclu- 
 sively from his military success in the war. Mr. Colfax had been for 
 many years a conspicuous representative in congress from the state of 
 Indiana, and for six years speaker of the house. 
 
 The other party, it was extensively believed at the time, had seriously 
 erred in the selection of its candidates. Mr. Seymour, it was supposed, 
 had made himself popular with the people of the south. Before the 
 war commenced, he came out publicly in the defense' of the seceded 
 states and in opposition to " coercion," declaring it to be " no less revo- 
 lutionary than secession." And the course which he pursued during the 
 war, as governor of the state of New York, rendered him obnoxious, not 
 only to his political opponents, but to those known as " war democrats." 
 Mr. Blair, the candidate for vice-president, was virtually nominated by 
 the secession element in the convention, because of his bold letter pro- 
 posing to supplement their defeat with revolution. He was early a radi- 
 cal republican, and was among the prominent, leading men of the party. 
 For some cause he had changed his party relations, and become an ultra 
 advocate of southern interests. The letter referred to, known as the 
 " Brodhead letter," was written but two days before the convention, and 
 contained the following : 
 
 " There is but one way to restore the government and the constitu- 
 tion, and that is for the president elect to declare these [reconstruction] 
 acts null and void, command the army to undo its usurpations at the 
 south, disperse the carpet-bag state governments, allow the white people 
 to re-organize their own governments, and elecfc senators and representa- 
 tives. The house of representatives will contain a majority of represent- 
 atives from the north ; and they will admit the representatives elected 
 by the white people of the south, and, with the co-operation of the 
 president, it will not be ditficult to compel the senate to submit once 
 more to the obligations of the constitution. We must have a president 
 who will execute the will of the people by trampling into dust the usur- 
 pations known as the reconstruction acts." 
 
 Although candidates acceptable to the people of the south were in- 
 dispensable to the success of the party, it is quite probable that many 
 democrats at the north were repelled by the ultra views of their party 
 candidates ; and that nothing was gained by the nomination of men 
 holding to such extreme southern sentiments. The result of the election, 
 Mississippi, Virginia and Texas giving no vote, was the success of the 
 Republican ticket, the whole number of the votes being 5,716,082; the 
 majority of Grant 309,684. 
 
FORTir-FIRST CONGRESS. 1307 
 
 CHAPTER CVII. 
 
 MEETING OF FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS. INAUGURATION OF GRANT AND COL- 
 FAX. TENURE OF OFFICE. VARIOUS ACTS PROPOSED AND PASSED. PRO- 
 POSITION FOR REFUNDING THE NATIONAL DEBT, PRESIDENT GRANt's 
 
 FIRST ANNUAL MESSAGE. FULL ADMISSION OF VIRGINIA TO FEDERAL 
 
 RELATIONS. RATIFICATION OF FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT BY THE STATES. 
 
 SPECIAL MESSAGE BY THE PRESIDENT. REVISION OF COPYRIGHT LAW. 
 
 Pursuant to an act of congress, the XLIst congress commenced its 
 first session March 4th, 1869. At twelve o'clock the vice-president elect 
 [Schuyler Colfax,] was escorted into the senate chamber by a committee 
 of arrangements, and, prior to his taking the chair delivered a brief ad- 
 dress. The oath of office was administered to' him by the retiring presi- 
 dent /)ro tempore [Benj. F. Wade]. 
 
 At the same hour the president elect, General Ulysses S. Grant, en- 
 tered the senate chamber, and was conducted to a seat in front of the 
 secretary's desk. The procession was then formed, and proceeded to the 
 portico of the Capitol to participate in the inuaguration of the president. 
 The address was delivered and the oath of office administered to him 
 by the chief justice of the supreme court. 
 
 In pursuance of an act of congress, approved Jan. 22, 1867, to fix the 
 times for the regular meetings of congress, the members of the house of 
 representatives, assembled in their hall at three o'clock, pursuant to a 
 joint resolution, approved March 1, 1869, and were called to order by 
 Edward McPherson, clerk of the last house. 
 
 The act " regulating the tenure of certain civil offices, passed March 2, 
 186*7," designed to restrict the exercise of the power of appointment and 
 removal by the president, was amended at this session. The first and 
 second sections of the act were repealed, and it was enacted that persons 
 appointed by and with the advice and consent of the senate may hold 
 their offices during the term for which they were appointed, unless 
 sooner removed with the consent of the senate, or by appointment, with 
 the like consent, of a successor in his place, except as otherwise pro- 
 vided. And further, that during a recess of the senate, the president 
 may suspend any civil officer so appointed, except judges, until the end 
 of the next session of the senate. And to designate some suitable 
 person, subject to be removed in his discretion by the designation of 
 
1806 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 another, to perform the duties of such suspended oflScer, in the mean- 
 time. • 
 
 An act was passed authorizing the submission of the constitutions of 
 Virginia, Mississippi and Texas to a vote of the people, and authorizing 
 the election of state officers and members of congress. The constitution 
 of Virginia had been framed by the convention which met in Richmond 
 the 3d of December, 1867, It was to be submitted at such times as the 
 president should deem best. He might also direct provisions to be voted 
 on separately, or in connection with other portions of the constitution. 
 And before these states were admitted to be represented in congress, 
 their legislatures must have ratified the 15th article of amendment to the 
 constitution of the United States. 
 
 For the payment of pensions in 1870, the act of February 2, 1869, ap- 
 propriated for invalid pensioners, $9,000,000 ; and for pensions, widows, 
 children, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters of soldiers, as provided 
 for by the numerous acts from 1818 down to the year of the passage of 
 the last act, $10,000,000 ; and for navy pensions to invalids and their rel- 
 atives, $250,000. 
 
 An act was passed, further to provide for giving effect to treaty stipu- 
 latiofts between this and foreign governments for the extradition of 
 criminals. 
 
 A joint resolution was passed to postpone the time for the first regu- 
 lar meeting of the house of representatives of the XLTst congress from 
 twelve o'clock, meridian, the 4th of March, 1869, to the hour of three 
 o'clock in the afternoon of said day [on account of the inauguration of 
 the president]. 
 
 By an act of congress of December 22, 1869, the governor of Georgia 
 was directed, forthwith, by proclamation, to convene the legislature to 
 perfect the organization of the state. Before senators and representatives 
 had a right to be admitted to seats in congress, the 15th amendment to 
 the constitution was to be ratified by that state. 
 
 There was passed at this session an act to authorize the refunding of 
 the national debt. This act authorized the secretary of the treasury to 
 issue bonds to the amount of $200,000,000, drawing interest at five per 
 cent, payable at the pleasure of the government after ten years ; also 
 $300,000,000, payable after fifteen years, at four and a half per cent in- 
 terest ; and $1,000,000,000, payable after thirty years, at four per cent 
 interest. These bonds were to be used for the redemption of outstand- 
 ing bonds, bearing six per cent interest. The bonded debt of the United 
 States was not to be increased by this or any other law. The $200,000,^ 
 000 payable after ten years, was, by a subsequent law [1871], allowed 
 to be increased to $500,000,000. Many were faithless as to the success 
 
REFUNDINO THE NATIONAL DEBT. 1309 
 
 of tlie proposed measure. It appeared incredible that a bondholder 
 would exchange a bond bearing six per cent for one drawing five per 
 cent or less. This was at the time explained thus : 
 
 There is just one way to induce the holder of a six per cent bond to 
 exchange it for one bearing a lower rate of interest, and that is by find- 
 ing some one else who will take the new bond and pay cash for it if he 
 does not. Is there anything difficult to understand in this ? The holder 
 of a six per cent bond will exchange it for a four, whenever the maker, 
 having a right to redeem it, offers him the choice of his money or a bond 
 worth more than the face of his debt. The early bonds, issued by the 
 government after the commencement of the war, were payable in twenty 
 years, but the government might, if it pleased, pay for them at any time 
 after five years. Hence they were called five-twenty bonds. 
 
 Emancipation, it was apprehended, would have an unfavorable effect 
 upon the staple agricultural products of the south. Relieved from com- 
 pulsory labor, the negroes, it was extensively believed, would refuse to 
 work ; and, as the result, the southern fields would be devastated. A 
 Memphis paper, edited by an ex-confederate colonel, contained the fol- 
 lowing, in the spring of 1869 : 
 
 "The entire cotton crop of 1868 has been almost entirely forwarded 
 'to market. The few bales remaining in south/ern cities are gathered by 
 agents and forwarded to eastern and European cities. The crop has 
 yielded to southern farmers, at $100 per bale, not less than $250,000,000 
 — ^ninety millions more than the unprecedented crop of 1860. Then 
 the wealthy and exhaustless resources of the south excited the envy of 
 nations, and now southern riches are more abundant than at any former 
 period. With unpropitious seasons, with an untried system of labor and 
 of social life, without wealth, and in the midst of almost universal bank- 
 ruptcy, the south has gathered ninety million dollars more than in any 
 former year. The value of an extraordinary grain crop need not be es- 
 timated in order to show that the people of the south are really the 
 richest and most independent of any on God's footstool. The south was 
 never in better condition than at this moment. Just now cities are de- 
 serted because the necessities of agriculture withhold farmers from busy 
 haunts of trade, but the country rapidly grows more populous and pros- 
 perous. And it is the country that makes the town." 
 
 The 2d session of the XLIst congress commenced the 6th day of 
 December, 1869. Hon. Schuyler Colfax, vice-president, called the senate 
 to order at twelve o'clock, noon. The house was called to order by 
 Hon. James G. Blaine. The first annual message of president Grant 
 was communicated to both houses. Its appearance had been awaited 
 with considerable interest. It was pronounced by some "a model of 
 
1310 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 clearness, directness, fairness, and force — free from proud rhetoric, dull 
 pettigogging, and the usual dreary dilution of the department reports." 
 In noticing the contents of the message, little more can be done than to 
 mention a few of the subjects presented. 
 
 He alluded to the great rebellion from which the country had just 
 emerged, and which had been aided by the sympathies and assistance 
 with which wc were at peace. Eleven states of the union had been four 
 years left without legal state governments. A national debt had been 
 contracted, and our commerce almost driven from the seas. The in- 
 dustry of one half of the country had been taken from the control of the 
 capitalists, and placed where all labor rightfully belongs : in the keeping 
 of the laborer. The work of restoring state governments loyal to the 
 union, of fostering and protecting free labor, and providing means for 
 paying the interest on the public debt, had received ample attention 
 from congress. 
 
 On the question of reconstruction, the president says, seven of the 
 seceded states have been fully restored to their places in the union. In 
 respect to the eighth he remarks : 
 
 " Georgia held an election at which she ratified her constitution, 
 elected a governor, members of congress, a state legislature, and all other 
 state officers required. The governor was duly installed, and the legisla- 
 ture met and performed all the acts then required of them by the recon- 
 struction acts of congress. Subsequently, however, in violation of the 
 constitution which they had just ratified, as since decided by the su- 
 preme court of the state, they unseated the colored members of the 
 legislature, and admitted to seats some members who were disqualified 
 by the third clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution, an 
 article which they had themselves contributed to ratify. Under these 
 circumstances, I would submit to you, whether it would not be wise, 
 without delay to enact a law authorizing the governor of Georgia to 
 convene the members originally elected to the legislature, requiring every 
 member to take the oath prescribed by the reconstruction act ; none to 
 be admitted who are ineligible under the third clause of the 14th 
 amendment." 
 
 He recommended that the Virginia senators and representatives be 
 admitted to congress, and expresses the hope that the result of the elec- 
 tions and subsequent action in Mississippi and Texas will be such as to 
 complete the work of reconstruction. 
 
 The freedmen were making rapid progress in learning ; and no com- 
 plaints were heard of lack of industry where they received a fair compen- 
 sation for their labors. The means provided for paying the interest on 
 the public debt and for all other expenses of the government were more 
 
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE. 1311 
 
 than ample. The loss of our commerce "was the only result of the rebel- 
 lion which had not received from congress sufficient attention. Among 
 the evils growing out of the rebellion, he mentioned that of an irredeem- 
 able currency, which he recommended to their attention. To secure to 
 the citizen a medium of exchange of fixed and unchanging value required 
 a return to specie basis, which should be commenced now, and reached 
 at the earliest practicable moment consistent with a fair regard to the 
 debtor class. The vast resources of the nation ought to make our credit 
 the best on earth. With a less burden of taxation than the citizen has en- 
 dured for six years past, the entire public debt could be paid in ten years. 
 But the people should not be taxed to pay it in ten years, as the ability 
 to pay increases in a rapid ratio. But the burden ought to be reduced. 
 [The reader will find it elsewhere stated that nearly one thousand mil- 
 lions of dollars in bonds, bearing six per cent interest, have been ex- 
 changed for bonds running for longer periods at five and four and one- 
 half per cent by which many millions of interest are annually saved.] 
 He called attention to tariff and internal taxation. The revenues were 
 greater than the requirements, and might be reduced ; but he recom- 
 mended a postponement of this question until the next meeting of con- 
 gress. With the funding of the national debt as here suggested, taxes* 
 and the revenue from imports might be reduced from sixty to eighty 
 millions a year at once. And still further reduced from year to year as 
 the resources of the country were developed. 
 
 The receipts into the treasury during the last fiscal year were $370,- 
 943,747 ; and the expenditures, including interest, bounties, etc., $321,- 
 490,597. The estimates for the next year were more favorable, and would 
 show a larger decrease of the public debt. The ordinary postal revenues 
 for the last fiscal year, were $18,344,510, and the expenditures $23,- 
 698,131. The excess of expenditures for the previous year were $6,- 
 437,992. During the last fiscal year 23,196 names were added to the 
 pension rolls, and 4,876 dropped therefrom. The amount paid to pen- 
 sioners, including the compensation to disbursing agents, was $28,422,- 
 884, an increase of $4,411,902. The munificence of congress had been 
 conspicuously manifested in legislating for the soldiers and sailors. 
 
 Upon the question of the Alabama claims, he says " the Clarenden- 
 Johnson treaty rejected by our senate, was wholly inadequate for the 
 settlement of the grave wrongs sustained by the government as well as 
 by its citizens. A sensitive people, conscious of their poAVcr, are more 
 at ease under a great wrong unallowed, than under the restraint of a set- 
 tlement M'hich satisfies neither their ideas of justice nor their grave sense 
 of the grievances they have sustained. The rejection of the treaty was 
 followed by a state of public feeling on both sides which I thought un- 
 
1312 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 favorable to an immediate attempt at renewed negotiations. I accord- 
 ingly so instructed the minister of the United States to Great Britain, 
 and found that my views in this regard were shared by Her Majesty's 
 Ministers. This is now the only grave question which the United States 
 has with any foreign nation." 
 
 He called to the attention of congress — the Darien canal, favoring an 
 appropriation for a survey ; the rapid increase of our manufactures under 
 the policy of protection ; the tenure-of-office act, urging its repeal to 
 secure an efficient administration of the laws ; the Indian problem, ap- 
 proving of the Quaker policy, and favoring the protection of the tribes,! 
 on new and distinct reservations ; the reciprocity treaty with the British 
 provinces, opposing its renewal ; the education of the freedman under 
 the supemsion of the commissioner of education — and he promised 
 " rigid adherence to the laws and their strict enforcement." 
 
 Virginia was at length fully restored to the union, January 24, 1870 ; 
 the democrats voting unanimously against the bill in the house. The 
 bill had been amended in the senate so as to require of state officers an 
 oath, in effect, that they had never taken an oflBcial oath to support the 
 constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection 
 or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies 
 thereof : also an oath that they have, by act of congress, been relieved 
 from the disabilities imposed by the 14th amendment to the constitution 
 of the United States. Similar oaths had been required in the case of 
 Georgia. This was a condition upon which her senators and representa- 
 tives were admitted to seats in congress. 
 
 On the 10th of February the 15th amendment was ratified by the 
 State of Georgia, which was supposed to perfect the incorporation 
 thereof in the federal constitution, of which, however, some entertained 
 a doubt. The legislature of New York, both branches being democratic, 
 had rer:ently withdrawn the ratification of the preceding legislature. 
 Mr. Seward, secretary of state when the 14th amendment was adopted, 
 proclaimed its ratification by the requisite number of states, counting 
 this and New Jersey, whose legislatures had withdrawn the ratification 
 ik of their predecessors, he believing they had no power to do so. With- 
 out New York, the ratification was incomplete. The states of Nebraska 
 and Texas, however, were soon to record their votes, and as was ex- 
 pected, in favor of the amendment, the complete ratification was assured. 
 The states of Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia soon followed Virginia; 
 and the restoration of the union was completed. 
 
 The proclamation of the president announcing the ratification of the 
 15th article of amendment, accompanied by a message of the president, 
 was issued on the 30th March, 1870. The states whose legislatures rati- 
 
SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM THE PI^ESIDENT. 1313 
 
 6ed the amendment are, North Carolina, West Virginia, Massachusetts, 
 Wisconsin, Maine, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, 
 Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New York, New Hamp- 
 shire, Nevada, Vermont, Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, 
 Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Nebraska, T^xas — Twenty-nine 
 States. The whole number of states being thirty-seven, twenty-eight 
 were necessary to the ratification. 
 
 Message from the President to the Senate and House of Rejtresentatives. 
 — It is unusual to notify the two houses of congress by message, of the 
 promulgation, by proclamation of the secretary of state, of the ratifica- 
 tion of a constitutional amendment. In view, however, of the vast 
 importance of the 15th amendment of the constitution, this day de- 
 clared part of that revered instrument, I deem a departure from the 
 usual custom justifiable. A measure which makes at once four millions 
 of people voters, who were heretofore declared by the highest tribunal 
 of the land not citizens of the United States, nor eligible to become so, 
 with the assertion that, at the time of the declaration of independence, 
 the opinion was fixed and universal in the civilized portions of the white 
 race, regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, that " black 
 men had no rights which white men were bound to respect," is indeed a 
 measure of grander importance than any other one act of the kind from 
 the foundation of our free government to the present time. Institutions 
 like ours, in which all power is derived directly from the people, must 
 depend mainly upon their intelligence, patriotism and industry. I call 
 the attention, therefore, of the newly franchised race, to the importance 
 of their striving, in every honorable manner, to make themselves worthy 
 of their new privilege. To the race more favored heretofore by our laws, I 
 would say withhold no legal privilege of advancement to the new citizen. 
 
 The framers of our constitution firmly believed that a republican form 
 of government could not endure without intelligence and education gen- 
 erally diflEiised among the people. The father of his country, in his 
 farewell address, uses this language : " Promote, then, as a matter of 
 primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. 
 In proportion as the structure of the government gives force to public 
 opinion, it is essential that public opinion be enlightened." In his first 
 annual message to congress, the same views were forcibly presented, and 
 are again urged in his eighth annaal message. 
 
 I repeat, that the adoption of the 15th amendment to the constitution 
 completes the greatest civil change, and constitutes the most important 
 event that has occurred since the nation came into life. 
 
 The change will be beneficial in proportion to the heed that is given-. 
 ■ to the earnest recommendations of Washington. If these recommenda- 
 tions were important then, with a population of a few millions, how 
 
1314 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 much more important now with a population of forty millions, and in- 
 creasing in a rapid ratio ! I would therefore call upon congress to take 
 all the means within their constitutional power to promote and encourage 
 popular education throughout the country, and upon the people every- 
 where to see to it tliat all who possess and exercise political rights shall 
 have the opportunity to acquire the knowledge which will make their 
 share in the government a blessing and not a danger. By such means 
 only can the benefits contemplated by this amendment to the constitu- 
 tion be secured. ' U. S. Grant. 
 
 The great object for which the dominant party in congress had for 
 years been laboring was at length accomplished. It had been retarded 
 for one or two years by the controversy between President Johnson and 
 congress. Without assuming to pass judgment upon the merits or de- 
 merits of the parties to the controversy, or of their respective plans of 
 reconstruction, it seems proper that great caution and careful deliberation 
 should have been observed in the execution of any plan designed to ef- 
 fect a pemaanent settlement of a question which had so long disturbed 
 the internal peace of the nation. And the majority in congress did not 
 consider the work complete, until the constitution of the United States 
 guaranteed to every citizen the right to vote, without abridgment on ac- 
 count of race, color, or prevrous condition of servitude. It may, how- 
 ever, be doubted whether, with all their precaution and care, their ulti- 
 mate object will have been fully attained. It was well to append to the 
 provisions of each of the amendments a section authorizing congress to 
 enforce them by appropriate legislation. But the efficiency of these ar- 
 ticles might be materially impaired by the neglect on the part of con- 
 gress to enforce them. Against such a contingency it was impossible to 
 guard by constitutional provisions. 
 
 By an act of July 8, 1870, tlie statutes relating to patents and copy- 
 rights were revised, consolidated and amended. Among the alterations 
 in the patent law is that, instead of the term of fourteen years for which 
 patents were granted, and the term of seven years for which they might 
 be renewed in case the inventor or proprietor had not been duly com- 
 pensated during the first fourteen years, they are now granted for seven- 
 teen years, without renewal. In relation to copyrights, the printed title 
 of a book, instead of being deposited, as formerly, with the clerk of the 
 district court of the United States in which the author or proprietor re- 
 sides, is to be sent to the librarian of congress at Washington, to be 
 there entered. Formerly, a copy of the work after publication was to 
 be deposited with the district clerk and another to be sent to the office 
 in Washington ; now, both copies to the librarian of congress. Copy- 
 rights, as heretofore, are granted for twenty-eight years, and may be re- 
 newed for fourteen years. 
 
FOETY-FIKST CONGRESS THIRD SESSION". 1315 
 
 CHAPTER CVIII. 
 
 THIRD SESSION OF THE FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS. PRESIDENT GRANt's MES- 
 SAGE. THE SAN DOMINGO ANNEXATION QUESTION. DEBATE ON THE 
 
 BILL ENFORCING THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
 
 The third session of the XLIst congress commenced at Washington 
 on December 5th, 1870. Vice-president Schuyler Colfax was in the 
 chair as president of the senate, and Hon. James G. Blaine presided in 
 the house as speaker. President Grant's message was then read. He 
 alluded to the fact that Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas had been re- 
 stored to representation in the national council. He congratulated the 
 lovers of republican institutions, that there had been re-established in 
 France a system of government, disconnected with the dynastic tradi- 
 tions of Europe. The United States had been asked by the new gov- 
 ernment, to use its good offices, jointly with those of European powers, 
 in the interests of peace. While earnestly wishing to see the blessings 
 of peace restored to the belligerents, he had declined on the part of the 
 government to take a step which could only result in injury to the 
 country, without advancing the object, for which intervention was in- 
 voked. He had deemed it prudent, in view of the large number of 
 French and Germans residing in the United States, to issue a proclama- 
 tion defining the duty of the United States as a neutral, and the obliga- 
 tions of persons to observe the laws of the country and the laws of na- 
 tions. President Grant, in reference to affairs in Cuba, alluded to the 
 system of arbitrary arrests by the authorities of Spain, and of military 
 trial and execution consequent thereon of persons suspected of com- 
 plicity with the insurgents, and of summary sequestration of their prop- 
 erty. Such proceedings as affecting the citizens of the United States, 
 were in violation of the provisions of the treaty of 1795. In the nego- 
 tiations then opened and still pending, the United States claimed for the 
 future that the rights secured to their citizens should be respected in 
 Cuba. And that as to the past, a joint tribunal should be established 
 in the United States with full jurisdiction over all such claims. The 
 long deferred peace conference between Spain and the allied South 
 American Republics had been inaugurated in Washington under the aus- 
 pices of the United States. President Grant prophecied that the time 
 was not far distant, when European political connection with this conti- 
 
.1316 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN.' 
 
 nent would cease. Our policy then would be shaped probably, so as to 
 ally the commercial interests of the Spanish American States closely to 
 our own, and thus give the United States all the pre-eminence contem- 
 plated by the older statesmen. The following is the text of president 
 Grant's allusions to the qudstloii 'of the annexation of San Domingo. 
 
 " During the last session of congress a treaty for the annexation of the 
 Republic of San Domingo to the United States failed to receive the re- 
 quisite two-thirds vote of the Senate. I was thoroughly convinced then 
 that the best interests of this ccniMry, cfommercially and materially, de- 
 manded its ratification. Time has only confirmed me in this view. I 
 now firml}^ believe that, the moment that it is known that the United 
 States have entirely abandoned the project of accepting as a part of its 
 terriloiy the Island of San Domingo, a free port will be negotiated for, 
 by European nations, in the Bay of Samana. A large commercial city 
 will spring up, to which we will be tributary Avithout receiving corre- 
 sponding benefits, and then will be seen the folly of our rejecting so great 
 a prize. The Government of San Domingo has voluntarily sought this 
 annexation. It is a weak power, numbering probably less than one hun- 
 dred and twenty thousand souls, and yet possessing one of the richest 
 territories under the sun, capable of supporting a population of ten mil- 
 lions of people in luxury. The people of San Domingo are not capable 
 of maintaining themselves in their present condition, and must look for 
 outside support. They yearn for the protection of our free institutions 
 and laws, our progress and civilization. Shall we refuse them ? 
 
 " The acquisition of San Domingo is desirable because of its geographi- 
 cal position. It commands the entrance to the Caribbean Sea and the 
 Isthmus transit of commerce. It possesses the richest soil, best and 
 most capacious harbors, most salubrious climate, and the most valuable 
 products for the forest, mine, and soil, of any of the West India islands. 
 Its possession by us will in a few years, build up a coastwise commerce 
 of immense magnitude, which will go far toward restoi-ing to us our lost 
 merchant marine. It will give to us those articles which we consume so 
 largely and do not produce, thus equalizing our exports and imports.' 
 In case of foreign war, it will give us command of all the islands referred 
 to, and thus prevent an enemy from ever again possessing himself of 
 rendezvous upon our very coast. At present our coast-trade between the 
 States bordering on the Atlantic and those bordering on the Gulf of 
 Mexico is cut in two by the Bahamas and the Antilles. Twice we must, 
 as it were, pass through foreign country to get by sea from Georgia to 
 the west coast of Florida. 
 
 " San Domingo, with a stable government, under which her immense 
 resources can be developed, will give remunerative wages to tens of thou- 
 
SAN DOMINGO ANNEXATION. 1317 
 
 ^nds of laborers not now upon the island. This labor will take advan- 
 tage of every available means of transportation to abandon the adjacent 
 islands and seek the blessings of freedom and its sequence — each inhabi- 
 tant receiving the reward of his own labor. Porto Rico and Cuba will 
 have to abolish slavery as a measure of self-preservation, to retain their 
 laborers. 
 
 " San Domingo will become a large consumer of the products of north- 
 ern farms and manufactories. The cheap rate at which her citizens can 
 be furnished with food, tools, and machinery, will make it necessary that 
 contiguous islands should have the same advantages in order to compete 
 in the production of sugar, coffee, tobacco, tropical fruits, &c. This will 
 open to us a still wider market for our products. Tlie production of our 
 own supply of these articles will cut off more than one hundred millions 
 of our annual imports, besides largely increasing our exports. With 
 such a picture, it is easy to see how our large debt abroad is ultimately 
 to be extinguished. With a balance of trade against us (including in- 
 terest on bonds held by foreigners, and money spent by our citizens 
 traveling in foreign lands), equal to the entire yield of the precious 
 metals in this country, it is not so easy to see how this result is to be 
 otherwise accomplished. The acquisition of San Domingo is an adher- 
 ence to the " Monroe doctrine," it is a measure of national protection ; 
 it is asserting our just claim to a controlling influence over the great com- 
 mercial traffic soon to flow from west to east by way of the Isthmus of 
 Darien ; it is to build up our merchant marine ; it is to furnish new 
 markets for the products of our farms, shops, and manufactories; it is to 
 make slavery insupportable in Cuba and Porto Rico at once, and ulti- 
 mately so in Brazil; it is to settle the unhappy condition of Cuba, and 
 end an exterminating conflict ; it is to provide honest means of paying 
 our honest debts without overtaxing the people ; it is to furnish our citi- 
 zens with the necessaries of every-day life at cheaper- rates than ever be- 
 fore ; and it is, in fine, a rapid stride toward that greatness which the 
 intelligence, industry, and enterprise of the citizens of the United States 
 entitle this country to assume among nations. 
 
 " In view of the importance of this question, I earnestly urge upon con- 
 gress early action, expressive of its views as to the best means of acquir- 
 ing San Domingo. My suggestion is that, by joint resolution of the two 
 houses of congress, the executive be authorized to appoint a commis- 
 sion to negotiace a treaty with the authorities of San Domingo for the 
 acquisition of that island, and that an appropiiation be made to defray 
 the expenses of such commission. The question may then be deter- 
 mined either by the action of the senate upon the treaty or the joint 
 action of the two houses of congress upon a '•esolution of annexation, 
 
 \ 
 
1318 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 II 
 
 as in the case of the acquisition of Texas. So convinced am I of the ad- 
 vantages to flow from the acquisition of San Domingo, and of the great 
 disadvantages, I might almost say calamities, to flow from non- 
 acquisition, that I beheve the subject has only to be investigated to be 
 approved." 
 
 President Grant also alluded to the Chinese massacres of French and 
 Kussians in the east. He had invited France and North Germany to act 
 together for the future protection, in China, of Americans and Euro- 
 peans. The president briefly discussed the dispute of the boundary line 
 between the United States and English possessions ; the adjustment of 
 the Alabama claims, and the question of the Canadian fisheries. He 
 also alluded briefly to the question of cheap transportation from the j 
 west to the Atlantic seaboard, and to the depression of American com- ! 
 merce. The estimates for the expenses of the government for the next 
 fiscal year, were $18,244,346.01 less than for the current year, but ex- 
 ceeded the appropriations for the present year for the same items by 
 $8,9*72,127.56. The country was congratulated on the gradual approach 
 to a specie basis. The tax collected had been reduced more than $80,- 
 000,000 per annum. During the last fiscal year 8,095,413 acres of pub- 
 lic lands were disposed of. Of this quantify, 3,698,910 acres were taken 
 under the homestead law, and 2,159,515 sold for cash. The remainder 
 was located with military warrants, college or Indian scrip, or applied in 
 satisfaction by grants to railroads or other public uses. 
 
 In the house, Mr. Munger, of Ohio, offered a resolution stigmatizing 
 any attempt of European powers to obtain control of any portion of 
 San Domingo as unfriendly to the United States, and opposed to the 
 Monroe policy. In the senate on December 12th Mr. Morton, of In- 
 diana, offered a resolution urging the appointment by the president, of 
 three commissioners, to proceed to the island of San Domingo and to 
 inquire into all the facts bearing joro or con on the question of the an- 
 nexation of the Dominican republic. This wa« laid on the table. Mr. 
 Banks, [Rep.] of Mass., in the house on December 1 2th, offered a joint 
 resolution, authorizing a commission of fivefto be appointed to negotiate 
 a treaty with San Domingo, for the acquisition of the territory of that 
 government, and with instructions to report full and complete informa- 
 tion on all the questions connected with the subject. This resolution 
 was referred to the committee on foreign affairs. The reconstruction 
 question came up early in the session, through the bill reported by the 
 select committee through Mr. Birtler, the chairman. This bill granted 
 full and complete amnesty, on account of all acts committed in aid of 
 the war of the rebellion, between the 11th day of April, 1861, and the 
 20th day of August, 1866, with the following exceptions : Those edu- 
 
DEBATE ON THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT. 1310 
 
 cated at the military or naval academies, former members of congress, 
 heads of departments, or foreign ministers, of United States judges, 
 members of the secession conventions, or such as had custody of the 
 public money between the aforesaid dates and had not accounted for 
 and paid over the same. After an animated debate, the further con- 
 sideration of the bill was postponed. Among the bills discussed in the 
 house during this session, none called out more public attention or 
 searching debate, than that reported by the judiciary committee to en- 
 force the 15th amendment. 
 
 Mr. Eldridge, (Dem. ) of Wisconsin, stigmatized this bill as absolutely 
 atrocious, hideous, and revolting. It bound the southern states hand 
 and foot, and made them the mere slaves of congress. It utterly blotted 
 out all state rights and laws. This bill was the crowning act of central- 
 ization, toward which federal power had been marching over the rights 
 and jurisdiction of states. It substituted federal bayonets for all state 
 machinery and local authority. Instead of enforcing the right of citi- 
 zens of the United States to vote it prevented and delayed voting, pro- 
 viding a system to drive citizens from the polls and disgust all honest 
 men. Power to arrest was placed in the hands of supervisors of elec- 
 tions without due legal process. To cap the climax of the enormity 
 these little satraps, the supervisors, the marshals and their deputies, 
 could summon to their aid a posse comitatus, and require the command- 
 ing officer of the nearest United States military or naval forces to give 
 assistance. The biggest fool the United States Marshal could appoint 
 as deputy would be in conlmand of the army and navy of the United 
 States. This bill would make president, generals, lieutenant generals, 
 major generals, brigadier generals, subject to the command of the most 
 insignificant deputy marshal, even if he were the vilest murderer un- 
 hung. For the provisions of the bill protected him from arrest while 
 acting under authority. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence, (Rep.) of Ohio, claimed that such a bill was necessi- 
 tated by the wholesale frauds, violence, and outrages which infested 
 the south. From the earliest period the English parliament had enacted 
 laws for the protection of the elective franchise. He made citation of 
 the laws designed to preserve the purity of the ballot. The same 
 necessity had existed in every state of this union and there had been 
 continual legislation upon this subject. Mr. Lawrence proceeded to speak 
 of the numerous ku-klux outrages, and hoped that all members would 
 consider it in the light of patriotism and not of party. In further de- 
 fense of the bill, so far as its authorization of the use of the military 
 was concerned, the honorable gentleman referred to the exercise of mili- 
 tary power, in times past, for the capture of fugitive slaves ; and the 
 
1320 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 decision of tlie supreme court that such legislation was authorized by 
 the constitution. Mr. Bingham of Ohio offered certain amendments to 
 the bill, which did not materially change its provisions. Question was 
 taken and the bill was passed. In the senate, Mr. Vickers of Maryland 
 in referring to the above bill, spoke of it as an attempt to intimidate 
 and overawe the free citizens of the United States in the performance 
 of the light of suffrage. 
 
 Both this and similar bills failed of their effects, being inexpedient, 
 unjust and unfit to be executed. It assumed the power of the general 
 government to regulate registration and election, and to punish by fine 
 and imprisonment ; it was unconstitutional because it interfered with the 
 fourth section of the organic law, which gave to the states absolute au- 
 thority over the time, place and manner of holding elections. Mr. 
 Vickers said that this bill gave United States marshals the superintend- 
 ence of states, registrations and elections; made them spies and in- 
 formers, judges and executioners. And it punished any one who by 
 authority of a state obstructed these high functionaries of the federal 
 power. No bill ever presented a blacker catalogue of oppressions and 
 enormities. It was intended to prop a failing administration, to 
 strengthen party ascendancy, under the guise of helping the public 
 safety. It was a terrible lever in the hands of a party which had in- 
 flicted many and dire wounds on the liberties of the nation. The bill 
 was ordered to a third reading and on the question being taken was 
 passed on a vote of 39 to 10 — 25 being absent. 
 
 CHAPTER CIX. 
 
 DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF SAN DOMINGO ANNEXATION. A SKETCH OF 
 
 THE NEGOTIATION. POWERFUL SPEECH BY SENATOR SUMNER. AP- 
 POINTMENT OF A COMMISSION OF INQUIRY FOR SAN DOMINGO. REPORT 
 
 OF THE COMMISSIONERS. APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY 
 
 INTO SOUTHERN OUTRAGES. 
 
 Among the important questions discussed during this session was that 
 of the annexation of the Dominican portion of the island of San Do- 
 mingo, Before proceeding to give the substance of the debate and the 
 action of congress relating thereto, a distinct account of the negotiation 
 
SAN DOMINGO ANNEXATION. 1321 
 
 from its commencement will be of importance to the reader. The nego- 
 tiations between the president of the United States and San Domingo 
 relative to the annexation of the island to the United States, were begun 
 in 1869. On June second of that year president Grant appointed Mr. 
 Benj. S. Hunt of Philadelphia a special agent to obtain trustworthy in- 
 formation concerning the Dominican republic. Mr. Hunt having be- 
 come seriously ill while making preparations, General Babcock, of the 
 president's personal staff, was appointed in his place. He sailed from 
 New York about four days after receiving his instructions. On his 
 return to Washington General Babcock made a verbal report favorable 
 to the project of annexation. He was therefore directed to return to 
 San Domingo, in order to aid Mr. Raymond H. Perry, the commercial 
 agent of the United States, to negotiate for the annexation of the whole 
 territory of the republic to the United States; and as an alternative 
 proposition for a lease of the peninsula and bay of Samana to the United 
 States. A treaty for the annexation of the territories of the republic, 
 and a convention for the lease of the bay and peninsula of Samana, were 
 Accordingly concluded on November 29, 1869. The terms of the treaty 
 required that a popular vote should be taken upon the question of annex- 
 ation. On May 31st, 1870, president Grant transmitted a message pro- 
 posing an additional article to the previous treaty, stipulating for an ex- 
 tension of the time for exchanging the ratifications thereof. The presi- 
 dent proposed that the treaty should be amended as follows : 
 
 First, that the obligations of this government should not exceed 
 11,500,000. 
 
 Secondly, to determine the manner of appointing the agents to receive 
 and disburse the same. 
 
 Thirdly, to determine the class of creditors who should take precedence 
 in the settlements of their claims. 
 
 The president believed the sura specified would pay every just claim 
 against the republic, and leave a balance sufficient to carry on territorial 
 government for the time being. The president recapitulated the argu- 
 ments favoring the acquisition of San Domingo, and expressed his 
 strong anxiety for the ratificatiou of the treaty. The senate of the 
 United States did not agree with the views of General Grant, and the 
 treaty was rejected. 
 
 Colonel Fabens was sent as bearer of the news, and communicated it 
 to president Baez of Dominica, who immediately sent in a message to 
 congress, concluding with these words : " The measure will nevertheless 
 succeed in the end, for it is a necessity in the progress of humanity 
 whose unseen agent is providence itself." Colonel Fabens returned to 
 the United States as Dominican minister, clothed with ample power, to 
 
1322 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 renew negotiations with tlie American government for a treaty of annex- 
 ation, and to propose such modifications of the old treaty as circum- 
 stances might demand, in order to meet the objections of the opponents 
 of the measure. Although the treaty had been rejected the protectorate 
 of the country was extended one year from July, 1870. 
 
 The annexation of San Domingo was a pet scheme of General Grant's, 
 and probably no measure of either one of his two administrations was so 
 dear to him personally. He was the original projector, and without 
 question he believed the proposed acquisition to be of immense impor- 
 tance to the interests of American commerce ; and in case of naval war 
 a most valuable possession as furnishing a depot for supplies. There 
 was a degree of enthusiasm and pertinacity in his attempts to carry 
 through the project, which subjected him to severe, if not unjust strict- 
 ures both in and out of congress. There were many suspicious circum- 
 stances involved in the details of the transaction, which naturally gave 
 rise to unfavorable opinions. That president Baez should have been 
 eager to have secured the annexation is not strange ; for he habitually 
 declared the dependence of his authority on that of the United States in 
 force, and tliat death or expulsion of himself and his cabinet would surely 
 take place without this saving hand of the great republic stretched out 
 in his aid. Numerous facts pointed to the suspicion that questions of 
 self interest, rather than considerations of mutual public benefit, incited 
 some of those most interested in the negotiation. President Baez had at- 
 tempted to force his people to vote in the affirmative in several instances. 
 Dominicans opposed to the scheme had been obliged to take refuge 
 from violence, in the house of the foreign consuls. Baez, in presence 
 of the commercial agent of the United States, threatened influential citi- 
 zens with banishment, and frequently expressed the like intolerance. 
 The public property of Dominica in the main was to be left to her with 
 a corresponding burden of her own liabilities. At the outset there were 
 only the most obscure and meagre data concerning the magnitude of 
 these debts. Colonel Fabens, who had acted both as agent of president 
 Grant and of general Baez, had placed the aggregate of these debts at 
 $600,000. It was afterwards shown that these must be reckoned at a 
 much higher -figure. It became known also that mortgages of enormous 
 scope, grants of public lands, of which a single one to Fabens absorbed 
 one-fifth of the whole ; perpetual navigation, commercial franchise, and 
 other important monopolies, mining rights, banking privileges, rights to 
 valuable woods, guano, etc. ; land grants and charters for railways, for 
 iminigi-ition societies, etc., existed. And thus there was excited a belief 
 that by way of grant or lien all of the resources had fallen under private 
 control. It was also stated that subsequently to the signing of the treaty 
 
SAN DOMINGO ANNEXATION. 1323 
 
 the numerous individuals who made up what was known as the Dominican 
 ring, had sought and obtained grants and cohcessions of every descrip- 
 tion from the Dominican government. Such facts a these gave empha- 
 sis to the swiftly spreading opinion that beneath the fair pretense of public 
 advantage there lurked a radical corruption. The friends of Dominican 
 annexation were not discouraged by the non-approval of the senate. 
 
 Mr. Morton, who had been active in the San Domingo scheme, on 
 Dec. 20th, moved to take up his resolution relative to San Domingo. 
 Mr. Sumner, of Mass., also called up his resolution, demanding from the 
 president of the United States copies of all papers and correspondence, 
 relating to the annexation or the purchase of Dominica or any part there- 
 of, with such full and complete information as would enlighten congress 
 and the country regarding the merits of the proposed scheme. Mr. 
 Morton's resolution was taken up by a vote of 38 to 17. 
 
 Mr. Thurman said that the fact was disclosed, that there was a direct 
 opposition between the president and the senate on the subject of this 
 acquisition. As the plan had failed for want of requisite support iu the 
 senate, it looked as if an attempt would be made to annex by joint reso- 
 lution, as in the case of Texas. Was the senate willing to recede from 
 its position ? The proposition was that the senate prepare to annex Do- 
 minica without one man in it out of ten thousand that could speak the 
 English language, without one man in ten thousand that could read a 
 word in any language ; and with still fewer who had the slightest idea of 
 our government. 
 
 Mr. Patterson said if the facts were sufficient to justify the president 
 in negotiating the treatv of annexation, they sufficed for the action of 
 the senate when the subject was brought before them. The president 
 had all the facts, and he should communicate them to the senate. If 
 sufficient facts were not accessible in Washington, then they had not been 
 sufficient to justify the administration in negotiating the treaty. Mr 
 Edmunds, (Rep.) of Vermont, did not think that the information in the 
 hands of the president justified the incorporation of San Domingo into 
 our political system. He was glad that the senator from Indiana had pro- 
 posed that a commission appointed by the president should proceed to 
 obtain further information. Mr. Sumner thought that the resolution be- 
 fore the senate committed congress to a dance of blood. By this reso- 
 lution the president was to appoint three commissioners and a secretary, 
 to proceed to the island of San Domingo, and report on certain things. 
 Thus were created three new offices, and yet it was simply called a reso- 
 lution of inquiry. To his mind it was plain there was a covert design to 
 commit congress to the policy of annexation. Mr. Sumner sketched the 
 negotiation since its inception in the following scathing language: 
 
1324 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 *' The negotiation for annexation began with a person known as Bue 
 naventura Baez. All the evidence, official and unofficial, shows him to 
 be a political jockey. But he could do little alone ; he had about hira 
 two other political jockeys, Cazneau and Fabens ; and these three to- 
 gether, a precious copartnership, seduced into their firm a young officer 
 of ours, who entitles himself 'aide-de-camp to the president of the 
 United States.' Together they got up what was entitled a protocol, in 
 which the young officer entitling himself aide-de-camp to the president 
 proceeded to make certain promises for the president. Before I read 
 what I shall of this document, I desire to say that there is not one word 
 showing that at the time this ' aide-de-camp,' as he called himself, had 
 any title or any instruction to take this step. If he had, that title and 
 that instruction have been withheld ; no inquiry has been able to pene- 
 trate it. At least the committee which brought out the protocol did not 
 bring out any such authority. The document is called ' a protocol,' 
 which I need not remind you, sir, is in diplomatic terms the first draft 
 of a treaty, or the memorandum between two powers in which are 
 written down the bases of some subsequent negotiation ; but at the time 
 it is hardly less binding than a treaty itself, except, as you are well 
 aware, under the constitution of the United States it can receive no final 
 obligation without the consent of the senate. This document begins as 
 follows : 
 
 ' The following bases, which shall serve for framing a definitive treaty 
 between the United States and the Dominican Republic, have been re- 
 duced to writing and agreed upon by General Orville E. Babcock, aide-de- 
 camp to his Excellency General Ulysses S. Grant, president of the United 
 States of America, and his special agent to the Dominican Republic, and 
 Mr. Manuel Maria Gautier, secretary of state of the departments of the 
 interior and of police, charged with the foreign relations of the said 
 Dominican RepubUc' 
 
 " Here you see how this young officer, undertaking to represent the 
 United States of America, entitles himself ' aide-de-camp to his Excel- 
 lency General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of 
 America, and his special agent to the Dominican Republic' Sir, you 
 have experience in the government of this country ; your post is high, 
 and I ask you do you know any such officer in our government as ' aide- 
 de-camp to his excellency the president of the United States ? Does 
 his name appear in the constitution, in any statute, in the history of this 
 republic anywhere ? If it does, your information, sir, is much beyond 
 mine. I have never before met any such instance. I believe this young 
 officer stands alone in using this lofty designation. I believe, still 
 further, that he stands alone in the history of free governments. I 
 
DEBATE ON SAN DOMINGO. 1325 
 
 doubt whether you can find a diplomatic paper anywhere in which any 
 person undertaking to represent his government has entitled himself 
 aide-de-camp of the chief of the state. The two duties are incompati- 
 ble, according to all the experience of history. No aide-de-camp would 
 be commissioned as a commissioner ; and the assumption of this exalted 
 and exceptional character by this young officer shows at least his inex 
 perience in diplomacy. However, he assumed it ; and it doubtless pro- 
 duced a great effect with Baez, Cazneau, and Fabens, the three confed- 
 erates. They were doubtless pleased with the distinction. It helped on 
 the plan they were engineering. 
 
 " The young aide-de-camp then proceeds to pledge the president as 
 follows : 
 
 *I. His Excellency General Grant, President of the United States, 
 promises privately to use all his influence in order that the idea of an- 
 nexing the Dominican Republic to the United States may acquire such a 
 degree of popularity among members of congress as wall be necessary for 
 its accomplishment.' 
 
 " Shall I read the rest of the document ? It is somewhat of the same 
 tenor. There are questions of money in it, cash down, all of which 
 must have been particularly agreeable to the three confederates. It 
 finally winds up as follows : 
 
 * Done in duplicate, in good faith, in the city of San Domingo, the 
 4th day of the month of September, a. d. 1869. 
 
 Orville E. Babcock, 
 Manuel Maria Gautier.' 
 
 " In ' good faith,' if you please, sir. 
 
 " I have heard it said that Orville E. Babcock did not write * aide-de- 
 camp' against his name at the bottom of this protocol. This was not neces- 
 sary. The designation of a person in such documents always appears at the 
 beginning ; as, for instance, in a deed between two parties, the party 
 signs it, and in signing it he recognizes the designation. 
 
 " Therefore we have here a * protocol,' so entitled, signed by a young 
 oflScer who entitles himself ' aide-de-camp of his Excellency, the Presi- 
 dent of the United States,' and who promises for the president that he 
 shall privately use all his influence in order that the idea of annexing the 
 Dominican Republic to the United States may acquire such a degree of 
 popularity among members of congress as will be necessary for its ac- 
 complishment. There was the promise ; senators about me know how 
 faithfully the president has fulfilled it, how faithfully he has labored, 
 privately and publicly, even beyond the protocol — the protocol only re- 
 quired that he should work privately — privately and publicly, in order 
 that the idea of annexing the Dominican Repubhc should be agreeable 
 to congress. 
 
1326 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 " The young officer, aide-de-camp of the president of the United States, 
 with this important and unprecedented document in his pocket, returned 
 to Washington. Instead of being called to account for this unauthorized 
 transaction, pledging the chief magistrate to use his influence privately 
 "with congress in order to cram down a measure that the confederates 
 justly supposed to be oflEensive, he was sent back to this island with di- 
 rections to negotiate a treaty. I would not allude to that treaty if it 
 had not been made the subject of discussion by the president himself in 
 his annual message. Yoa know it. The treaty itself is not on your 
 tables legislatively ; it has never been communicated legislatively to con- 
 gress. The other house, which may be called to act upon this important 
 measure, can know nothing of that treaty, and what we know of it we 
 cannot speak of even in this debate. We can simply speak of its exist- 
 ence, for the president himself has imparted that to congress and to the 
 country. The treaty exists ; and now the practical question is, by what 
 means was it negotiated ? I have described to you the three confeder- 
 ates who seduced into their company the aide-de-camp of the president ; 
 and now I have to aver, and I insist that the evidence will substantiate 
 what I say, that, at the time of the signature of the treaty of annexation, 
 Baez was sustained in power by the presence of our naval force in the 
 waters of the Dominican government. Go to the documents, and yoa 
 will find that what I say is true. Confer with naval officers, confer with 
 honest, patriot citizens who know the case, and they will all testify that, 
 without the presence of our ships of war in those waters, Baez would 
 have been obliged to flee. 
 
 " This is not all, sir ; I broaden this allegation. Ever since the signa- 
 ture of the treaty, and especially since its rejection, Baez has been sus- 
 tained in power by the presence of our naval force. Such I aver to be 
 the fact. • I state it with all the responsibility of my position and with full 
 conviction of its truth. I ask you, sir, to do as I have done ; go to the 
 state department and navy department, and read the reports there on file. 
 I ask you to read documents printed confidentially for the use of the 
 senate, and I feel sure that what I state will be found to be substantially 
 true. I ask you also to confer with any naval officer Avho has been 
 there, or with any patriot citizen. 
 
 " Sir, this is a most serious business. Nothing more important to the 
 honor of the republic has occurred for long years. How many of us 
 now are hanging with anxiety on the news from Europe ! There stand 
 matched in deadly combat two great historic foes, France and Germany 
 — France now pressed to the wall ; and what is the daily report ? That 
 Bismarck may take Louis Napoleon from his splendid prison and place 
 him again on the throne of France that he may obtain from him that 
 
SAN DOMINGO ANNEXATION. 132Y 
 
 treaty of surrender which the republic never will sign. Are we not all 
 indignant at the thought ? Why, sir, it was only the other day that a 
 member of the cabinet, a much-honored friend of mine, at my own 
 house, in conversation on this question, said that nothing could make 
 him more angry than the thought that Bismarck could play such a part, 
 and that France might be despoiled by this device. And now, sir, this 
 is the very part played by the American government. Baez has been 
 treated as you fear Bismarck may treat Louis Napoleon. You call him 
 * president ;' they call him down there ' dictator ;' better call him ' em- 
 peror,' and then the parallel will be complete. He is sustained in power by 
 the government of the United States that he may betray his country. Such 
 is the fact, and I challenge any senator to deny it. I submit myself to 
 question, and challenge the senator from Indiana to disprove the assertion." 
 
 In conclusion Mr. Sumner charged that this resolution meant violence 
 towards Dominica, violence towards Hayti. The proposed treaty as- 
 sumed the civil war pending in the territory 'annexed. No prudent 
 man bought a law suit ; we should buy a bloody law suit. 
 
 Mr. Morton scoffed at the charges of the senator from Massachusetts 
 and denied his allegations. This resolution did not commit congress to 
 annexation, but simply appointed commissioners to report upon what 
 terms San Domingo might consent to be annexed. The commissioners 
 were not authorized even to give their own opinion on the subject, but 
 simply to report facts. The senator proceeded to ridicule the statement 
 that Dominica had been overawed by an American naval force. The 
 simple truth was that men of all parties in San Domingo favored annexa- 
 tion, aside from the question whether Cabral or Baez had control of 
 the government. The time was sure to come w'hen not only San Do- 
 mingo would be annexed but also Cuba and Porto Rico. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, (Dem.) of Ohio, made a brief but telling speech against 
 the policy of annexation, in which he paid a brilliant tribute to the 
 genius and the noble consistency of Mr. Sumner's political history. He 
 said that Dominica was a land of throes and convulsions, with no civil 
 order and no regular government, since it had been emancipated from 
 foreign rule. It was nothing but a volcano of human passions and a 
 river of human blood. The question was whether the senate were wil- 
 ling to take a hundred and twenty thousand of such people and incorpo- 
 rate them into the United States. 
 
 The question was then taken on the joint resolution and passed in the 
 affirmative by a vote of 32 to 9 — 30 being absent. The joint resolution 
 was also passed in the House on the 9th of the following month by a 
 vote of 123 to 63. In pursuance of the investigation the following gen- 
 tlemen were appointed to constitute the Dominican commission : Hon. 
 
1328 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN". 
 
 Benj. F. Wade of Ohio, resident Andrew D. White of Cornell "Uni- 
 versity, Hon. S. G Howe of Massachusetts, who were authorized to 
 proceed immediately to San Domingo. 
 
 The following is in substance the report of the committee upon the 
 state of affairs in San Domingo : Its present government was in theory 
 a constitutional republic. The country had for a long period been sub- 
 jected to a series of revolts, which sometimes ripened into revolution. 
 In consequence of this there had grown up a penal code much more 
 severe than in our country, a rigorous execution of this code being neces- 
 sary to preserve tranquillity. The commission found the government 
 under the peaceable control of General Buenaventura Baez, except the 
 Haytien border, which was disturbed by insurrectionary leaders ; and 
 extraordinarily excited by fear of annexation to the United States. The 
 insurrections were headed by Cabral and Luperon. Neither had a dis- 
 tinct flag nor regularly organized army ; nor was the exponent of a 
 defined policy. The opposition had assumed the character of a guerilla 
 warfare, and caused heavy expenditure at the capitol, but possessed no 
 hold on public opinion. Besides these revolts some minor causes tended 
 to ^he aggravation of the difficulties. First the provincial jealousy be- 
 tween the people of the great district north of the central chain of 
 mountains, and those south. In the former provinces were the two 
 most powerful towns, Porto Plata and Santiago. To the south belonged 
 the city of St. Domingo. Next a serious cause of disturbance was the 
 existence of numerous petty military chiefs, among whom had grown up 
 a species of clanship. The necessity of crushing the lawlessness arising 
 from this system was one of the reasons constantly assigned for annexa- 
 tion to the United States. Firm and judicious administration, immi- 
 gration, activity in agriculture and trade would destroy a greater part of 
 this evil. To these causes of disturbances a third might be added, very 
 effective at present but which would be annihilated, should the republic 
 be protected by connection with a strong nation — the various islands near 
 St. Domingo where insurrections were hatched, to such an extent that 
 investing in revolutions had become a branch of trade, with great lisks, 
 but the possibility of great gains. The constant succession of insurrec- 
 tion and disturbances led thoughtful men to look abroad for relief. It 
 was this system which induced the people to acquiesce in the occupation 
 of the republic by the Spanish in 1861. That occupation had been 
 brought about by Santana and others in power aided by Spanish ships 
 of war; and the occupation was consummated to the surprise of the 
 people. Some of the stated causes of the failure of this annexation were 
 these : contrary to agreement the public offices of all sorts were mainly 
 filled by Spaniards to the exclusion of Dominicans. 
 
 .J 
 
REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS. 1329 
 
 The Spanish subordinate functionaries being from Cuba and Porto 
 Rico, colonies where colored men were held as slaves, were not conse- 
 quently fitted for the administration of government in a country where 
 the majority were colored and a considerable number black. 
 
 The Spanish, desiring to regulate the details of ordinary life, re- 
 stricted, and in some instances would not permit religious toleration. 
 They also menaced the masonic fraternity, etc. etc. Fearing that slavery 
 would be intvoduced into the island, the people arose in insurrection, 
 and finally drove the Spaniards to the coast, where they died in great 
 Bumbers from fevers, etc. 
 
 Although disappointed in the Spanish annexation, insun-ections con- 
 tinuing, the people still looked abroad for help. 
 
 • The commissioners found the people of all classes favorable to annexa- 
 tion to the United States, a favorable sentiment towards this country 
 being the result of some colonies settled by colored people from the 
 United States. The commissioners went over the island without guards 
 except sometimes one of honor, generally unarmed, and to their rooms 
 all had free access. The physical, mental, and moral condition of San 
 Domingo was better than expected, the population being generally of 
 mixed blood. There were a few whites to be found in the interior and 
 in the mixed the white predominated, differing thus from Haytiens 
 where the black predominated. The cultivated class compared well 
 with the same class in other countries. The people seemed kindly and 
 inoffensive, and high crimes, arson, murder, etc., are almost unknown. 
 
 The Roman Catholic religion prevailed except in the American colo- 
 nies of 1824 who were Methodists and Baptists, and lived peaceably 
 among the Catholics. No intolerance could be discovered among them, 
 and no prejudice as to race, color, or class. The houses were poor and 
 only so much land cultivated as would supply the family in food, on 
 account of the numerous insurrections. Few schools, and only one 
 badly supplied printing office, existed, but there was a general desire for 
 education. The people were not degraded and were willing to work for 
 proper and secure compensation. The inhabitants had been estimated at 
 207,000, but this had been proven to much exceed the real number. 
 The resources of the country were vast, the mineral wealth very great, 
 the land rich and there were profusions of fruit. The cotton tree grew 
 on dry land, and the American cotton shrub was raised successfully. 
 Very little swampy region was to be found, and the forests were very 
 luxuriant. 
 
 The fisheries, though now neglected, could by well directed industry- 
 be made of enormous value. There were several rivers navigable' by~ 
 vessels of light draught, and the sea coast was indented with fine and. 
 84 
 
1330 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 numerous harbors. The bay of Samana, thirty miles long by about ten 
 broad, was perhaps the most important in the West Indies, sufficiently 
 commodious for great fleets, it was thoroughly protected from tempests. 
 The situation gave easy command to the Gulf of Mexico, which, in case 
 of a new passage through the Isthmus of Darien would be a grand coign 
 of advantage for the United States. As a naval depot the value of the 
 position could hardly be overrated. Under an orderly government the 
 great mineral and agricultural resources of this region would be produc- 
 tive of great wealth, as inland communication from the bay of Samana 
 would be easy. The commissioners made a statement of the debt and 
 income of the Dominican republic ; the sum total so far as could be 
 ascertained, of the indebtedness being $1,565,630, and the income $1,- 
 271^855. The government of St. Domingo was in no way indebted to 
 Hayti. The fact that the Dominican part of the island had been for a 
 few years ruled by the same government as Hayti did not make them 
 liable for any burdens. The commissioners then recapitulated the grants 
 and concessions so far as could be ascertained. Among these grants 
 they could discover none which had been made to officials of the 
 United States. The terms of annexation on which the Dominican gov- 
 ernment desired to join the United States were those of a territorial con- 
 dition. The commissioners then stated the- arguments in favor of an- 
 nexation which pressed themselves on their attention, believing that it 
 would be no less beneficial to the Haytien than to the Dominican part of 
 the island. They urged that St. Domingo would undoubtedly be devel- 
 oped into a powerful state, which by the inevitable laws of trade would 
 make slave-labor in the neighboring islands unprofitable and by the 
 spread of its ideas render the whole slave and caste systems odious. 
 
 The president on sending the report of the commissioners to congress 
 on April 5th of the next session of congress, accompanied it with a mes- 
 sage in which he said : 
 
 " Now my task is finished and with it ends all personal solicitude on 
 the subject. My duty being done, yours begins, and I gladly hand 
 over the whole matter to the judgment of the American people and of 
 their representatives in congress assembled. The facts will now be 
 spread before the country, and a decision rendered by that tribunal, 
 whose convictions so seldom err and against whose will I have no pol'n^y 
 to enforce. My opinion remains unchanged, indeed it is confirmed by the 
 report, that the interests of our country and of St. Domingo alike invite 
 the annexation of that republic. In view of the difference of opinion on 
 this subject I suggest that no action be taken at the present session, be- 
 yond the printing and general dissemination of the report." 
 
 In the Senate on January 18th, Mr. Morton (Rep.) offered a resolution 
 
THE COMMITTEE ON SOUTHERN OUTRAGES. 1331 
 
 that a select committee of five senators should be appointed to examine 
 into the truth, or falsehood of the crimes and outrages of a political 
 character alleged to have been committed in the southern states ; whether 
 there was in those states security for persons and property. After a 
 brief and earnest debate this resolution was passed. The objections of 
 the democratic senators were summed up in the closing speech of Mr. 
 Bayard of Delaware. 
 
 " The air has been filled with rumors that some such scheme was on 
 foot of patching up this wretched system of reconstruction as should in 
 effect again place the entire southern people under martial law, wielded 
 by the present administration and its followers. How is it that after 
 the lapse of more than five years, with unlimited power of legislation, 
 with unlimited power to fill all the offices in the southern states, new 
 committees, new investigations, new laws and measures must be resorted 
 to in order to produce good govermnent throughout the southern states ? 
 What a confession of incapacity and error is here made ! 
 
 " As I have said, I anticipate as a foregone conclusion the passage of 
 this resolution. I anticipate the appointment of this committee. I 
 anticipate the collection of evidence, almost cut and dried to order, for 
 the purpose of justifying almost any such m.easures as we have seen in 
 the past, or which may be even exceeded in the future. And yet that 
 does not prevent me from giving warning to my fellow-countrymen all 
 over this country of what I believe to be the truth of the dangerous 
 attempts now being made. 
 
 " The object of this resolution, this special committee, in my solemn 
 belief, is nothing in the world but to obtain some pretext by which you 
 shall place the southern people again under martial law. There is not 
 to-day in any southern state a single federal officer who has not been 
 nominated by the president of your choice and confirmed by this senate. 
 There is not a district judge who is to preside at trials ; there is not a 
 district attorney who is to prosecute for offenses against the laws of the 
 United States; there is not a marshal who has the sole discretion in 
 selecting and summoning the jurors who are to try such cases, who is 
 not a thick-and-thin partisan of your administration. And yet in the 
 face of all that you come here, disregarding the ordinary processes of 
 the laws — and surely they are numerous enough, surely they are severe 
 enough — and appeal to force," 
 
 The committee consisted of Mr, Scott, of South Carolina (chairman), 
 Mr, Wilson, of Massachusetts, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, Mr. Chandler, 
 of Michigan, Mr, Rice, of Arkansas. 
 
 A bill to consider the prqmotion of commerce among the states and 
 cheapening the transportation of the mails and public stores, was taken 
 
1332 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 up on the motion of Mr. Chandler, (Rep.) of Michigan. This was de- 
 feated by a non-partisan vote, mainly on the ground that the chartering 
 of an air line through the different states by congress involved the exer- 
 cise of a dangerous and mischievous power. 
 
 A bill providing for a territorial government for the District of Co- 
 lumbia was passed. 
 
 Another bill provided for celebrating the one-hundredth anniversary 
 of American independence, by holding an international exhibition of 
 arts, manufactures, and products of the soil and mines, in the year 1876. 
 
 CHAPTER ex. 
 
 OPENING SESSION OF THE FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS. THE ALLEGED DIS- 
 TURBANCES IN THE SOUTH, AND THE EXCITEMENT IN THE COUNTRY. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS APPOINTING COMMITTEES OF INVESTIGATION, AND THE 
 DEBATES GROWING THEREFROM. MR. SHELLABARGEr's BILL, SUBSE- 
 QUENTLY KNOWN AS THE KU-KLUX BILL. EXCITING AND MASTERLY 
 
 DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. PASSAGE OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE. 
 
 The first session of the XLIId congress commenced on March 4th, 
 immediately after the adjournment of the preceding session. 
 
 The chief interest of this session centred in what was subsequently 
 designated as the ku-klux bill. There had been for a long time I'eports 
 of continued outrages on person and property in various of the southern 
 states. It had been alleged that these cases of violence and persecution 
 had been aimed solely at the negroes and the white republicans of the 
 south ; that they had resulted in a reign of terrorism, which placed every 
 adherent of the republican policy in continual peril of his life and prop- 
 erty ; that the whole animus of this system of chaos and bloodshed was 
 of a political character ; that the free exercise of the franchise was inter- 
 fered with, through the terror inspired by bands of midnight assassins, 
 and their constant outrages to an extent inconceivable to the peaceful 
 communities in the north ; that these armed gangs known as the ku- 
 klux-klan were made up of ex-confederato soldiers, drilled and disciplined 
 by officers of experience, who sought to cowe the black population into 
 an abject submission little better than the 'former condition of slavery, 
 ind. to drive the northern white settlers from the country. It was 
 
ALLEGED DISTURBANCES IN THE SOUTH. 1333 
 
 charged by the supporters of the administration, that the condition of so- 
 ciety was almost unparalleled in its lawlessness, and without some stringent 
 measures would soon become a crying shame before the civilized world. 
 
 The democratic politicians and newspapers on the other hand asserted 
 that the reports of violence had been maliciously and grossly exaggerated 
 for political purposes ; that but few specific charges had been proven, 
 and that it was easy to establish a pretext for federal intervention, if 
 vague and glittering generalities which captivated the minds of the 
 masses were assumed as facts. 
 
 They admitted the existence of disturbances in several of the states, 
 but these were not so much the outcome of political lawlessness as they 
 were the irrepressible results of the long continued misrule and oppres- 
 sion under which the southern people had rested since the close of the 
 war. They claimed that even with this palliation for social disorder, 
 there had been no more cases of crime in the aggregate than had crim- 
 soned the page of society in sevei'al of the northwestern states. 
 
 Whether or not this question of political and social outrage in tlie 
 southern states was based on pressing and palpable facts, it had been 
 ^or some time swelling into a problem of great public interest, and as 
 such, its culmination in the forty-second congress excited a degree of at- 
 tention and controveu'sy throughout the country which turned all eyes 
 on this session with intense watchfulness. 
 
 In the last session the question had already been opened by the pas- 
 sage of the resolution offered by the senator of Indityia appointing a 
 committee of five to report on the condition of the southern states. The 
 question was resumed by a resolution by Mr. Anthony, (Rep.) of Rhode 
 Island, to the effect that the senate should devote the present session to 
 the deficiency appropriation bill, the concurrent resolution for a joint 
 committee of investigation into the condition of the states lately in in- 
 surrection, and the resolution then pending instructing the committee on 
 the judiciary to report a bill, enabling the president and courts of the 
 United States to execute the laws in said southern states. 
 
 In the senate, on March 18th, Mr. Sherman, (Rep.) of Ohio, offered a 
 resolution that the committee above mentioned should be instructed to 
 report such a bill as early as practicable. 
 
 Mr. Sherman, in defense of the resolution, said the condition of af- 
 fairs in the south was so extraordinary as demanded the prompt atten- 
 tion of the senate and of the nation. The ku-klux-klan was a formida- 
 ble military power in eleven states of the union as shown by contempo- 
 raneous history and the sworn proof of an army of witnesses. It was a 
 well disciplined band, armed, equipped, disguised, and mainly composed 
 of soldiers of the rebel army. 
 
1334 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Davis, (Dem.) of Kentucky, said that the honorable senator's 
 statement was simply the phantom of a distempered imagination. 
 Several southern senators here stated that so far as their states were con- 
 cerned the allegation was totally untrue. 
 
 Mr. Sherman : " I will first deal with the case of North Carolina 
 where we are fortified by proof that cannot be gainsaid, by an examina- 
 tion made by seven of the most intelligent members of this body, among 
 whom were two members of the minority. Before that committee 
 judges, lawyers, oflicers, clerks, and private citizens of every grade and 
 condition of society were examined, and their sworn testimony is given 
 in the report. And who now, in the face of this testimony, will deny 
 that there are organized bands of lawless and desperate men, composed 
 mainly of soldiers of the rebel army, in disguise, working with terror and 
 violence, with murder, whipping, and scourging and spreading teiTor over 
 large parts of the state of North Carolina, sometimes embracing whole 
 counties, and whose proceedings are set forth in the report with an am- 
 plitude of minutiae and detail that is perfectly startling ?" 
 
 The senator said that the bandits, even in counties hitherto free from 
 their depredations, were organized and ready to spring to arms at any 
 time. He had read their oath showing that it was a political organiza- 
 tion with the objective point of preventing large masses of the southern 
 people from enjoying their guaranteed constitutional rights. The mem- 
 bers of the league at first pretended to be the representative ghosts of 
 the confederate dead, and thus terrified the ignorant whites and blacks 
 by appealing to their superstition. From this moral intimidation they 
 proceeded by swift strides to violence, rapine and murder. Even the 
 Thugs of India were not so execrable as this league of political assassins. 
 In all the ages the record of crime revealed no conspiracy more diaboli- 
 cal. These outrages were committed on feeble and defenseless people. 
 As to the extent of the organization, it was stated that in the state of 
 North Carolina alone it reached forty thousand. Wherever there was a 
 strong republican majority or a strong democratic majority the organiza- 
 tion lay quiet, but where the county was close, especially where the 
 negro population preponderated, they held full sway. The ku-klux- 
 klan was a rebel organization flaunting the rebel flag in the face of the 
 country but instead of open and manly warfare it was assassination sub- 
 stituted for war. The appalling fact was that not one man had been 
 called to account for all this murder, robbery and scourging. According 
 to the testimony of a judge in Kentucky, grand juries refused to indict, 
 and petit juries to convict, those charged with these lawless outrages. 
 The material allegations of this political indictment, had not been de- 
 nied by their adversaries, but justified on the score of secret leagues of 
 
ON THE SOUTHERN DISTURBANCES. 1335 
 
 the negroes. There was no reason to believe that the latter had been 
 more than ordinary and lawful associations. 
 
 Mr. Stevenson, (j!)em.) of Kentucky, stated that during his late execu- 
 tive administration of the affairs of his state, there were not more than a 
 dozen instances of violence, such as were charged by the senator from 
 Ohio ; and there was no evidence that these were of a political character, 
 nor that they were committed by ex-confederate soldiere. He could go 
 to the great capital of Ohio and show more crime and outrage com- 
 mitted in one year than in Kentucky for ten years. He could go to 
 Indiana, and find vigilance committees who hung half-a-dozen at a time. 
 The honorable senator would not have advanced these ad captandum ar- 
 guments in the name of his party had not the sinking fortunes of that 
 party required the public mind to be inflamed. 
 
 Mr. Sawyer, (Rep.) of South Carolina, did not think that the ku-klux 
 outrages argued any direct disloyalty to the Uuited States, but were 
 rather the outcome of opposition to the local administration. The so 
 called ku-kiux-klan aimed their persecution against those who sup- 
 ported and affiliated with the state officers. This pretext of maladminis- 
 tration of state and county affairs, did not justify such devilish doings. 
 The monstrous character of such a policy led to anarchy, and the sacri- 
 fice of the dearest rights of man and society. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, (Dem.) of Ohio : The evils complained of, even if they 
 were as great as exaggeration had depicted them, were not nearly so 
 great as would be an overthrow of the fundamental law of the land, the 
 assumption of all power by congress. The bills introduced by northern 
 members within the last two years shocked every sense of constitutional 
 law. The question involved was as to the power of congress to go into 
 a state and punish offenses of ordinary character, such as Avere provided 
 for by state laws. No question had been more solemnly decided than 
 this, by all the gieat constitutional expounders, from John Marshall 
 down to the present time. Even the fourteenth amendment gave no 
 such power as this to invade the state and take the entire jurisdiction of 
 crime committed within its boi'ders. 
 
 *' This is the state of this case. Here, sir, is a law, a law which has 
 been in force now nearly a year, with republicans everywhere in these 
 States to execute that law, everywhere having power to execute it, the 
 judges of your own appointment, the jurors selected by your own mar- 
 shals, and they the appointees of the president of the United States, with 
 every power with which government can clothe a judiciary ; and now we are 
 told that we must have some more law of the same kind. Mr. President, 
 if we can have no better law of the same kind than the bills which have 
 been presented to us, I hold that the less of that law we have the better. 
 
1336 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 " The provision in the constitution, in regard to the president putting 
 down insurrection when called upon by the executive or the legislature 
 of a state, relates to insurrection against the state ; but that does not 
 limit the power of the president to put down insurrections in the 
 country. There is the power to put down insurrections against the gov- 
 ernment of the United States; and although the act of 1795, congress 
 not anticipating such a case, failed to provide for it, yet, by the act of 
 1862, you did provide for it, and gave the power to the president to 
 call out the militia whenever the necessity existed to put down insurrec- 
 tions against the government of the United States. Then you have the 
 judicial power which I have shown you, and you have the executive 
 power, the president clothed with power under your act to even call out 
 the militia to put down insurrection against the government of the 
 United States. 
 
 He implored the senate not to hasten their action in this grave crisis 
 but to give the judiciary committee time to report such a bill as the 
 senate could adopt without bringing shame upon the face of every sound 
 lawyer. 
 
 Mr. Blair, (Dem.) of Missouri, stigmatized this whole reconstruction 
 business as a bald and flagrant usurpation on the written constitution, 
 intended to obliterate state power and state pride. 
 
 Mr. Morton, (Rep.) of Indiana, proposed to consider the legal ques- 
 tion involved in the controversy. He spoke as follows : 
 
 "The clause to which I call especial attention is that which says that 
 no state shall ' deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro- 
 tection of the laws.' If a state fails to secure to a certain class of people 
 the equal protection of the laws, it is exactly equivalent to denying such 
 protection. Whether that failure is willful or the result of imbecility 
 can make no difference, and is a question into which it is not so impor- 
 tant that congress should enter. The meaning of the constitution is, 
 that every person shall have the equal protection of the laws. It is in 
 its nature an affirmative provision, and not simply a negative on the 
 power of the states. Will it be pretended that the meaning would be 
 changed if it read, ' every person in the United States shall be entitled 
 to the equal protection of the laws ?' It means to confer upon every 
 person the right to such protection, and therefore gives to congress the 
 power to secure the enjoyment of that right. Whenever the constitu- 
 tion confers a power or guarantees a right, it gives also the ra( -s of ex- 
 ercising the power and protecting the right. „, 
 
 " The government can act only upon individuals. It cannoi prevent 
 the legislature of a state from passing an act, or compel the passage of 
 an act. If the effect of the amendment is simply that the United States 
 
DEBATE ON ALLEGED 80UTHEBN OUTRAGES. 1337 
 
 shall exert a negative upon a state, it amounts to but very little, and in 
 fact would result only in a lawsuit, and would, in effect, nullify the con- 
 cluding section of the amendment, which gives to congress the power to 
 enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation. There can be no 
 legislation to enforce it as against a state. A criminal law cannot be 
 made against a state. A state cannot be indicted or punished as such. 
 The legislation which congress is authorized to enact must operate, if at 
 all, upon individuals. 
 
 "Believing that the fourteenth amendment intended to secure to every 
 person the equal protection of the laws, it is competent for congress to 
 furnish such protection by appropriate legislation. If there be organiza- 
 tions in any of the states having for their purpose to deny to any class 
 or condition of men equal protection, to deny to them the equal enjoy- 
 ment of rights that are secured by the constitution of the United States, 
 it is the right and duty of congress to make such organizations and com- 
 binations an offense against the United States, and punishable by such 
 pains and penalties as may be prescribed. Whatever conspiracy may be 
 formed, having for its purpose to create a terror which shall deter any 
 class of people from the exercise of those rights, it is a direct infringe- 
 ment of the amendment which may be punished by the laws of the 
 United States." 
 
 Mr. Thurman claimed that nine-tenths of all the testimony supporting 
 a belief in the ku-klux-klan and the so-called outrages were such as would 
 convict no man in a court of justice of the slightest offense. Even the 
 men who ha<l turned states evidence and received the price of their apos- 
 tasy, testified almost entirely on hearsay. 
 
 The question recurred on the resolution, and it was agreed to by a vote 
 of 38 to 12, 20 being absent. 
 
 In the senate on March iVth, Mr. Anthony, (Rep.) of Rhode Island, 
 offered a concurrent resolution providing for a joint committee, consist- 
 ing of five senators and seven representatives, to investigate into the con- 
 dition of the late insurrectionary states as regai-ds the execution of the 
 laws and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the 
 United States, with leave to report at any time the result of their investi- 
 gation to the two houses of congress with such recommendations as they 
 deemed expedient. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, (Rep.) of Illinois, proposed an amendment that the 
 committin': consist of seven on the part of the senate and nine on the 
 part of t^ e house. 
 
 The fvifeolution as amended was adopted. 
 
 In the house on March 20th the above resolution was considered. 
 Mr, Dawes, (Rep.) of Massachusetts, offered an amendment to the reso- 
 
1338 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 lution that the joint committee consist of seven senators and fourteen 
 representatives. The amendment of Mr. Dawes was agreed to, and on 
 being sent back to the senate the amended resolution was concurred in. 
 
 Two of the senators appointed were the same as those previously ap- 
 pointed under Mr. Morton's resolution, Mr. Nye and Mr. Blair. 
 
 In the house a message was received from the president March 23d. 
 
 To the Senate and House of Representatives : — A condition of aSairs 
 now exists in some of the states of the union rendering life and property 
 insecure, and the carrying of the mails and the collection of the revenue 
 dangerous. The proof that such a condition of affairs exists in some 
 localities is now before the senate. That the power to correct these 
 evils is beyond the control of the state authorities I do not doubt ; that 
 the power of the executive of the United States, acting within the lim- 
 its of existing laws, is sufficient for present emergencies is not clear. 
 Therefore, I urgently recommend such legislation as in the judgment of 
 congress shall effectually secure life, liberty, and property, and the en- 
 forcement of law in all parts of the United States. It may be expedient 
 to provide that such law as shall be passed in pursuance of this recom- 
 mendation shall expire at the next session of Congress. There is no 
 other subject on which I would recommend legislation during the pres- 
 ent session. U. S. Grant. 
 
 On the 28th of March Mr. Shellabarger, (Rep.) of Ohio, from the select 
 committee on this message of the president, reported a bill to enforce 
 the provisions of the fourteenth amendment. Pending the motion 
 for the engrossment Mr. Shellabarger entered a motion to recommit 
 the bill. He then explained the provisions of the bill in detail 
 at great length. He said there was a domain of constitutional law in- 
 volved in the right consideration of this measure, which was now for the 
 first time in the history of the government to be explored and considered. 
 The gist of Mr. Shellabarger's argument is found in the following extract 
 from his speech : 
 
 " I now come to the second section of the bill. That section, in brief, 
 is one which seeks to supply the alleged deficiencies of the sixth section 
 of what is called the enforcement act of May, 1870, enforcing the pro 
 visions of the fifteenth amendment. It is alleged that that act, where it 
 defines and punishes criminally a conspiracy of two or more persons to 
 deprive a citizen of the United States of any right to which he is en- 
 titled under the constitution and laws of the United States, falls worth- 
 less, because of its too great generality and vagueness in the description 
 of the particular act that shall constitute the crime. It is any conspiracy 
 to deprive a citizen of any right. It is also alleged as to that section, 
 that, being found in the body of an act which is confined in its general 
 
SPEECH OF MR. SHELLABARGER. 1339 
 
 scope to the enforcement of the fifteenth amendment and the right to 
 vote, it will be construed in the light of the companionship in which it 
 is found, on the principle noscitur a sociis ; and that, being so construed, 
 it will be held to apply only to rights of which the citizen is deprived in 
 regard to the matter of voting. For the purpose of removing both those 
 doubts and questions, if there be any (and I think there is a just and 
 fair ground of doubt upon that matter), we have inserted this second 
 section of the bill. It provides — 
 
 ' That if two or more persons shall, within the limits of any state, band 
 or conspire together to do any act in violation of the rights, privileges, 
 or immunities of another person, which, being committed within a place 
 under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, would, 
 under any law of the United States then in force, constitute the crime 
 of either murder, manslaughter, mayhem, robbery, assault and battery, 
 perjury, subornation of perjury, criminal obstruction of legal process or 
 resistance of officers in discharge of official duty, arson, or larceny ; and 
 if one or more of the parties to said conspiracy shall do any act to effect 
 the object thereof, all the parties to or engaged in said conspiracy, 
 whether principals or accessories, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, 
 and, upon conviction thereof, shall be liable, etc., and the crime shall be 
 punishable as such in the courts of the United States.' 
 
 " I now proceed to the inquiry, where is the constitutional power to 
 enact that section into law ? To those members of the house of repre- 
 sentatives who are of opinion that the sixth section of the act of 1870, 
 called the ' enforcement act,' is constitutional, I need make no argument. 
 Every gentleman who voted for or approves that sixth section of the act 
 of May, 1870, will need no persuasion to come to the conclusion that 
 this second section is constitutional ; for it rests upon exactly the same 
 legal ground, and is in its constitutional aspects identical with it, the 
 only difference being that the section of this bill defines the offense with 
 greater exactness. It does so by requiring that the act conspired to be 
 done must be an act which would, under the laws of the United States, 
 within places where the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, con- 
 stitute some one of the following offenses : either murder, manslaughter, 
 mayhem, robbery, assault and battery, perjury, subornation of perjury, 
 criminal obstruction of legal process, or resistance of officers in" discharge 
 of official duty, arson, or larceny. That makes exact and definite the 
 act which must be charged in the indictment. 
 
 " And now, Mr. Speaker, I proceed to the consideration for a few 
 moments of the question whether either of those sections in the enforce- 
 ment act of 1870, or section two of this bill, has warrant in the constitu- 
 tion for enactment. I have written down and condensed into a single 
 
1340 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 sentence what I believe to be the legal principle and idea upon which 
 the enforcement act of 1870 and this section of this act may be based, 
 and it is this : when the United States inserted into its constitution that 
 which was not in it before, that the people of this country, born or nat- 
 uralized therein, are citizens of the United States and of' the states also 
 in which they reside, and that congress shall have power to enforce by 
 appropi-iate legislation the requirement that their privileges and immuni- 
 ties as citizens should not be abridged, it was done for a purpose, and 
 that purpose was that the United States thereby were authorized to di- 
 rectly protect and defend throughout the United States those privileges 
 and immunities which are in their nature ' fundamental '—and I use my 
 words cautiously when I say ' in their nature fundamental '—and which 
 inhere and belong of right to the citizenship of all free governments. 
 The making of them United States citizens and authorizing congress by 
 appropriate law to protect that citizenship gave congress power to legis- 
 late directly for enforcement of such rights as are fundamental elements 
 of citizenship. 
 
 " This, sir, is the foundation idea on which this section and the whole 
 bill rest for their constitutional warrant. If right, it solves every possi- 
 ble doubt and difficulty in every part of this great inquiry. The United 
 States added to its constUution what was not in it before ; because never 
 before was it found in the constitution in express words that all people 
 in this countiy were citizens of the United States as well as of the 
 states. This was added, and added for a purpose. 
 
 " But the addition did not stop there. It was also added that no 
 state should make or enforce any law abridging those rights of citizen- 
 ship then first declared by express constitutional enactment. But they 
 did not stop there. In the abundance of caution they added that no 
 state should deprive them of life, liberty, or property, without due pro- 
 cess of law. Nor did they stop there, but added that the state should 
 not deprive any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of 
 the laws. And they did not stop there yet, but in still more abundant 
 caution added that congress should have power by appropriate legislation 
 to enforce these provisions. What provisions? Why, sir, the° provis- 
 ions that we are all citizens of one, and but one, republic. More than 
 that. That we all have, as such, privileges and immunities. More than 
 tJiat. These privileges and immunities shall not be abridged. More 
 than that. That under the laws of the union and the states there should 
 be exact equality upon the face of the laws ; they should not abridge 
 rights. More than that. That under these laws, so equal, the states 
 should not deny equal protection. More than that. . That congress 
 should have power to make laws appropriate to secure all that was meant 
 
SPEECH OF MR. SHELLABARGER CONTINUED. 1341 
 
 by and included in all this more than trinity of 'provisions' that we are 
 all United States citizens ; that our laws shall, as to us all, be equal ; that 
 we shall all have due process of law, and all equal protection under these 
 equal laws. 
 
 " Putting all these constitutional elements together, Mr. Speaker, 
 where is the doubt congress may, by appropriate legislation, protect 
 those rights of American citizenship so solicitously and so abundantly 
 guarded and guaranteed and made eternal as the constitution itself ? If, 
 after all this transcendent profusion of enactment in restraint of the 
 states and affirmative conferment of power on congress, the states still 
 remain unrestrained, the complete, sole arbiters of power, to defend or 
 deny national citizenship — to make laws abridging or not abridging, to 
 protect or to destroy, by banded murder, these United States citizens as 
 the state may please, and the United States must stand by, a powerless 
 spectator of the overthrow of the rights and liberties of its own citizens, 
 then not only is the profusion of guards put by the fourteenth amend- 
 ment around our rights a miserable waste of words, but the government is 
 itself a miserable sham, its citizenship a curse, and the union not fit to be. 
 
 " Such are plainly the general aspects of this question of power to 
 defend by federal law the essential franchises of national citizenship. I 
 will go now into further detail. 
 
 " I have stated that congress has power to protect those rights, what- 
 ever they may be, which inhere in citizenship. What are those rights? 
 Here, Mr. Speaker, we tread upon ground that, fortunately, has been ex- 
 plored. From the beginning of the government down, the words in the 
 old constitution, 'privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 states,' have come under judicial notice and interpretation. I will read 
 a single sentence, which expresses what ' the privileges and immimities 
 of citizens' are with sufficient legal accuracy for the purpose of this 
 debate. I read from 4 Washington Circuit Court Reports, page 380, 
 Corfield vs. Coryel : 
 
 * The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in 
 the several states ? W^e feel no hesitation in confining these expressions 
 td those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamen- 
 tal, which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, and 
 which have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of the several states 
 which compose this union from the time of their becoming free, inde- 
 pendent, and sovereign. 
 
 ' What these fundamental privileges are it would perhaps be more 
 tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all com- 
 prehended under the following general heads : protection by the 
 government ;' 
 
1342 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 " Mark that : 
 * protection by the government ; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with 
 the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue 
 and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints 
 as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the 
 whole.' 
 
 " Now, Mr. Speaker, keeping these as the fundamental rights of citi- 
 zenship in our minds, I point you once more to the terms of this second 
 section. It makes criminal, attacks of conspirators. It punishes, not 
 individual crime, but only banded, mastering confederated violence. 
 Then also it must be directed against the rights, privileges, or immunities 
 of a citizen. Then the crime can be committed against no other rights 
 than those which come clearly, plainly, and without controversy, within 
 those rights defined by the authority I have read to belong to citizenship 
 as such. In this regard the bill goes nowhere beyond the protection of 
 rights clearly and unquestionably fundamental, and belonging to citizen- 
 ship in every free government as an element and attribute of that na- 
 tional citizenship which he carries with him wherever he goes through- 
 out the world. 
 
 " Of course, Mr. Speaker, the constitutional objection to this section is 
 that the acts it seeks to punish, being committed within a state, can only 
 be defined and punished as crime under state law. It assumes that in 
 attempting this legislation congress blots out the jurisdiction and power 
 of the states. It also seems thereby to assume that there are no classes 
 of acts which both the state governments and the national government 
 may define and punish concurrently as constituting a crime against 
 each government. Mr. Speaker, I deny the soundness of each of these 
 assumptions. 
 
 " Let me now state what my reply is to this charge that the second 
 section invades the exclusive and reserved powers of the states. The 
 major proposition of my reply I choose to state in the words of the su- 
 preme court of the United States in Jones vs. Van Zandt (5 Howard, 
 230), where the court uses these words: Congress is charged with the 
 duty of ' enforcing by legislation every constitutional provision. This 
 grows out of the position and nature of such a government as ours, and 
 is as imperative in the cases not enumerated specially in respect to such 
 legislation as in others.' In shorter words, congress is bound to execute, 
 by legislation, every provision of the constitution, even those provisions 
 not specially named as to be so enforced. 
 
 " My next proposition is historical, and one simply in aid and support 
 of the truth of the first. It is that the United States always has as- 
 sumed to enforce, as against the states, and also persons, every one of 
 
SPEECH OF MR. SHELLABARGER CONTINUED. 1343 
 
 the provisions of the constitution. Most of the provisions of the consti- 
 tution which restrain and directly relate to the states, such as those in 
 tenth section of first article, that ' no state shall make a treaty,' ' grant 
 letters of marque,' ' coin money,' ' emit bills of credit,' etc., relate to the 
 divisions of the political powers of the state and general governments. 
 They do not relate directly to the rights of persons within the states 
 and as between the states and such persons therein. These prohibitions 
 upon the political powers of the states are all of such nature that they 
 can be, and even have been, when the occasion arose, enforced by the 
 courts of the United States declaring void all state acts of encroach- 
 ment on federal powers. Thus, and thus sufficiently, has the United 
 States ' enforced ' these provisions of the constitution. But there are 
 some that are not of this class. These are where the court secures the 
 rights or the liabilities of persons within the states, as between such 
 persons and the states. 
 
 " These three are : first, that as to fugitives from justice ; second, that 
 as to fugitives from service (or slaves) ; third, that declaring that the 
 'citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immuni- 
 ties of citizens in the several states.' 
 
 " And, sir, every one of these — the only provisions where it was 
 deemed that legislation was required to enforce the constitutional pro- 
 visions — the only three where the rights or liabilities of persons in the 
 states, as between these persons and the states, are directly provided for, 
 congress has by legislation affirmatively interfered to protect or to sub- 
 ject such persons. In the case of the two clauses in relation to fugitive 
 slaves and fugitives from justice, by a law passed v^arly in the morning 
 of the republic's life, four years after the constitution was adopted, on 
 12th February, 1793, the congress 'enforced' the requirements by pre- 
 scribing the methods of such enforcement. In the other case also (see 6 
 United States Statutes at Large, 645) congress passed a law, in admitting 
 Missouri, enacting that the constitution of Missouri should ' never be 
 construed to authorize the passage of any law, and no law shall ever be 
 passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizens of either of the 
 states of the union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of privileges 
 or immunities to which such citizens are entitled under the constitution 
 of the United States.' 
 
 " Here is an express, direct law of congress, enacting, in so many 
 words, that Missouri should ' never pass ' any law by which any citizen 
 of the union should be excluded from any of his privileges ! And yet 
 we are told that, even with the new provisions of the new amendments, 
 we cannot protect the privileges of United States citizens in the states, 
 even as this bill does indirectly, though in 1821 congress could do it 
 
1344 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 directly, and that even by legislating out of existence part of the Missou- 
 .ri constitution ! 
 
 " Thus, Mr. Speaker, by the unquestioned judgment of the supreme 
 court of the United States, and by the whole legislative and judicial his- 
 tory of the republic, I make out absolutely, completely, and forever, the 
 major premise of my reply. I repeat that premise, that it is the duty of 
 congress to enforce by appropriate legislation every provision of the con- 
 stitution where legislation is needed to secure the enforcement. My 
 second proposition is that these three are each provisions of the consti- 
 tution : first, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, etc., 
 are citizens of the United States ; second, that no state shall make or 
 enforce any law abridging their privileges and immunities ; third, that such 
 states may not deny them equal protection of the laws. 
 
 " And my conclusion from these is that congress may, by legislation, 
 
 * appropriate,' ' enforce,' to use the supreme court's own word in Jones 
 vs. Van Zandt, which is also the word of the fifth section of the four- 
 teenth amendment, ' these privileges and immunities,' so by these ' pro- 
 visions ' to be protected, and hence, and lastly, may pass this bill, which 
 surely is ' appropriate ' within the sense of that ' wide discretion ' which, 
 as stated by uniform authority (1 Story on Constitution, sec. 432), con- 
 gress has in the choice of measures for enforcing its powers. 
 
 " Mr. Speaker, I now come to the third section. I will read it, so that I 
 may get before the minds of those who listen to me the exact words, which 
 are material to comprehend the legal propositions which I desire to submit. 
 
 " The section provides : 
 
 * That in all cases where insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful com- 
 binations, or conspiracies in any state shall so far obstruct or hinder the 
 execution of the laws thereof as to deprive any portion or class of the 
 people of such state of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities named 
 in and secured by this act, and the constituted authorities of such state — ' 
 
 " Notice these words : 
 ' and the constituted authorities of such state shall either be unable to, 
 or shall, from any cause, fail in or refuse protection of the people in 
 such rights, and — ' 
 
 " This also must happen : 
 
 * and shall fail or neglect, through the proper authorities, to apply to the 
 President of the United States for aid in that behalf, such facts shall be 
 deemed a denial by such state of the equal protection of the laws to 
 which they are entitled under the fourteenth article of amendments to 
 the constitution of the United States.' 
 
 " Now, note the provisions of the section are, first, that there must be 
 a condition of public violence, etc., such as to deprive, not one individual 
 
SPEECH OF MR, SUELLABARGER CONCLUDED. 1345 
 
 merely, but a ' portion or a class of the people,' of their rights, privileges, 
 or immunities. They must also be deprived of the privileges and im- 
 munities secured by this act, which are the privileges and immunities of 
 American citizens. And more than that, the constituted authorities 
 must also have been unable to protect the people or have failed or re- 
 fused to protect them. But this is not enough. They must also omit 
 to apply to the president of the United States for aid in that behalf. 
 Until all these things have occurred there is no authority under this bill 
 (but existing law gives it in other cases) to send to the state the military 
 aid of the United States. 
 
 " Now, the question is, may such aid be sent by the president, under 
 the fourteenth amendment, without being invited by the legislature or 
 executive of the states, when the things have happened which are de- 
 scribed in that section ? My answer is that the president may, under 
 such circumstances, send military aid ; and, to make this answer com- 
 plete, I now again go back to the first section of the fou||||penth article. 
 That section provides two things which I wish to notice. The first pro- 
 vision is that — 
 
 ' No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privi- 
 leges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' 
 
 " This pi'o vision requires that the laws on their face shall not ' abridge ' 
 the privileges or immunities of citizens. It secures equality toward all 
 citizens on the face of the law. It provides that those rights shall not 
 be ' abridged ;' in other words, that one man shall not have more rights 
 upon the face of the laws than another man. By that provision equality 
 of legislation, so far as it affects the rights of citizenship, is secured. 
 But the section does not stop there. It contains two other provisions, 
 only one of which I need now notice. It provides : 
 
 ' Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, 
 without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdic- 
 tion the equal protection of the laws.' 
 
 " The laws must be, first, equal, in not abridging rights ; and second, 
 the states shall equally protect, under equal laws, all persons in them. 
 Therefore, under the pro^dsions of the fourteenth amendment, when 
 these clauses are put in juxtaposition, in order to bring the idea together^ 
 congress shall have power to make and enforce all proper legislation 
 which shall be necessary to require of the states that they shall not 
 abridge the rights of citizenship, and also that they shall protect all per- 
 sons equally. Nothing can be plainer. The thing is so absolutely self- 
 evident that it admits of no enforcement by argument. Two things are 
 provided — equal laws and protection for all ; and, whenever a state, de- 
 nies that protection, congress may by law enforce protection." 
 85 
 
1846 THE AMERICAN STATESMAX. 
 
 Mr, Shellabarger then proceeded to explain the other sections of the 
 bill, which for the most part were explanatory and executive in their 
 character, 
 
 Mr, Kerr, (Dera.) of Indiana, led the opposition to the proposed bill 
 in a speech full of legal acumen and learning. We quote an extract 
 from his speech, which comprehends its scope and quality : 
 
 "The obligation of the federal government to protect the states of this 
 union against invasion is clear and obvious, and it interferes with no 
 question of state jurisdiction or of state autonomy. It is external to the 
 state itself ; it is protection against dangers from without, not within. 
 * * * And, on that subject, the language of the constitution is very 
 plain, and the purpose is very obvious. It is intended only to make it 
 the duty of the federal government to go to the relief of the states of 
 the union, against domestic violence, when the states appeal for such aid, 
 being unable by their own powers to maintain the public order, to pro- 
 tect themselv^ and their citizens, and enforce their laws, in the peaceful 
 course of administration. But the great solicitude of the fi-amers of the 
 constitution against federal interference of any kind in the states is mani- 
 fested in the cautious language used in this section. It forbids federal 
 interposition, except upon the call of the governor or legislature of the 
 state. That inhibition is clear, salutary, and imperative. It is not re- 
 pealed or modified by the fourteenth amendment. It is consistent and 
 can well stand with it. 
 
 " But this bill disregards it utterly, and proposes that the president 
 may intervene in the affairs of the states, at his own pleasure, for t|ie 
 most uncertain and insufficient, if not frivolous, causes. He needs not 
 to wait for the request of the states in any form. He may himself de- 
 cide when the facts or conditions named in this bill exist. His judgment 
 on any such question is final, whether correct, hasty, reckless, dishonest, 
 or wise. No tribunal can review it or stay his hand. He can command 
 all the power of the federal government, of the army, or navy, or militia. 
 Under it he goes into the state, not to aid and co-operate with, and in 
 subordination to, the state authorities, as the constitution plainly re- 
 quires, but he goes there to supersede the state authority, to override its 
 laws, and erect a different and strange power, to enforce arbitrary, sum- 
 mary, and oppressive laws. He goes there clad in the most absolute and 
 despotic discretion. His own will and judgment will, in most matters, 
 constitute his chief restraint, I denounce all such powers, no matter 
 upon whom conferred, to be gross and monstrous usui-pations, not coun- 
 tenanced by anything in the letter or spirit of the constitution. Speak- 
 ing of this clause in the old constitution, Mr, Justice Story well says : 
 'It may not be amiss further to observe that every pretext for inter- 
 
SPEECH OF MR. KERR. 134Y 
 
 meddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under color of protect- 
 ing it against domestic violence, is taken away by that part of the provis- 
 ion which renders an application from the legislature or executive au- 
 thority of the state endangered necessary to be made to the general gov- 
 ernment, before its interference can be at all proper.' 
 
 " There is nothing in the language of the fourteenth amendment that 
 is intended in any way to repeal this fourth section of the fourth article. 
 When the states ratified that amendment, they did not entertain the in- 
 sane purpose of transforming the federal government into an agent of 
 despotism. 
 
 " Mr. Speaker, I must invite attention to one more provision of the 
 constitution, after which, I desire to refer to the bill itself. I refer to 
 the second clause of section nine of the first article of the constitution : 
 
 ' The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, 
 unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may 
 require it.' 
 
 " Yet this bill proposes to authorize its suspension at the pleasure of 
 the president, it may be, upon the most vague and partisan reasons, libels, 
 or gross exaggerations of truth, and in cases of merely local and indi- 
 vidual violations of law, not approximating in character or enormity the 
 legal idea of rebellion, as used in this section and defined judicially. It 
 seems to me to be trifling with the common intelligence, as well as with 
 jnst legal principles, to pretend that the fourteenth amendment confers 
 power to enact such a law. 
 
 " Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to invite attention to some of the 
 remarkable provisions of the bill itself. It violates every principle to 
 which I have referred, as hitherto understood in our country. 
 
 " This entire bill claims for its object the enforcement of the first 
 section of the fourteenth amendment. But in that section the word 
 'rights' does not occur. Why insert it in the bill? Is it an attempt 
 to extend the scope and aim of that amendment ? If so, it is without 
 authority and wrong. It is a vain effort to add to constitution by a law. 
 The descriptive words in the amendment are ' privileges and immuni- 
 ties,' and these I have defined in the light of authority and reason. 
 
 " This section gives to any person who may have been injured in any 
 of his rights, privileges, or immunities of person or property, a civil ac- 
 tion for damages against the wrong-doer in the federal courts. It is a 
 covert attempt to transfer another large portion of jurisdiction from the 
 state tribunals, to which it of right belongs, to those of the United 
 States. It is neither authorized nor expedient, and is not calculated to 
 bring peace, or order, or domestic content and prosperity to the dis- 
 turbed society of the south. The contrary will certainly be its eifect. 
 
1348 THE AMERICAN" STATESMAN. 
 
 " Look at the next section of this measure. This section is prea^ant 
 in every line with vice, usurpation, and danger. The offenses here named 
 need not be committed, as under the first section, under color of state 
 laws. If they are calculated to infringe any of the rights, privileo-es, or 
 immunities of citizens, as construed by the radical party, officers, or 
 courts (and certainly all crimes have such effect), then the jurisdiction of 
 federal courts attaches. The crimes named are not even required to be 
 committed, but, if two or more persons combine to commit any such 
 crime, and any one of them does any act to effect the object, the guilt of 
 all the parties is fixed, the jurisdiction is snatched from the state, and the 
 work of centralization or anarchy goes on. I am perplexed to imagine a 
 rational cause or justification for such a law. It looks to the complete 
 subversion of the power of the states to enforce their criminal laws, 
 adopt and execute their own policy, or protect their own citizens and 
 society. This section attempts a very shabby evasion of an express limi- 
 tation upon the power of congress in this direction. Its criminal juris- 
 diction is rigidly confined to the punishment of crimes committed within 
 places subject to its exclusive jurisdiction, like this District, or forts and 
 arsenals, and to crimes against the revenue, or other clearly granted 
 powers of general control and regulation. 
 
 "In the case of Cohens vs. The state of Virginia, Chief-Justice 
 Marshall declared : 
 
 ' Connected with the power to legislate within this district (of Colum- 
 bia) is a similar power in forts, arsenals, dock-yards, etc. Congress has 
 a right to punish murder in a fort, or other place, within its exclusive 
 jurisdiction, but no general right to punish murder committed within any 
 of the states. * * * 
 
 'So, in the same act (the act of 1790), section six, a person, who, 
 having knowledge of the commission of murder, or other felony on the 
 high-seas, or within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or other place 
 or district of country within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the 
 United States, shall conceal the same, etc., shall be judged guilty of 
 misprision of felony. It is clear that congress cannot 2iunish felonies 
 generally, and, of consequence, cannot punish misprision of felony. It 
 is equally clear that a state legislature, the State of Maryland, for exam- 
 ple, cannot punish those who, in another state, conceal a felony com- 
 mitted in Maryland. — 6 Wheat., 264. 
 
 " But the third section of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is worse in all its pur- 
 poses and intents and policy than either of the others. It declares that — ■ 
 
 ' In all cases where insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combina- 
 itions, or conspiracies in any state shall so far obstruct or hinder the ex- 
 ecution of the laws thereof as to deprive any portion or class of the peo^ 
 
SPEECH OF MR. KERR CONCLUDED. 1349 
 
 pie of such state of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities named 
 in, and secured hy, this act, and the constituted authorities of such state 
 shall either be unable to, or &\\9\\, from any cause, fail in or refuse protec- 
 tion of the people in such rights, and shall fail or neglect, through the 
 proper authorities, to apply to the president of the United States for aid 
 in that behalf, such facts shall be deemed a denial by such state of the 
 equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled under the four- 
 teenth article of amendments to the constitution of the United States ; 
 and in all suck cases it shall be lawful for the president, and it shall be 
 his duty to take such measures, by the employment of the militia or the 
 land and naval forces of the United States, or of either, or by other 
 means, as he may deem necessary, for the suppression of such insurrec- 
 tion, domestic violence, or combinations ; and any person who shall be 
 arrested under the provisions of this and the preceding section shall be 
 delivered to the marshal of the proper district to be dealt with according 
 to law.' 
 
 " Observe the monstrous powers that are by this section proposed to 
 be conferred on the federal government and its chief officer I Who is 
 to determine when the combinations are so great as to obstruct or hin- 
 der the execution of the laws, or to deprive any persons of any of these 
 rights, privileges, or immunities, or when the state authorities fail, or 
 are unable to give protection, or what shall constitute a denial of equal 
 protection ? The president of the United States ! What king, queen, 
 or potentate, in any great nation on earth, possesses such power to-day ? 
 I know of none. Is it safe to commit such vital issues to any one hu- 
 man head or heart? 
 
 " But the president is not only invested with these unparalleled powers 
 of determination and construction. He may enforce his conclusions by 
 the use of every physical arm of the government. He may use these 
 agencies in any manner that pleases him. He may subvert civil law and 
 state jurisdiction at his pleasure. Not content with these extraordinary 
 powers, the bill further empowers him to use any other means he may 
 deem necessary. Is not that the climax of liberality to a ruler? Are 
 not such powers imperial ? No. I say they are despotic and revolution- 
 ary. They go far to establish republican absolutism. There is no occa- 
 sion for such reckless confidence in any man. No facts exist in testi- 
 mony or in the country that justify or excuse its bestowal upon the pres- 
 ident. It has no precedent or parallel. No such powers can be safely 
 intrusted by a free people to any human being. I verily believe no 
 patriot would care to possess them. I know full well that no tyrant 
 could desire more. Human selfishness or ambition could ask no ampler 
 opportunities for personal aggrandizement. 
 
1350 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 " Mr. Speaker, I must not take my seat without referring briefly to the 
 fourth section. It is that section which attempts to give the president 
 of the United States, on these frivolous grounds of assumption, power to 
 suspend the writ of habeas corpus, establish martial law, and to declare 
 war. It provides that — 
 
 ' Whenever in any state or part of a state the unlawful combinations 
 named in the preceding section of this act shall be organized and armed, 
 and so numerous and powerful as to be able, by violence, to either over- 
 throw or set at defiance the constituted authorities of such state, or 
 when the constituted authorities are in complicity with, or shall connive 
 at the unlawful purposes of such powerful and armed combinations ; 
 and whenever, by reason of either or all of the causes aforesaid, the con- 
 viction of such offenders and the preservation of the public safety shall 
 become in such district impracticable, in every such case, such combinar 
 tions shall be deemed a rebellion against the government of the United 
 States, and during the continuance of such rebellion, and witliin the 
 limits of the district which shall be so under the sway thereof, such 
 limits to be prescribed by proclamation, it shall be lawful for tlie presi- 
 dent of the United States, Avhen in his judgment the public safety shall 
 require it, to suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus^ and to 
 declare and enforce, subject to the rules and articles of war and other 
 laws of the United States now in force applicable in case of rebellion, 
 martial law, to the end that such rebellion may be overthrown : Promdedy 
 That the president shall first have made proclamation, as now provided 
 by law, commanding such insurgents to disperse : And provided also. 
 That the pi'o visions of this section shall not be in force after the 1st day 
 of June, A. D. 1872.' 
 
 " Mr. Speaker, what I have said concerning the president's power of 
 decision as to the existence or non-existence of the conditions indicated 
 in the bill is as applicable to this as to the third section. He alone, and 
 without appeal, review, or question, or responsibility of any kind, except 
 at the hands of congress, may determine when such unlawful combina- 
 tions exist, and where and when the states are in complicity with them, 
 and what organized resistance against the laws of any state shall consti- 
 tute rebellion against the United States, the territorial extent of that re- 
 bellion, and when the citizens of the state may be denied the safeguard 
 of the habeas corpus, and be subjected to the arbitrary and merciless, if 
 not mercenary, hand of martial power and rule. Was such power ever 
 intrusted to Washington, or any other chief magistrate, in peace or war, 
 in our history ? Is there any thing in the capacity or conduct of the 
 present executive to invite such unbounded trust in his wisdom and 
 patriotism ? " 
 
DISCUSSION OF THE KU-KLUX BILL. 1351 
 
 Mr. Beck, (Dera.) of Kentucky, had listened carefully to the argu- 
 ments hut failed to find any warrant of authority for the third and fourth 
 sections of the bill, as each was a link of the chain to bind the states and 
 people to the chariot wheel of the executive. He referred to the Milli- 
 gan case, in the supreme court of the United States, reported in 4 Wal- 
 lace, which had been triumphantly referred to by the gentleman from 
 Ohio who had brought in the bill. So far from justifying the provisions 
 of that bill, it was a withering rebuke to any assumptions which sought 
 to subordinate civil to military power. The speaker then proceeded to 
 quote the pertinent points of the Milligan decision. He appealed to the 
 legal reason of members whether a more emphatic condemnation of the 
 bill could possibly be expressed. 
 
 Mr. Beck branded the fourth section of the bill as a most monstrous 
 proposition. Under the constitution congress alone could declare war 
 or suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and could not delegate it even to 
 the president, there was no warrant for the transfer of that power. If 
 congress could thus shift the responsibility it could confer it on the 
 chief justice, the general of the army, or an executive committee sitting 
 during recess, or on any man or set of men it pleased, and the carefully 
 guarded provisions of the constitution would thus be set at naught. 
 
 Mr. Bingham, (Rep.) of Ohio, said that by the legislature of the first 
 congress power was given to the humblest citizen to appeal to the su- 
 preme court and thus set aside the usurpations of the state. This judi- 
 ciary act of 1789 asserted the federal power fully and expressly. This 
 act, in his judgment, freely affirmed the power of congress to enforce 
 the rights vested in the federal government both against states and in- 
 dividuals. He then quoted at length from decisions of Chief Justice 
 Marshall. He said that the power to suppress combinations obstructing 
 the execution of the federal laws was asserted under the Washington ad- 
 ministration by congress. By the provisions of the bill mentioned, 
 which were approved by Washington himself, not even the act of habeas 
 cor^nis could interfere in the premises. In the light of this early legisla- 
 tion the outcry of gentlemen about discretion, confided to the president, 
 being usurpation, was abject folly and ignorance. If the president vio- 
 lated the discretionary powers granted to him, he could be impeached 
 at the bar of the senate and by its dread decree made as one dead among 
 living men. That never again should he hold oflftce of trust, honor or 
 profit in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Butler, (Rep.) of Massachusetts, classified the essential questions 
 involved under the bill under two propositions : 
 
 "1. If the federal government cannot pass laws to protect the rights, lib- 
 erty, and lives of citizens of the United States in the states, why were 
 
1352 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 guarantees of those fundamental rights put in the constitution at all, 
 and, especially, by acts of amendment ? 
 
 *' All agree that the mere constitutional assertions of affirmative guar- 
 antees, not made operative by law, are ineffectual to aid the citizen. 
 How, then, can the citizen avail himself of those constitutional guarantees 
 and affirmative declarations of his rights, if congress cannot pass laws to 
 make them operative? How can it be an interference with the rights of 
 the states for the laws of the United States to afford that protection to 
 its citizens which the state fails or neglects to do for itself ? 
 
 " is it one of the rights of a state not to protect its citizens in the en- 
 joyment of life, liberty, and property, and thereby deny him the equal 
 protection of the laws, so that, when the general government attempts 
 to do for the protection of the citizen what the state has failed to do, it 
 is to be held an interference with the rights of the state ? Pardon me ; 
 it seems to me that such action is only a necessary and proper interfer- 
 ence with the wrongs of a state. A state has no constitutional or other 
 right reserved to itself to deny or neglect to its citizens the equal protec- 
 tion of the laws. 
 
 " 2. If the general government has not the constitutional power to 
 protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens upon its own soil 
 when such protection is needed, then it ought to have such power ; it 
 should reside somewhere in the government. For, without the power to 
 protect the lives of its citizens, a republican government is a faikire, and, 
 if such be constitutional law, to be a citizen of the United States is to 
 be the most unprotected of all mankind. 
 
 " Wherever a citizen of the United States may be, upon a foreign soil 
 or upon a foreign sea, however remote, the constitution and laws of the 
 United States are around and about him, guarding him from outrage and 
 injury as fully as the cherubim and the flaming sword kept the way of 
 the tree of life. There is no nation so weak or savage, none so culti- 
 vated, rich, or powerful, that it can unjustly lay its hand upon an Ameri- 
 can citizen in arrest or anger without calling down upon it the whole 
 power of the republic to protect him and redress his wrong-s. ' I am an 
 American citizen ' is the passport of safety of all his rights throughout 
 the world, save only in his own country. Can this be so ? 
 
 " Can it be, then, that an American citizen is protected in his rights 
 of person and property by the constitution and laws of the United States, 
 with the whole power of the government, everywhere, except on our own 
 soil, under his own roof-tree, and covered by our own flag ? Does that 
 proposition need more argument than tlie statement of it ? If the con- 
 verse be true, then again I repeat, the government of the United States 
 is a failure ; and better monarchy, better despotism, better any thing 
 
DEBATE ON THE KU— KLUX BILL. 1353 
 
 than systematized anarchy, organized murder, outrage, and wrong, done 
 at the will of remorseless bands upon defenseless citizens." 
 
 Mr. Cox, (Dem.) of New York, in his discussion of the proposed hill, 
 did not enter into any of the constitutional or legal questions which had 
 been so ably treated by the gentleman who had preceded him. He 
 called attention however to the practical operation of this species of le- 
 gislation in the south for the years preceding, since the commencement 
 of reconstruction. The administration members and senatoi-s were 
 obliged to confess that their legislation had been so far inoperative, ut- 
 terly failing to produce order, peace and content in the reconstructed 
 states. Reference was specially made to the state of South Carolina : 
 
 " South Carolina has been infested by the worst local government ever 
 vouchsafed to a people. Ignorance, bribery, and corruption are common 
 in her legislature. Bonds by the million are issued, the public debt in- 
 creased, and nothing to show for it. The debt in 1860 was but $3,691,- 
 574. It was last year $11,429,711 ; and this year no one knows whether 
 it is twenty or thirty millions, nor how much is counterfeit or genuine ! 
 Her rulers contrived new burdens in order to plunder more. On a full 
 valuation of real and personal property of $183,913,367 the people pay 
 this year sixteen mills on the dollar as a state tax and four mills county 
 tax. This is for 1870 and 1871, and amounts in all to $4,095,047, to 
 which $300,000 is to be added for poll-tax. In other words, the value 
 of the property is reduced from $489,000,000, before the war, to $183,- 
 000,000, and the tax raised from $400,000 to $4,250,000, or ten times 
 as much. It is two and a half per cent on a full valuation, and only 
 chronic insecurity and disorder as the consideration ! This is done by 
 those who pay no taxes, who squander what is paid, who use the means 
 to arm negro militia and create a situation of terror, from which men 
 rush into secret societies for defense of homes, mothers, sisters, wives, 
 and children. 
 
 " Add to these grievances the intolerable exactions of the federal gov- 
 ernment, not only in taxes, but in laws, and it should give us pause be- 
 fore we place that people at the mercy of an inferior race, a vindictive 
 party, a court-martial, and a hostile president. The people in their ag- 
 ony in that state actually clamored for United States troops to save them 
 from the rapacity and murder of the negro bands and their white allies. 
 Can we not understand why men, born free, should rise, or, if not rise 
 with safety, that they are compelled to hide in ku-klux or other secret 
 clans, and strike against this ruin and desolation, peculation and violence, 
 and that, too, when it is done by those who are not of their race, and 
 but lately in ther midst ?" 
 
 Mr. Shellabarger then withdrew the motion to recommit the bill and 
 
1354 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 offered amendments to the second, third, fourth and fifth sections. The 
 most important change in these amendments, as finally amended, pro- 
 vided that the obstructions of law should be interpreted as obstructions 
 of the laws of the United States as well as of the state, and that no other 
 expressed power, as regards the declaration of martial law, should be 
 granted except that which was found in the right of the president to 
 suspend the privileges of habeas corpics. 
 
 The bill as amended passed the house by a vote 118 to 91, 18 being 
 absent 
 
 CHAPTER CXI. 
 
 CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL IN THE SENATE. DEFENSE OF ITS PROVIS- 
 IONS BY SENATOR EDMUNDS. SENATOR TRUMBULl's ANALYSIS AND CON- 
 DEMNATION. PASSAGE OF THE BILL AND APPROVAL BY THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 PRESIDENT grant's PROCLAMATIONS, DECLARING MARTIAL LAW IN 
 
 PARTS OF THE SOUTH. 
 
 In the senate, on April 11th, the above bill from the house was con- 
 sidered together with the amendments proposed by the committee on 
 the judiciary. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds, (Rep.) of Vermont, opened the debate with an expla- 
 nation of, and a brief commentary on, the different sections of the bill. 
 He claimed that it was clearly within the provisions of the constitution, 
 and in respect to the matter upon which it operated much more mod- 
 erate and limited than the state of the case fully justified, 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, (Rep.) of Illinois, was sorry that the senate was so thin 
 during the discussion of such an important bill ; a bill whose principles 
 went to the very foundation of the government, and which if carried out 
 would effect a radical change in that government. He said : 
 
 " Mr. President, the government of the United States was formed for 
 national and general purposes, and not for the protection of the indi- 
 vidual in his personal rights of person and property. The rights of in- 
 dividuals were left, when the constitution was formed, to the protection 
 of the states. It was thought by the men who made the government 
 that personal liberty could be more safely left to the protection of the 
 local authorities of the states than be conferred upon the general govern- 
 ment. Hence, when the constitution of the United States was formed, 
 
THE KU-KLUX BILL IN THE SENATE. 1355 
 
 it was formed for general purposes, for the purpose of establishing a na- 
 tion with national authority — authority to make war, to conclude peace, 
 to make treaties, to regulate commerce between the states and with for- 
 eign governments, and to do various things of a national character ; but 
 the protection of the individual citizen was left to the states, except that 
 there is a clause in the constitution of the United States which declares 
 that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and 
 immunities of citizens of the several states. That was a provision of a 
 national character, too. 
 
 " After the union was formed, the whole power of the government was 
 pledged to defend the rights of an American citizen against improper 
 encroachments by foreign powers; and, inasmuch as the right of the 
 states to protect their citizens outside of their limits was conceded to 
 the federal government, the federal government undertook to see that 
 the citizens of each state should have all the rights and privileges con- 
 ceded to citizens of the several states ; that is to say, a citizen of the 
 United States in Germany, or France, or England, should receive the 
 same protection that was granted to other foreigners in those countries, 
 and the citizen of Massachusetts should be protected by the federal gov- 
 ernment in his rights when he went to Carolina in the same manner as 
 the citizen of Carolina was protected by the laws of that state. 
 
 " This was the character of the federal government as originally formed. 
 The personal rights of individuals were at the mercy of the state govern- 
 ments in the respective states. We ail know that until 1808 the consti- 
 tution of the United States permitted the various states of the union to 
 bring persons from other countries into their borders and make them 
 slaves. We know that, under the constitution of the United States, pre- 
 vious to the Avar, every person of African descent born in certain states 
 of the union was a slave, deprived of all rights, and, in some, laws were 
 passed reducing to slaveiy free persons of color. The constitution in 
 that respect has been changed by the thirteenth amendment, which de- 
 clares that slavery shall no longer exist in the United States ; and it is 
 hot competent now for any state to make a slave of any person within 
 its jurisdiction, and the federal government is clothed with authority to 
 prev^ent that being done. 
 
 " Under that authority, there was passed, shortly after its enactment, 
 a law known as the civil rights act, which undertook to give eflfeet to the 
 thirteenth amendment and protect those who had been slaves in the same 
 rights as were conceded to white citizens. The civil rights act did not 
 undertake to protect those who had been slaves, nor whites, in particular 
 rights ; but it declared that the rights of the colored people should be 
 the same as those conceded to the white people in certain respects, 
 
1356 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 which were named in the act. The necessity for that legislation grew 
 out of the laws in several of the then late slaveholding states, which de- 
 nied to persons of color the ordinary and fundamental rights which were 
 conceded to white citizens, 
 
 " Subsequently to the enactment of the civil rights act, the fourteenth 
 constitutional amendment was adopted. That amendment in its first 
 clause is but a copy of the civil rights act, declaring that all persons born 
 in the United States, and not subject to any foreign jurisdiction, are citi- 
 zens of the United States. This had been previously declared by act of 
 congress,, and it was so without any act of congress. Every person born 
 withm the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. 
 Such persons are called subjects of the crown in Great Britain, in this 
 country citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose 
 that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption 
 of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution 'of the United States. 
 American citizenship existed from the moment that the government of 
 the United States was formed. The constitution itself prohibits any 
 person from sitting in this body jvho has not been nine years a citizen 
 of the United States, not a citizen of a particular state. By the terms 
 of the constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for 
 nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he 
 could take a seat in the other house ; and, in order to be president of the 
 United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. 
 
 " It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was 
 Tlnnecessary to incorporate it in the constitution, that a person is a citi- 
 zen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently de- 
 cided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive 
 department of the government in protecting the rights of native-born 
 persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been 
 held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the 
 United States were citizens of the United States. 
 
 " It was because of the idea which obtained before the adoption of 
 the thirteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, that 
 slaves were property and not persons, that it was thought proper to em- 
 body, in the civil rights bill, the declaration that all pe'rsons born in the 
 Unit.ed States were citizens. I did not think at that time that it was 
 necessary. I recollect that I had a discussion on that very point with 
 the then senator from Maryland, Mr. Revei-dy Johnson, as to the pro- 
 priety of inserting in the civil rights act those words declaring that all 
 persons born in the United States were citizens. We both agreed that 
 after the abolition of slavery everybody born in and subject to'the juris- 
 diction of the United States was a citizen of the United States ; but we 
 
SENATOR TRUMBULL ON THE BILL. 1357 
 
 both thought that in consequence of the declaration which had been 
 enunciated in the Dred Scott case, and also in order that there might 
 be no cavil about it, it was better to declare it by law." 
 
 Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont : "That decision was flatly the other way, 
 that they were not citizens, although free persons." 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois : " Yes, sir, there is a decision, I think, that 
 even free colored persons were not citizens. After the abolition of sla- 
 very and of the distinction in regard to colored persons, I do not think 
 such a decision could have been maintained. It was advisable at any 
 rate, to put such an express declaration in the law. After that bill was 
 passed it will be remembered that the president of the United States ve- 
 toed it, and one of the reasons that he gave for the veto was that con 
 gress could not by law declare that these persons were citizens of the 
 United States. I remember very well the answer which I gave to that 
 suggestion of the president, which was two-fold : first, that it was com- 
 petent to make persons citizens by statute ; second, that the statute 
 was but declaratory of what the law already was. I agreed that 
 they were citizens. The president said in his veto message that, if that 
 was true, the law was of no use, and, if it was not true, the law could 
 not make them citizens ; the answer to which was that the statute was 
 declaratory of what the law was before, and numerous statutes were re- 
 ferred to to show that it had been the practice, almost from the origin 
 of the government, to make persons citizens of the United States by act 
 of congress. It had been done in reference to Indian tribes ; it had been 
 done in regard to Mexicans ; and different classes of persons had been 
 made citizens by act of congress before, and the act was a proper one to 
 settle the question. 
 
 " Then, when we came to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, 
 it was suggested by some persons that there might still be a cavil upon 
 this question as to whether all persons born in the United States were 
 citizens, and it was thought advisable, for the purpose of putting that 
 question once and forever at rest, to insert the words which are in the 
 fourteenth amendment, declaring that all persons born within the United 
 States and subject to its jurisdiction were citizens of the United States. 
 In my opinion, that has not changed at all the fact that, after the aboli- 
 tion of slavery, and after the authority of the states to deprive persons 
 of hberty ceased, every person born in the United States was a citizen of 
 the United States. I do not think there could have been any question 
 that they were all citizens without the declaration in the civil i ights act, 
 or without the declaration in the fourteenth amendment. Who believes 
 any court would ever have held that a person born in the United States 
 was not a citizen, if slavery had never existed ?" 
 
^^''^^ THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 "Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania, said: "I have felt interested in the 
 Statement which the senator has made, but I wish, in view of the ques- 
 tion which he suggests was made as to the necessity of incorporating this 
 Plause m the fourteenth amendment, to make a statement with reference 
 to an opmion upon that point, which might have been held to have very 
 considerable weight upon it, and as justifying the declaration in the four- 
 teenth amendment, 
 
 "Very considerable attention was being directed in the year 1834 to 
 the status of the free colored population in Pennsylvania, both under the 
 constitution of the United States and under the constitution of Pennsyl- 
 vania, in view of the fact that the calling of a convention to reform the 
 constitution was being agitated. At that time a pamphlet was published 
 by a member of the Pennsylvania bar, elaborately discussing the question 
 and arriving at the conclusion that the free colored man was not a citi- 
 zen of the United States, and that he was not a citizen of Pennsylvania^ 
 I have a copy of that pamphlet in my possession. It is a rare pamphlet' 
 It was submitted to Chief Justice Marshall, and he addressed to the au- 
 thor of the pamphlet a letter indorsing and approving the conclusions at 
 which he arrived; so that there was eminent authority at least-it was 
 not judicially delivered, but the opinion of an eminent judge-that the 
 tree colored man was not a citizen of the United States " 
 
 Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont: "That was the very point in the Dred 
 bcott case, where the supreme court flatly decided so " 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois : "That has been so decided judicially ; but 
 that grew out of this same system of slavery. The senator from Penn- 
 sylvania will see at once to what straits those who maintained slavery 
 were driven. If the colored man in Pennsylvania was a citizen of the 
 United States, he had a right to go to Carolina, .and there to enjoy all 
 the rightsand immunities of a citizen of Carolina, under the protection 
 of the national government; and that was inconsistent, as was insisted, 
 wih another provision of the constitution, which authorized, or tolerated 
 holding the African race in slavery; and, therefore, taking the whole 
 constitution together, the advocates of slavery insisted that a colored 
 man could not be a citizen anywhere; a very illogical and unjust conclu- 
 sion, in my opinion, and never warranted either by reason or by the con- 
 stitution. ■' 
 
 "But the senator from Pennsylvania will see that the whole force of 
 that argument was destroyed when the authority to hold anybody in 
 slavery was taken away. Then there was no conflict between different 
 portions of the constitution to be reconciled, even in the view of those 
 who had before insisted that slavery was sustained by that instrument, a 
 position which I do not admit at all, and never did admit • but I do not 
 
MR. IIRUMBULl's speech CONTINUED. 1353 
 
 wish to go into that. I think all that the constitution of the United 
 States ever did in regard to slavery was simply to tolerate its existence 
 in the states which by their laws authorized it. I think, then, the reason 
 of the decision originally made, that a colored person could not be a 
 citizen, fell when slavery wH abolished, and I can hardly conceive that 
 the decision would have been repeated afterward. 
 
 " The amendment further declares that they are also citizens of the 
 states in which they reside. That was judicially decided to be so before. 
 A person who was a citizen of the United States and resided in one of 
 the states was a citizen of that state before the adoption of the fourteenth 
 amendment ; and so it had been judicially decided. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, in answer to Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Carpenter, said in 
 his judgment the fourieenth amendment had not changed an iota of the 
 constitution. The colored man in Massachusetts before the fourteenth 
 amendment was adopted, in his opinion, was a citizen of the United 
 States as well as of Massachusetts. Others had taken a different view in 
 consequence of the existence of slavery, which they held to be the col- 
 ored man's normal condition, they did not look to statutes to make him 
 so but believed him a slave by nature. The fourteenth amendment 
 simply carried out the provisions of the law and made it certain that all 
 persons of whatever color born in the United States were citizens. In 
 cases arising under the fourteenth amendment where a state attempted 
 to deprive a person without due process of law, or denied to a person 
 the equal protection of the laws, then the federal government had a right 
 to set aside the action of a state and protect the individual in the rights 
 guaranteed him. 
 
 Mr. Carpenter, (Rep.) of Wisconsin, thought that one of the most fun- 
 damental revolutions was effected in our government by the fourteenth 
 amendment. It gave congress affirmative power to protect the rights of 
 the citizen, whereas before no such right was given to prevent the vio- 
 lation of any of those rights by state legislatures, and the only remedy 
 then was a judicial one. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull reaffirmed his position and supported it by a further ar- 
 gument and quotations from authorities. Mr. Trumbull proceeded as 
 follows : 
 
 " I come now, Mr. President, to the bill under consideration, about 
 which I shall make a few suggestions, and but few. The president ol 
 the United States has thought it questionable at any rate whether he 
 had sufficient power to put down organizations which exist in some of 
 the states of the union, which are encroaching on the rights of person 
 and property, which are committing outrages and sacrificing life. Now, 
 sir, I want it understood that I am ready to go as far as he who goea 
 
1360 THE AMERICAN STATESMAK. 
 
 farthest to maintain the authority of the government of the United 
 States. 
 
 " Show me that it is necessary to exercise any power belonging to the 
 government of the United States in order to maintain its authority, and 
 I am ready to put it forth. But, sir, I amf^ot willing to undertake to 
 enter the states for the purpose of punishing individual offenses against 
 their authority committed by one citizen against another. We, in my 
 judgment, have no constitutional authority to do that. When this gov- 
 ernment was formed, the general rights of person and property were left 
 to be protected by the states, and there they are left to-day. Whenever 
 the rights that are conferred by the constitution of the United States on 
 the federal government are infringed upon by the states, we should af- 
 ford a remedy. That was done in 1789 by the twenty-fifth section of 
 the judiciary act, which afforded a remedy against a state statute in vio- 
 lation of the constitution of the United States, as in the case of a state 
 law impairing the obligation of contracts. I have no objection now to a 
 law which shall protect a person in the same way against inequality of 
 legislation in any of the states of the union against any laws that deprive 
 him of life, liberty, or property, except by the judgment of his peers or 
 the law of the land. I am ready to pass appropriate legislation on that 
 subject ; and I understand that this bill, as it passed the house of repre- 
 sentatives, was framed on this principle. As originally introduced, it 
 went to the extent of punishing offenses against the states ; and there 
 was objection to it on the part of some of the most thoughtful minds in 
 the house of representatives. Those provisions were changed, and, as 
 the bill passed the house of representatives, it was understood by the 
 members of that body to go no further than to protect persons in the 
 rights which were guaranteed to them by the constitution and laws of 
 the United States, and it did not undertake to furnish redress for wrong 
 done by one person upon another in any of the states of the union in 
 violation of their laws, unless he also violated some law of the United 
 States, nor to punish one person for an ordinary assault and battery 
 committed on another in a state. 
 
 " To that extent I felt that I could give my support to the bill. I 
 regretted that the committee on the judiciary thought it necessary to 
 amend the bill ; but a majority came to that conclusion, and I think 
 (although I believe in that the senator from Vermont who reports the 
 bill with the amendments does not agree with me) that these amend- 
 ments make the bill obnoxious to the very objection which was made to 
 it in the house of representatives in its original shape, that it does go to 
 the extent of undertaking to punish persons for violating state laws, without 
 reference to any violation of the constitution or laws of the United States. 
 
DEBATE IN THE SENATE CONTINUED. 1361 
 
 " I do not believe the senator from Vermont entertains the opinion 
 that the congress of the United States has a right to pass a general 
 criminal code for the states of the union, and I am sure, if he does main- 
 tain that they have the right to do it, he would think it impolitic to ex- 
 ercise that power. I do not suppose there is a single person on this 
 floor who would be in favor of congress passing a law punishing larceny, 
 assault and battery, and all sorts of crime in the different states of the 
 union, and taking control of all the contracts made between individuals, 
 because that would be destructive at once of the state governments." 
 
 JVIr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said : " Mr. President, inasmuch as this is 
 an important public question, which involves, as senators have said, deli- 
 cate responsibilities between the states and the national government, I 
 think it right that we should examine a little in detail precisely what 
 sort of a government we have, and precisely what its rights are ; and if 
 it shall turn out on such an examination that the bill, which we have 
 proposed is within the clear scope of constitutional authority, and is 
 within the clear line of legislative precedent, and is a means to the pre- 
 servation of private rights, then I shall hope that even our democratic 
 friends will be willing to agree that the crimes which have been com- 
 mitted, and which have added to them that other and greater crime on 
 the part of the tribunals and communities in which they occur of being 
 suffered to go unpunished, shall be reached by every means of lawful 
 legislation. They cei-tainly ought nolrto deny that if crimes such as 
 have been stated exist, and are unrepressed by existing laws and authori- 
 ties, every measure of constitutional legislation which will have a ten 
 dency to preserve life and liberty, and uphold order, ought to be re- 
 sorted to. 
 
 " I agree entirely, Mr. President, with the sentiment expressed by the 
 honorable senator from Missouri, who sits farthest from me (Mr. Blair), 
 the other day, not entirely with his unlimited statement of it. 
 
 " We have been told, Mr. President, a good many times, and for a 
 good many years, that this national government of ours is, after all, not 
 a government of the people, but that it is merely a confederated govern- 
 ment of states, and that wherever and whenever the national authority 
 undertakes to appeal to a citizen either to do or omit to do a thing, it 
 transcends its authority ; that all the rights and duties of a citizen are 
 •infolded in his state constitution, and that we, therefore, under the recent 
 amendments or under the old constitution, must act only upon that polit- 
 ical body called the state, as we would act in the case of our relations 
 with a foreign power. This was the doctrine of the democratic party 
 before the rebellion ; it was a doctrine common to it and the powers of 
 the rebellion during the war, and it has been so since. Sir, that is a 
 86 
 
1362 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 mistake. It is a mistake which led to the rebellion ; it is a mistake 
 which has led to the fniits of that rebellion which we are now reaping in 
 the last and basest form which the spirit that produced the rebellion can 
 possibly assume. 
 
 " The honorable senators over the way have thought fit to read from 
 those excellent commentaries, upon the strength and stress of which the 
 people of the United States, through their states, adopted this constitu- 
 tion, to show what was the nature of this government. So will I. Mr. 
 Hamilton, in these publications, which were put forth, as I say, when 
 this constitution was about to be adopted, and when, as my friend from 
 Wisconsin (Mr. Carpenter) so properly suggests, the temptation was en- 
 tirely to diminish and belittle the powers of the government — Mr. Ham- 
 ilton, speaking of the difficulties between independent states and of the 
 difficulties in the relations of the national government to the states under 
 the confederation, says : 
 
 ' But if we are un walling to be placed in this perilous situation ; if we 
 still will adhere to the design of a national government, or, which is the 
 same thing, of a superintending power, under the direction of a common 
 council, we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients 
 which may be considered as forming the characteristic difference be- 
 tween a league and a government, we must extend the authority of the 
 union to the persons of the citizens, the only proper objects of govern- 
 ment. * 
 
 'Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to 
 the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction, or, in other words, 
 a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty an- 
 nexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to 
 be Jaws will in fact amount to nothing more than advice or recom- 
 mendation.' 
 
 " Which is the redress and remedy our honorable f liends desire to 
 give to this existing evil, and which I see from the debates in the house 
 they are to do by a sort of encyclical letter to their friends, whose ex- 
 cesses give them so much cause for mortification. 
 
 * This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways : 
 by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military 
 force ; by the coercion of the magistracy, or by the coercion of arms. 
 The first kind can evidently apply only to men ; the last kind must, of* 
 necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or states. 
 It is evident that there is no process of a court by which the observance 
 of the laws can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be de 
 nounced against them for violations of their duty, but these sentences 
 can only be carried into execution by the sword.' 
 
 1 
 
MR. EDMUNDS SPEECH. 1363 
 
 " That, sir, is precisely the principle upon which this bill is framed. 
 It does not seek by military power to invade any state, or the right of 
 any state or any man ; it seeks to denounce, by a declaration of what 
 shall be a crime, an unconstitutional act ; and it endeavors to enforce the 
 penalty imposed upon that by the proper intervention of the judiciary ; 
 and then it proceeds to lend the strong arm of the nation to the assist- 
 ance of that judiciary. But he proceeds, and says again : 
 
 ' The result of these observations to an intelligent mind must be 
 clearly this, that if it be possible at any rate to construct a federal gov- 
 ernment capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the 
 general tranquillity, it must be founded, as to the objects committed to 
 its care, upon the reverse of the principle contended for by the oppo- 
 nents of the proposed constitution. It must carry its agency of the 
 persons of the citizens. It must stand in need of no intermediate legis- 
 lation, but must itself be empowered to employ the arm of the ordinary 
 magistrate to execute its own resolutions. The majesty of the national 
 authority must be manifested through the medium of the courts of jus- 
 tice. The government of the union, like that of each state, must be 
 able to address itself immediately to the hopes and fears of individuals, 
 and to attract to its support those passions which have the strongest in- 
 fluence upon the human heart. It must, in short, possess all the means, 
 and have a right to resort to all the methods of exer;uting the powers 
 with which it is intrusted, that are possessed and exercised by the gov- 
 ernments of the particular states.' 
 
 " This was the construction of the constitution as it was by him who 
 largely participated in the framing of it, by him whose counsels alone, 
 through the publications embodied in this book, gave us the constitu- 
 tion at all. To exercise these high duties is not, as the honorable sena- 
 tor from Illin(j^s (Mr. Trumbull) complained, to ' enter a state,' or, as a 
 senator on the other side said, to ' invade ' a state ; but it is to obey the 
 will of the whole people expressed in the constitution. The national 
 government never either enters or invades a state. It is always and 
 everywhere in every state already. It is among the people, and adminis- 
 tered by the officers of the people whose government it is. 
 
 " This is not all as to the nature of this government. It is a govern- 
 mentj_as our brethren on the other side have probably learned by this 
 time, of separated powers, and among those is the department of the ju- 
 diciary, to whose judgments, when they are on their side, they advise us 
 with great solicitude to bow, and we always do. 
 
 " Now, Mr. President, I think it must be admitted — I had supposed 
 that events had settled it until I heard this debate — that this constitu- 
 tion, be it much or little (for I am not now on the point of its extent). 
 
1364 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 if it gives us authority, or if it withholds it, is to the extent of its scope 
 a constitution of the people, and that it brings the people, in respect to 
 every right which it secures to them, into direct communication with 
 that government which exists by the .constitution, and which only and 
 solely has the paramount power to enforce it. The governments of the 
 states cannot finally or independently enforce or decline to enforce the 
 constitution of the United States ; it is not their constitution in the 
 sense that the constitution of the state is. It is the constitution of the 
 whole people as a national body, and the requirements of which they 
 cannot finally pass upon ; and therefore whatever rights arc secured to 
 the people under it must be guaranteed to them and made effectual for 
 them at last through the instrumentality of the national government, and 
 through no other. 
 
 " I need scarcely occupy your time, Mr. President, and that of the 
 senate, in showing how perfectly the authority of congress, to execute 
 this constitution, and to choose the means by w^hich it shall be executed, 
 is recognized by the judicial department of the government. 
 
 " It is a delusion, therefore, to imagine that at any time and in any 
 way the faculties and functions enumerated in this constitution, which 
 have been given to the United States or have been denied to the states, 
 are to be can-ied out solely through secondary means. Wherever the 
 constitution imposes a duty or a prohibition, and it becomes necessary 
 to make it effectual, the government always has, and it always must, 
 short of warfare, go directly to the thing itself, take hold of the citizen. 
 
 " This constitution has always been a constitution of the people, and 
 has in a thousand ways provided for the protection of the people, impos- 
 ing duties, guaranteeing rights, regulating affairs, prohibiting action to 
 states, and so it has, in a gi'eat variety of instances in the course of these 
 powers and prohibitions, been applied to the peo^^le diredlly to effect its 
 purposes, and to defend its powers, and wherever and wlienever that oc- 
 casion has arisen it has always been done precisely upon the principles 
 that this bill contains, that of dealing with the people, that of enacting 
 laws, and never that of either by advice or protest, warfare, or proclama- 
 tion, dealing with the states. 
 
 " That from the foimdation of the government, over this class of sub- 
 jects — because the whole spirit of this discussion turns upon the question 
 whether the national authority has a right to deal with its citizens as 
 citizens, and not with states, or whether it must be left to the states alone 
 to act upon her citizens in enforcing the national constitution — embra- 
 ping almost one-half of all the business relations of men in the country, 
 embracing a thousand different operations and a thousand different situa- 
 tions of society, the United States have had and administered a criminal 
 
MR. Edmunds' speech continued. 1365 
 
 code to protect the powers and to execute the duties which the constitu- 
 tion has confided to them. And in doing this, they have not either 'in- 
 vaded ' or ' entered ' any state, but they have exercised the constitutional 
 omnipresence of sovereignty, and carried forward the beneficent sway of 
 justice among the people, for the people, and by the people. 
 
 " The government has had a criminal code that acted directly upon 
 the people, upon whom alone it could act. That has not been an in- 
 vasion of the rights of the states ; on the contrary, it has been in aid of 
 the good order and stability of the society of the states, and at the same 
 time the states by their own laws, and in their own methods, and through 
 their own courts, have punished the same classes of offenses ; and the 
 supreme court of the United States has more than once been called upon 
 to decide whether a state could, in view of the fact that the United 
 States had a code against a particular crime, also make the same act a 
 crime ; and it has always been decided that the sovereignty of the two 
 governments w-as in these respects independent and concurrent ; that 
 they both could act over the subjects that were committed to them, and 
 therefore that a citizen might properly be punished for violating a state 
 law and a United States law in doing the same act. 
 
 " Now, sir, I think I have demonstrated, though I have taken, per- 
 haps, too much time to do it, that over all the rights, and over all the 
 duties, and over all the guarantees that the constitution of the United 
 States enumerates, the power of the United States, by legislation, by 
 punishment, by any of the methods which legislation may resort to, to 
 enforce constitutional duties and obligations may and must act directly 
 upon the citizen ; and that it is entii-ely immaterial whether the state 
 ma}'^ or can do the same thing for the same act or not ; and, therefore, 
 that it is no objection to the constitutional exercise of power by con- 
 gress that the states themselves, in the case of these disorders in the 
 south, may, if they will, punish the same things according to their own 
 laws. This has been carried so far in the statutes of the United States 
 passed by the founders of the government, that in cases of admiralty 
 and maritime jurisdiction (which would seem by the constitution to have 
 been exclusively confined to the national authority and the national 
 courts), the ancient statutes, conferring jurisdiction and setting up courts 
 to practice that lav% expressly provided that the acts of congress and the 
 authority of the courts under them should not be construed to exclude 
 the common law or prohibit the courts of the states to grant relief in all 
 those cases in which the common law was competent to afford it. So 
 that to-day, although the courts of the United States in one form of pro- 
 cedure in rem — have exclusive jurisdiction over maritime matters, the 
 common law courts of every state have ample jurisdiction of the same 
 
1366 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 matters, by suits in personam between parties ; and yet we are told that 
 this attempt of the United States to punish crimes of this character is a 
 new thing ; that we are changing the character of the government by 
 endeavoring to repress tumults and insurrections which are leveled against 
 citizens in order to deprive them of that equal protection and that right 
 to seek justice which the constitution, from the nature of it, guarantees 
 to them, and which it in express words gives to them. 
 
 " Now, sir, let us see what rights these new amendments have given to 
 citizens ; and I am sorry to have troubled the senate so long in discuss- 
 ing this general principle ; but, inasmuch as the whole constitutionality 
 of our legislation has been made to turn, as I have said, upon the denial 
 of our right to exercise direct powers over the citizens as such, I have 
 felt justified in demonstrating, as I think I have, from history, from the 
 constitution, from the statutes, and from the decisions, that this pre- 
 tense is a sheer dchision. 
 
 " Now, what do these amendments provide ? 
 
 " The thirteenth amendment provided that there should be neither 
 slavery, nor involuntary servitude except for crime. That was a prohibi- 
 tion. It did not name a state at all. Under the old decisions, to which 
 I have referred, protecting life, liberty, and property, against invasion 
 without due process of law, democratic senators and my friend from Il- 
 linois might have contended that this was only a prohibition against sla- 
 very under the authority of the United States, and that any state could 
 now deprive a citizen of his liberty for the reason that the thirteenth 
 amendment only operated as against the government of the United States 
 as it was held under the old one which I have read. 
 
 " But that has not been contended, and everybody knows that it 
 would be scouted, for there is added — if there could have been any 
 doubt about it before — the provision that ' congress shall have power to 
 enforce this article by appropriate legislation.' Therefore, when the 
 prohibition against slavery was enacted, and the power was expressly 
 put into the hands of congress to carry out that enactment, to see that 
 it was made effectual, was it not the right and the duty of congress, too, 
 to the last point of its power, to protect the liberty of all people wher- 
 ever it might be assailed by that form of crime ? Nobody questions it. 
 
 " But the chief point now is, that here is, whether necessary or unne- 
 cessary, an express grant of power to us, the national legislature, to de- 
 fend the rights of citizens of the United States and of all the inhabitants 
 of the country, whether citizens or not, against slavery. Now, how are 
 you going to do it? Are you going to do it by passing a proclamation 
 to the state of Georgia when she may choose to re-enslave her negroes ? 
 Or, are you going to do it by making war upon her ? Or, are you going 
 
MR. Edmunds' speech continued. 1S67 
 
 to do it, as we by this bill do it under the fourteenth amendment, by 
 declaring that any man who infracts that article shall be punished ? 
 
 " But when you take the next step, and come to the next article of 
 the constitution, which secures the rights of white men as much as of 
 colored men, you touch a tender spot in the party of our friends on the 
 other side. If you wish to employ the powers of the constitution to 
 preserve the lives and liberties of white people against attacks by white 
 people, against rapine and murder, and assassination, and conspiracy, 
 contrived in order to drive them from the states in which they have been 
 born or have chosen to settle, contrived in order to deprive them of the 
 liberty of having a political opinion, contit\'^ed for the purpose of driving 
 them from a city or town where they have endeavored to carry on a 
 peaceable and lawful business, or to cultivate the soil, then the whole 
 strength of the democratic party and all its allies is arrayed against the 
 constitutionality and propriety of such an act. 
 
 " Therefore, I take it, Mr. President, that I need not occupy much 
 time in saying that whatever this provision of the fourteenth article guar- 
 antees to a citizen, that the citizen is entitled to have ; and if he is en- 
 titled to have it, how is he to have it ? The section answers, he is to 
 have it, in the language of the constitution, which is the voice of the 
 people, through the legislation of this body. The people have declared 
 that he shall have this protection. The people have declared that the 
 state authorities shall not deny it to him. The people have declared 
 that it is the solemn duty of congress to see that he has it, because they 
 have decreed that ' congress shall have power to enforce the provisions ' 
 of this section of this clause ' of this article by appropriate legislation.' 
 Therefore, the constitution contemplated that, whenever an occasion 
 should arise where it was necessary to protect these rights, congress 
 should protect them. 
 
 " It is impossible to resist the conclusion. Suppose this did change 
 the government, as my friend from Illinois appears to fear, do you not 
 rather think, Mr. President, that it is a good change ? If the constitu- 
 tion did not before, holding a sovereignty over its citizens, have the 
 faculty of, through its legislative branch, protecting those citizens in the 
 rights that the constitution gave them, the rights which a common hu- 
 man nature gives them, against any assault by any state or under any 
 state, or through the neglect of any state, then it was high time, for the 
 honor of the American name, and for the rights of humanity, that the 
 institutions of this country should change. 
 
 " If, as under the thirteenth article, slavery was a constitutional insti- 
 tution, as it was claimed before, I am sure the people will not be alarmed 
 that a great change has come over the spirit of this government ; and, 
 
° THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Ibted r/ il\''°7 " S"™™"-' "f ^'"-.y, tolerated, or upheld, or 
 wioked at, It has beeome a government of freedom ; that, instead of its 
 be,„g a gover„,„entwhieh should suffer the local authorities of a state 
 to deny the nghts of cUrzens to any of its people, it has become a gov- 
 ™„ ,n wh.ch the national power has guaranteed it to them, and 
 which ,t ,s the duty of the national power, in every honorable and in the 
 
 ;z::^:^. '"-" '- ^^^ '- '"'^ -' ^^^^y -^--^ -^ -^^ . 
 
 "If this is the constitution (and how it can be otherwise, in the face 
 
 2utlr' , ;' " It """''""'"-) -«<=>> ^-es to „ur people a 
 dutvM r !f °r' ■'"' ""^ " '^ " constitution which makes Lur 
 duty to see that they have the protection of law, what sin are we com- 
 mitfng ,n endeavonng to legislate so that they shall have it >. None sir 
 And,now,whatdoweproposetodo! Some people have imaoined' 
 ha™ Stated, or hmted, or insinuated in their ob^enjons that we°were 
 making war upon the states in this bill; that we were overturning the 
 judiciary ; that we were resorting to new methods. That is a mistake 
 a rnrsrepresentation. The bill, like all bills of this characte . , i^^stst' 
 and second sections, is a declaration of rights and a provision for th 
 
 Ct^Tt 1 """''Pr'^r^""* constitutional rights! and a redress fo 
 ^vrong. It does not undertake to overthrow any court. It does not 
 nndeitake to make any war. It does not nndertake to interpose tsd 
 tel; t!'d "'^""'''' °' *^ »*-"'*"«» of law. It does not at 
 of ciime. It IS a law acting upon the citizen like every other law and 
 It IS a law to be enforced by the courts through the regnL and orlarv 
 
 res Stance shall be offered to the qniet and ordinary cou,^ of justice. 
 
 When you come to the later sections, which are in aid of the first 
 yon have the simple and ordinary provision in the third that, when he 
 
 go to their assistance, is to oppose force to force, as is done in every citv* 
 and county in the country every day, when the occasion fo t " 
 under State laws and under national laws, as the senator from Califo^ 
 himself ^ys he demanded to have done, in his own state, on o o a 
 ion by the troops of the United States. When force is o be opposed 
 to the qmet progress of the law, the arm of the nation is to i^sisff^'e 
 with force IS to gather „p the offender and turn him over to the court 
 
 to overturn the judiciary ; we are attempting to uphold it. We are no^ 
 
MR. Edmunds' speech concluded. 1369 
 
 attempting to overthrow the constitution ; we are attempting to uphold 
 it. We are not attempting to interfere with the hberty of the people, 
 unless the liberty to commit crime is the liberty of the people ; we are 
 attempting to protect and uphold it. 
 
 The fourth section troubles some of my honorable friends very 
 much indeed. It is said, in the first place, that it is unconstitutional, 
 because it authorizes the president, in certain cases named, to suspend 
 the writ of habeas corpus. 1 feel very clear that it is constitutional in 
 that respect. The supreme court of the United States have decided, 
 contrary to what my friend from Ohio (Mr. Thurman) has supposed, 
 that the congress of the United States may delegate to the president the 
 power to determine when an exigency occurs which shall call for the exe- 
 cution of some statute. They do delegate powers constantly ; not legis- 
 lative powers, but powers to act in a contingency which the legislature 
 prescribes, or provides for, or defines in advance. That was the case 
 under the embargo laws. The president has no power to lay embargoes 
 or to relieve embargoes ; he has no power to make war ; and yet, under 
 the embargo laws, with universal acceptance in the case that was referred 
 to and shown to gentlemen the other day, the supreme court of the 
 United States unanimously decided that it was competent for congress 
 to vest in the president the discretion to determine in what contingency 
 he should, in effect, repeal the embargoes, and in what contingency he 
 could revive them again. So in 12 Wheaton is a case (Martin vs. Malt) 
 which, perhaps, I ought to refer to for a moment. On the subject of 
 exercising the military power in calling forth the militia, which is, in 
 the language of the constitution, confided to congress in the provision 
 authorizing it to provide for suppressing insurrections and repelling in- 
 vasions, on the very point upon which we are now speaking, the supreme 
 court of the United States unanimously decided that this power could 
 be rightfully vested in the executive. It says : 
 
 ' Is the president the sole and exclusive judge whether the exigency has 
 arisen, or is it to be considered as an open question, upon which every 
 oflicer to whom the orders of the president are addressed may decide 
 for himself, and equally open to be contested by every militiaman who 
 shall refuse to obey the orders of the president ? We are ill of opinion 
 that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs ex- 
 clusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all 
 other persons. We think that this construction necessarily results from 
 the nature of the power itself.' 
 
 "■ And, again, which is perhaps a "better authority with my learned 
 friends on the other side, here is the opinion. of a democratic attorney- 
 general, given to a democratic president, on the subject of lending mill- 
 
^^'^ THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tary assistance to the governor of California, on a certain occasion. Mr 
 Gushing, the attorney-general, informed the president that— 
 
 at is the function of the president of the United States, indubitably 
 to decide, in his discretion, what facts existing constitute the case of in- 
 surrection contemplated by the statutes and by the constitution ' 
 
 " And he cites, to support that, the decision I have just read, and the 
 case of Luther vs. Borden, the Rhode Island rebellion case, which also 
 attirms it. So that we have not only the practice of the o-overn- 
 ment since its foundation, not only the action of its executive depart- 
 ments, but two solemn decisions of that tribunal of final resort which is 
 to determine such questions, that the power to determine what facts con- 
 stitute an insurrection when powers are vested in the president, what 
 facts constitute a rebellion, what exigency shall justify him in suspend- 
 ing the laws as to embargoes, in the nature of things belongs to or 
 certainly may by law be vested in, that department which gentlemen 
 now seem to have forgotten, but which the constitution has cheated for 
 the protection and exercise of the power of the people-the president of 
 the United States. 
 
 "Therefore there is no good ground to maintain that this provision 
 of ti.is bill, which authorizes the president of the United States to sus- 
 pend the writ oi habeas corpus in the case of a rebellion, is open to any 
 question as to its constitutionality ; and let me suggest to my honorable 
 friend from Ohio that the case of Bollman and Swartwout, which he re- 
 fei-red to yesterday, does not decide or intimate that the president may 
 not be clothed with that power. It only declares that it belongs to con- 
 gress to withdraw from the supreme court of the United Stites, if it 
 chooses, the jurisdiction to hear a writ of habeas corpus, as in some cases 
 ha. been done since that time. And Judge Story, whose commentaries 
 the senator read yesterday, instead of stating that congress has not the 
 power to_ de egate that aoithority to the president, speaks of congress 
 jutlionzing the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, using that 
 
 Mr, Bayard, of Delaware, said : " We are all cognizant of the honora- 
 ble senator s capacity both to ask and answer questions. He is here, dis- 
 cussing- a question of this gravity, nothing less than whether the con- 
 gress of the United States has the power to delegate its high judgment 
 and discretion reposed in it for the benefit of the people of ^his country, 
 to be exercised by a third party, whether an officer of this government 
 or not. It seems to me that there is a great principle attending that. 
 The exercise of the .discretion of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, 
 of ascertaunng whether the public safety requires it, is somethino, in m^ 
 opinion, that cannot be delegated by the congress of the United States 
 
THE BILL AS IT PASSED CONGRESS. IS^l 
 
 to any one. They only can suspend that writ, the great safeguard of 
 the people's liberty, when the public safety shall require it, and then, 
 superadded to that, the two occasions of rebehion and invasion. Now I 
 ask, this being a matter of discretion, when the public safety may re- 
 quire the raising of revenues to a greater grade than they were before, 
 whether the senator would consider it competent for congress to delegate 
 its discretion to the secretary of the treasury to increase the duties upon 
 imports, should the public safety require it, and I will superadd, the ex- 
 istence of rebellion and invasion at that time ? " 
 
 Mr. Edmunds : " Without going to the secretary of the treasury to 
 find out what the law is, it is sufficient to say, what I have already said, 
 I think, and that is that the authority which the legislature may vest in 
 the president of the United States to suspend the writ of habeas corpus 
 is not the delegation of a legislative discretion at all, any more than it is 
 the delegation of a legislative discretion to authorize him to expel in- 
 truders from the public lands by force, as has been done, whenever he 
 shall think the interest of the United States requires it. 
 
 " Now Mr. President, I have finished what I have to say about the 
 validity of this bill, and I come to the objectftrn that my honorable 
 friend from Illinois (Mr. Trumbull) and my friend from Missouri (Mr. 
 Schurz) have, that we are undertaking to create a case of constructive 
 rebellion, and that we are going beyond the line of safe precedent, the 
 line of constitutional considei'ation, in undertaking to say that such and 
 such facts shall amount to a rebellion. I do not think it necessary to 
 say that myself. I should be quite as well satisfied, and better satisfied, 
 with the bill as an efficient and powerful measure in a great emergency 
 if it simply declared that if, in the course of these disturbances, a case of 
 rebellion should occur, then and in that case the president, if the public 
 safety in his judgment should require it, might suspend the writ of 
 habeas corpus for a limited time. The fact is, this section has accumu- 
 lated much more in the statement of an existing condition of things than 
 is necessary to make a case of rebellion." 
 
 An amendment was offered by Mr. Sherman, (Rep.) of Ohio, and 
 passed. The bill was subsequently put on its passage and received a 
 vote of 45 in the affirmative to 19, 6 being absent. Several committees of 
 conferences were appointed to consider the amendments as between the 
 senate and the house. After several reports and much debate the bill 
 passed congress by a vote in the house of 93 to 74, 63 being absent. In 
 the senate 36 to 13, 21 being absent. 
 
 The following is the bUl as it passed congress and was approved by 
 the president : 
 
^^'^ THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 An Act to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the 
 constitution of the United States, and for other purposes. 
 Be it enacted, hy the senate and house of representatives of the United 
 States of America in congress assembled, That any person who, under 
 color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any 
 state, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person within the juris- 
 diction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges 
 or immunities secured by the constitution of the United States, shall 
 any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the state 
 to the contrary notwithstanding, be, liable to the party injured in any 
 action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ; such 
 proceeding to be prosecuted in the several district or circuit courts of the 
 United States, with and subject to the same rights of appeal, review 
 upon error, and other remedies provided in like cases in such courts 
 under the provisions of the act of the ninth of April, eighteen hundred 
 and sixty-six, entitled " An act to protect all persons in the United 
 States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means of their vindica- 
 tion ; " and the other remedial laws of the United States which are in 
 their nature applicablejn such cases. 
 
 Sec. 2. That if two or more persons within any state or territory of 
 the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down 
 or to destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy 
 war against the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the 
 government of the United States, or by force, intimidation, or threat to 
 prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, 
 or by force to seize, take or possess any property of the United States' 
 contrary to the authority thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to 
 prevent any person from accepting or holding any office or trust or place 
 of confidence under the United States, or from discharging the duties 
 thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to induce any officer of the 
 United States to leave any State, district, or place where his duties as 
 such officer might lawfully be performed, or to injure him in his person 
 or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office 
 or to injure his person while engaged in the lawful discharge of the' 
 duties of his office, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, 
 hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duty, or by force 
 intimidation, or threat to deter any party or witness in any court of the 
 United States from attending such court, or from testifying in any mat- 
 ter pending in such court fully, freely, and truthfully, or to injure any 
 such party or witness in his person or property on account of his havin<. 
 so attended or testified, or by force, intimidation, or threat to influence 
 the verdict, presentment, or indictment, of any juror or grand-juror in 
 
THE BILL AS IT PASSED. 1373 
 
 any court of the United States, or to injure such juror in his person or 
 property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully 
 assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, 
 or shall conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway or 
 upon the premises of another for the purpose, either directly or indi- 
 rectly, of depriving any person or any class of persons of the equal pro- 
 tection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws, 
 or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities 
 of any state from giving or securing to all persons within such state the 
 equal protection of the laws, or shall conspire together for the purpose 
 of in any manner impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due 
 course of justice in any state or territory, with intent to deny to any 
 citizen of the United States the due and equal protection of the laws, or 
 to injure any person in his person or his property for lawfully enforcing 
 the right of any person or class of persons to the equal protection of the 
 laws, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any citizen of the 
 United States lawfully entitled to vote from giving his support or advo- 
 cacy in a lawful manner toward or in favor of the election of any law- 
 fully qualified person as an elector of president or vice-president of the 
 United States, or as a member of the congress of the United States, or 
 to injure any such citizen in his person or property on account of such 
 support or advocacy, each and every person so offending shall be deemed 
 guilty of a high crime, and upon conviction thereof in any district or 
 circuit-court of the United States or district or supreme court of any ter- 
 ritory of the United States having jurisdiction of similar offenses, shall 
 be punished by a fine not less than five hundred nor more than five thou- 
 sand dollars, or by imprisonment with or without hard labor, as the 
 court may determine, for a period of not less than six months nor more 
 than six years, as the court may determine, or by both such fine and im- 
 prisonment as the court shall determine. And if any one or more per- 
 sons engaged in any such conspiracy shall do, or cause to be done, any 
 act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby any person 
 shall be injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and ex- 
 ercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the per- 
 son so injured or deprived of such rights and privileges may have and 
 maintain an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury 
 or deprivation of rights and privileges against any one or more of tbe 
 persons engaged in such conspiracy, such action to be prosecuted in the 
 proper district or circuit court of the United States, with and subject to 
 the same rights of appeal, review upon error, and other remedies pro- 
 vided in like cases in such courts under the provisions of the act. of 
 April ninth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, " An act to protect all per- 
 
1374 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 sons in the United States in their civil rights, and to furnish the. means 
 of their vindication." 
 
 Sec. 3. That in all cases where insurrection, domestic \nolence, unlaw- 
 ful combinations, or conspiracies in any state shall so obstruct or hinder 
 the execution of the laws thereof, and of the United States, a-s to deprive 
 any portion or class of the people of such state of any of the rights, 
 privileges, or immunities, or protection, named in the constitution and se- 
 cured by this act, and the constituted authorities of such state shall either 
 be unable to protect, or shall, from any cause, fail in or refuse protection 
 of the people in such rights, such facts shall be deemed a denial by such 
 state of the equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled under 
 the constitution of the United States ; and iu all such cases, or when- 
 ever any such insurrection, violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy 
 shall oppose or obstruct the laws of the United States or the due execu- 
 tion thereof, or impede or obstruct the due course of justice under the 
 same, it shall be lawful for the president, and it shall be his duty, to 
 take such measures, by the employment of the militia or the land and 
 naval forces of the United States, or of either, or by other means, as he 
 may deem necessary for the suppression of such insurrection, domestic 
 violence, or combinations ; and any person who shall be an-ested under 
 the provisions of this and the preceding section shall be delivered to the 
 marshal of the proper district, to be dealt with according to law. 
 
 Sec. 4. That whenever in any state or part of a state the unlawful 
 combinations named in the preceding section of this act shall be organ- 
 ized and armed, and so numerous and powerful as to be able, by vio- 
 lence, to either overthrow or set at defiance the constituted authorities of 
 such state and of the United States within such state, or when the con- 
 stituted authorities are in complicity with, or shall connive at the unlaw- 
 ful purposes of, such powerful and armed combinations; and whenever, 
 by reason of either or all of the causes aforesaid, the conviction of such 
 offenders and the preservation of the public safety shall become in such 
 district impracticable, in every such case such combinations shall be 
 deemed a rebelhon against the government of the United States, and 
 during the continuance of such rebellion, and within the limits of the 
 district which shall be so under the sway thereof, such limits to be pre- 
 scribed by proclamation, it shall be lawful for the president of the 
 United States, when in his judgment the public safety shall require it, 
 to suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, to the end that 
 such rebellion may be overthrown ; Provided, That all the provisions 
 of the second section of an act entitled " An act relating to habeas cor- 
 pus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases," approved March 
 third, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, which relate to the discharge of 
 
THE BILL AS IT PASSED. 1375 
 
 prisoners other than prisoners of war, and to the penalty for refusing to 
 obey the order of tlie court, shall be in full force so far as the same are 
 applicable to the provisions of this section : Provided further, That the 
 president shall first have made proclamation, as now provided by law 
 commanding such insurgents to disperse ; And provided also, That the 
 provisions of this section shall not be in force after the end of the next 
 regular session of congress. 
 
 Sec, 5. That no person shall be a grand or petit juror in any court of 
 the United States upon any inquiry, hearing, or trial of any suit, pro- 
 ceeding, or prosecution based upon or arising under the provisions of 
 this act who shall, in the judgment of the court, be in complicity with 
 any such combination or conspiracy ; and every such juror shall, before 
 entering upon any such inquiry, hearing, or trial, take and subscribe an 
 oath in open court that he has never, directly or indirectly, counseled, 
 advised, or voluntarily aided any such combination or conspiracy ; and 
 each and every person who shall take this oath, and shall therein swear 
 falsely, shall be guilty of perjury, and shall be subject to the pains and 
 penalties declared against that crime, and the first section of the act en- 
 titled " An act defining additional causes of challenge and prescribing 
 an additional oathpfor grand and petit jurors in the United States courts," 
 approved June seventeenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, be, and the 
 same is hereby, repealed. 
 
 Sec. 6. That any person or persons, having knowledge that any of 
 the wrongs conspired to be done and mentioned in the second section of 
 this act are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid 
 in preventing the same, shall neglect or refuse so to do, and such wrong- 
 ful act shall be committed, such person or persons shall be liable to the 
 person injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by any 
 such wrongful act which such first-named person or persons by reason- 
 able diligence could have prevented ; and such damages may be recov- 
 ered in an action on the case in the proper circuit court of the United 
 States, and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or 
 refusal may be joined as defendants in such action : Provided, That such 
 action shall be commenced within one year after such cause of action 
 shall have accrued ; and if the death of any person shall be caused by 
 any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of such de- 
 ceased person shall have such action therefor, and may recover not ex- 
 ceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the 
 widow of such deceased person, if any there be, or if there be no widow, 
 for the benefit of the next of kin of such deceased person. 
 
 Sec. 7. That nothing herein contained shall be construed to supersede 
 or repeal any former act or law except so far as the same may be repug- 
 
1376 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 nant thereto ; and any offenses heretofore committed against the tenor 
 of any former act shall be prosecuted, and anj proceeding already com- 
 menced for the prosecution thereof shall be continued and completed, the 
 same as if this act had not been passed, except so far as the provisions of 
 this act may go to sustain and validate such proceedings. 
 
 Approved, April 20, 1871. 
 
 The passage of this bill created an extraordinary excitement through- 
 out the north and south. Some of those who were opposed to the meas- 
 ure charged that there had never been so direct a blow aimed under 
 color of legal authority, at the supremacy of the constitution, or a prece- 
 dent been established so dangerous to free institutions. 
 
 On the 4th of May ensuing the president issued a proclamation calling 
 attention to the provisions of what became known as the ku-klux bill, 
 and warning people of all the disturbed districts of the south, to sup- 
 press combinations of lawless and disaffected persons through local laws. 
 Failing this he should put in operation all the powers given him under 
 the constitution and by the bill aforesaid, to protect citizens of every 
 race and color. 
 
 On October l7th he issued another proclamation suspending the 
 privileges of the writ of habeas corpus in the countSIs of Spartanburg, 
 Marion, Chester, Lawrence, Newberry, Fairfield, Lancaster, and Chester- 
 field, in the state of South Carolina. Subsequently another proclamation 
 to the same effect was issued relative to Union county in the same state. 
 
 CHAPTER CXIL 
 
 CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO REPORT A 
 
 SYSTEM OF RULES. KEY-NOTES OF THE FORTHCOMING PRESIDENTIAL 
 
 CAMPAIGN. C. L. VALLANDIGHAM AND THE NEW DEPARTURE OF DEMOC- 
 RACY. SKETCH OF THE FINANCES SINCE THE WAR, POLICY OF THE 
 
 GOVERNMENT TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT AND TAXATION. THEORIES 
 
 OF CURRENCY AND SPECIE RESUMPTION. 
 
 An act of congress passed on the preceding March 3d, 1871, which 
 was a minor appropriation bill, contained a provision looking towards 
 the long desired civil service reform. The doctrine implanted in the 
 political routine of the country during the Jackson administration, that 
 
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 1377 
 
 to the victors belong the spoils, had made the oflEioes of government 
 prizes to be scrambled for by the partisan rank and file. It had placed 
 in the hands of each administration a certain agency of corruption and 
 temptation toward perpetuation of power. It had also fastened on the 
 various bureaus incapable and inexperienced men, whose lack of ability 
 would hardly be remedied by experience before a new administration 
 would eject them to make way for a fresh relay of ignorance and incapa- 
 city. This dangerous custom had in it so many incentives for continu- 
 ance and was so useful a factor in the organization of campaigns that it 
 quickly became more firmly rooted than the old time-honored traditions 
 of political practice. Its evils had been many times recognized and com- 
 mented on both in and out of congress, by wise and public spirited men. 
 Spasmodic attempts had been made from time to time to attack and re- 
 move this abuse of power, but the abuse was so powerful in its practice, 
 so useful as a legal means of defense and attack, that the difficulties of 
 removing it had been found to be almost insurmountable. Even many 
 good men, while they recognized its theoretic vice, hesitated to advocate 
 a change because they desired to utilize its strength as a lever in the ma- 
 chinery of partisanship. 
 
 The elaborate bill introduced by Mr. Jenckes, republican member from 
 Rhode Island, had failed in its purpose, perhaps because the country was 
 not yet ripe for such a measure, as its provisions were radical and sweep- 
 ing in their details. 
 
 The provision in the appropriation bill to which we have referred au- 
 thorized the president to prescribe such regulations for the civil service 
 as would best promote its efiiciency ; and to ascertain the fitness of 
 each candidate in character, knowledge, and ability, according to the re- 
 quirements of the several branches of the service. The president was 
 authorized to employ suitable persons to conduct said inquiries, to pre- 
 scribe their duties, and to establish regulations for those appointed in the 
 civil service. Under this provision the president appointed as civil ser- 
 vice commissioners, George William Curtis, Alexander G. Cattell, Joseph 
 Medill, Davidson A. Walker, E. B. EUicott, Jose])h H. Blackfan and 
 David C. Cox. 
 
 On December 19th the president sent a message to congress accom- 
 panying the report of the commissioners. This report closed with the 
 following paragraph : 
 
 " We propose also that in this country the places in the public service 
 shall be restored to those who are found to be fitted for them, and, if 
 any one is disposed to think that an abuse of forty years is a law of the 
 republican system, a little reflection will show him his error. If he be- 
 lieves a reform to be impossible, he merely shows that he is the victim of 
 87 
 
1378 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the abuse, and forgets that in America every reform is possible. The 
 enforcement of the rules that we submit for approval depends, of course, 
 upon the pleasure of the president ; yet, should they receive the sanction 
 of congress in the form of law, their enforcement would become, until, 
 repealed, not only the pleasure but the duty of the president. That 
 sanction, whether to the rules now submitted, or to any scheme, will 
 more surely promote that purity and efficiency of the civil service which 
 the country most earnestly desires. If that sanction should be delayed, 
 the rules adopted for his action by the president could not bind his 
 successor ; but, unless we are wholly mistaken, the reform would so vin- 
 dicate itself to the good sense of the country that the people themselves 
 would reject any party and any candidate that proposed to relapse into 
 the present practice. The improvement of the civil service is emphati- 
 cally the people's cause, the people's reform, and the administration 
 which vigorously begins it will acquire a glory only less than that of the 
 salvation of a free union." 
 
 The rules submitted by the commissioners provided for a careful ex- 
 amination of all candidates for public place, more or less severe and ex- 
 tended according to the importance of the position sought for. In the 
 necessary requirements were included not simply intellectual capacity 
 and experience, but the elements of character, health and age. All per- 
 sons appointed under these rules were to be probationers for six months. 
 It was recommended that three persons in each department should serve 
 as a board of examiners under prescribed regulations and the supervis- 
 ion of the advisory board. No head of a department or any subor- 
 dinate officer should authorize or assist in levying any assessment of money 
 for political purposes, on any person under his control. From these 
 rules were excepted the principal officers of the various departments and 
 bureaus, and all the higher appointees of the president. 
 
 This report received the favorable consideration of congress and ex- 
 cited the expectation of the country, that the needed reform would be 
 speedily put in operation. There can be no question that the president 
 and his advisers were earnest in their wishes to root out the manifold 
 evils of patronage under the old system ; though in due course of human 
 nature it was logical, that the inauguration and support of such a scheme 
 should be with the opponents of an administration, rather than with its 
 supporters. Much ridicule and mockery were aimed at the president 
 and civil service commissioners in consequence of the futility of this at- 
 tempt ; but the difficulty was so deeply rooted and so many of the 
 nominal supporters of civil service reform found the old system so useful 
 in political enginery that the practical operations of the new system 
 were shorn of most of their value. 
 
KEY-NOTES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. 1379 
 
 There was much excitement during the year among the rank and file 
 of both parties over the action of congress relative to the condition of 
 aSairs in the south. The radical republicans, still full of the bitterness 
 which had grown out of the recent conflict, and failing to recognize in 
 the temper of the southern people a due disposition to acquiesce in the 
 results of that conflict, found in the action of congress a just and equita- 
 ble measure demanded by the necessities of the country. The oppo- 
 nents of the administration, on the other hand, found no words too 
 severe to denounce what they called the revolutionary and centralizing 
 tendencies of the government. They claimed that it was not merely a 
 question of temporary oppression, but that it introduced a radical dry 
 rot into the very foundation of constitutional power. 
 
 Early in the month of April, the democratic members of conorress 
 issued an address to the people of the United States. After expressing 
 their views on the condition of the country, the course of the administra- 
 tion, the dangers of the nation, and the partisan bitterness of their oppo- 
 nents ; they concluded with an indignant denial of the charges so fre- 
 quently made against the democratic party : 
 
 " No indignation can be too stern and no scorn too severe for the asser- 
 tions by imscrupulous radical leaders that the great democratic and con- 
 servative party of the union has or can have sympathy with disorders or 
 violence in any part of the country, or in the deprivation of any man of 
 his rights under the constitution. 
 
 " It is to protect and perpetuate the rights which every freeman cher- 
 ishes, to revive in all hearts the feeling of friendship, affection, and har- 
 mony, which are the best guarantees of law and order, and to throw 
 around the humblest citizen, wherever he may be, the protecting fegis of 
 these safeguards of personal liberty which the fundamental laws of the 
 land assure, that we invoke the aid of all good men in the work of peace 
 and reconciliation ; we invite their generous co-operation, irrespective 
 of all former differences of opinion, so that the harsh voice of discord 
 may be relieved ; that a new and dangerous sectional agitation may be 
 checked ; that the burdens of taxation, direct or indirect, may be re- 
 duced to the lowest point consistent with good faith to every just na- 
 tional obligation and with a strictly economical administration of the 
 government, and that the states may be restored in their integrity and 
 true relations to our federal union." 
 
 The prevalent feeling of the more violent republicans found its mouth- 
 piece in a significant speech made by senator Morton, of Indiana, at a 
 public reception given to president Grant at Indianapolis, on the 2 2d of 
 April. He said the republican party was national and in its policy must 
 look to the good of the whole country ; it could not afford to make a 
 
1380 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 distinct issue on the tariff, civil service reform or any other single mea- 
 sure. There was a question ahnost of life and death, of crushing out 
 the new form of rebellion. If the democrats returned to power tBey 
 would take away the pensions of loyal soldiers or else would pension 
 confederate soldiers also ; when they had a majority in congi-ess they 
 would quietly allow the southern states to secede in peace, they would 
 tax national bonds and unsettle things generally. He affirmed that the 
 next republican candidate should indorse the ku-klux act as constitution- 
 ally necessary ; and that the United States government should enforce 
 the observance of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, which he 
 declared were everywhere disregarded in the south by the democrats. 
 
 From the proceedings at this reception, it was clear that the agitation 
 of a new presidential election had commenced to show its incipient 
 force. Mr. Morton's speech indicated in the opinions of most the wil- 
 lingness of General Grant to be a candidate for a second term. There 
 had been manifestations of dissatisfaction with General Grant from many 
 of his quondam supporters. A meeting in St. Louis early in the year 
 gave the first public expression of this hostility. Another meeting in 
 Cincinnati early in March, engineered by prominent republicans, was still 
 more emphatic. A committee appointed submitted a report which was 
 signed by a hundred republicans. This was called a republican reform 
 movement, the germ which developed the next year into the Greeley 
 secession. 
 
 This declaration of principles set forth four distinct questions on 
 which they were to commence the fight for reform within the republican 
 ranks ; general amnesty, civil service reform, specie payments, and the 
 revenue tariff. 
 
 The democrats were also active in the preliminary steps of organiza- 
 tion for the coming political conflict. In a county convention in Ohio in 
 the month of May, Mr. Clement L. Vallandigham introduced resolutions 
 intended to suggest a future platform for the party. These struck the 
 key note of public feeling with such ringing force as to become known 
 as " a new departure." The resolutions called on all republicans who 
 had taken issue with the administration to co-operate actively with tlie 
 democratic party. They expressed a perfect acquiescence in the results 
 of the war, including the last three amendments to the constitution. 
 They severely condemned the " bayonet act " recently passed by congress 
 which subjected the south to military power, and also the more recent 
 act known as the ku-klux act. They asserted that the present radical 
 party was not the republican party prior to the war, nor the so-called 
 union party of the war, and not entitled to the public confidence as such. 
 The resolutions called for universal amnesty, the earliest practicable pay- 
 
riNANCIAL CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY. 1381 
 
 ment of the public debt, revenue and civil service reform, as also an early 
 return to specie payments. The constitutional basis of the resolutions is 
 found in the third, which is of sufficient importance to give verbatim : , 
 
 " That, thus burying out of sight all that is of the dead past, namely 
 the right of secession, slavery, inequality before the law, and political 
 inequality, and, now that reconstruction is complete, and representation 
 within the union restored to all the states, waiving all questions as to the 
 means by which it was accomplished, we demand that the vital and long- 
 established rule of strict construction, as proclaimed by the democratic 
 fathers, and accepted by the statesmen of all parties previous to the war, 
 and embodied in the tenth amendment to the constitution, be vigorously 
 applied now to the constitution as it is, including the three recent 
 amendments above referred to, and insist that these amendments shall 
 not be held to have in any respect altered or modified the original 
 theory and character of the federal government as designed and taught 
 by its founders, and repeatedly, in earlier times, in later times, and at 
 all times, affirmed by the supreme court of the United States, but only 
 to have enlarged the powers delegated to it, and to that extent and no 
 more to have abridged the reserved rights of the states ; and that, as 
 thus construed according to these ancient and well-established rules, the 
 democratic party pledges itself to the full, faithful, and absolute execu- 
 tion and enforcement of the constitution as it now is, so as to secure 
 equal rights to all persons under it, without distinction of race, color, or 
 condition," 
 
 The action of the Ohio democracy called out letters of warm indorse- 
 ment and sympathy from John Quincy Adams, candidate for governor 
 of Massachusetts, and Chief Justice Chase. 
 
 Various conventions and congresses were held later in the year 1871, 
 air looking to the formation of public opinion and the crystalization of 
 forces for the forthcoming campaign. A national labor congress was 
 held in St. Louis on August 10th, attacking the system of monopolies 
 involved in railroads, banks, manufacturing companies and the various 
 other stock organizations making up the element of capital, as op- 
 posed to labor. Among these conventions were several representing the 
 colored population, thoroughly indorsing the course of the republican 
 administration. 
 
 A brief sketch of the financial condition of the country and of the 
 action of congress, and the secretary of the treasury relating thereto, 
 will be of value to the reader at this juncture. To present this clearly 
 will involve a retrospective glance at the various measures and the gen 
 eral system of policy adopted by government since the close of the war. 
 From 1865 to 1868 the receipts of the government from all sources had 
 
1382 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 reached the sum of $1,662,496,062 ; of this sum $630,431,125 had been 
 paid on debts due at the close of the war and for bounties. The reduc- 
 tion on the public debt, during the three years succeeding the war, was 
 $470,256,650, leaving the amount of debt, less cash in the treasury, on 
 the 1st of November, 1868, $2,527,129,552, Immediately after the 
 close of the war the pressure on the treasury, occasioned by the extraor- 
 dinary expenses, was relieved by a loan of seven hundred millions in 
 seven-and-three-tenths notes. These seven-thirty notes were by law and 
 the terms of the loan convertible at maturity, at the will of the owner, 
 into five-twenties or into lawful money. Certificates of indebtedness 
 were maturing at this time, at the rate of twenty millions a month, and 
 by July 15th, 1868, it was estimated that the aggregate of matured in- 
 debtedness had reached $830,000,000. The policy of the secretary was 
 simply to keep the treasury in such condition as to be prepared to pay 
 all claims on presentation, and to take up such portions of the debt, in 
 advance of their maturity, as would obviate the necessity of accumulating 
 large currency balances in the treasury. The gold reserve had been 
 maintained to give confidence to foreign creditors of the ability of the 
 government to pay the interest on the public debt, and to hold in severe 
 check the power of speculative combinations on Wall street. One of 
 the financial questions of importance widely discussed in 1868, was 
 whether the five-twenty bonds should be paid in gold or in greenbacks, 
 the advocates of the latter plan urging that the five-twenties were is- 
 sued intentionally without any provision requiring gold payment, except 
 as to interest ; and that these bonds were made payable at option, in 
 whatever might be the legal tender of the country at their maturity. 
 To counteract these views the subject of specie payments was discussed 
 both in and out of congress, but without any decisive action. To make 
 this financial resume more intelligible we give the acts under which the 
 various loans had been consummated and payment provided therefor, 
 from 1861 to 1868: 
 
 Act Authorizing the 6's of 1881. 
 July 17, 1861 — An act to authorize a national loan, and for other pur- 
 poses. 
 Sec. 1. Be it enacted, etc., That the secretary of the treasuiy be, and 
 he is hereby, authorized to borrow, on the credit of the United States, 
 within twelve months from the passage of this act, a sum not exceeding 
 $250,000,000, or so much thereof as he may deem necessary for the 
 public service, for which he is authorized to issue coupon bonds, or re- 
 gistered bonds, or treasury notes, in such proportions of each as he may 
 deem advisable; the bonds to bear interest not exceeding seven .per cent 
 per annum, payable semi-annually, irredeemable for twenty years, and 
 
FINANCES OF THE COUNTRY CONTINUED. 1383 
 
 after that period redeemable at the pleasure of the United States; and 
 the treasury notes to be of any denomination fixed by the secretary of 
 the treasury, not less than $50, and to be payable three years after date 
 with interest at the rate of seven, and three-tenths per cent per annumj 
 payable semi-annually. 
 
 Act AuTHORiziNa the 5.20's. 
 February 25, 1862 — An act to authorize the issue of United States notes, 
 and for the redemption or funding thereof, and for funding the float- 
 ing debt of the United States. 
 
 ****** 
 Sec. 2. That to enable the secretary of the treasury to fund the treas- 
 ury notes and floating debt of the United States, he is hei-eby authorized 
 to issue, on the credit of the United States, coupon bonds, or registered 
 bonds, to an amount not exceeding $500,000,000, redeemable at the 
 pleasure of the United States after five years, and payable twenty years 
 from date, and bearing interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, 
 payable semi-annually. And the bonds herein authorized shall be of 
 such denominations, not less than $50, as may be determined upon by 
 the secretary of the treasury. And the secretary of the treasury may 
 dispose of such bonds at any time, at the market value thereof, for the 
 coin of the United States, or for any of the treasury notes that have 
 been, or may hereafter be, issued under any former act of congress, or 
 for United States notes that may be issued under the provisions of this 
 act ; and all stocks, bonds, and other securities of the United States 
 held by individuals, corporations, or associations, within the United 
 States, shall be exempt from taxation by or under state authority. 
 
 Act CREATING A SiNKING-FuND, ETC, 
 
 Sec. 5. That all duties on imported goods shall be paid in coin, or In 
 notes payable on demand, heretofore authorized to be issued, and by law 
 receivable in payment of public dues, and the coin so paid shall be set 
 apart as a special fund, and shall be applied as follows : 
 
 First. To the payment in coin of the interest on the bonds and notes 
 of the United States. 
 
 Second. To the purchase or payment of one per centum of the entire 
 debt of the United States, to be made within each fiscal year after the 
 1st day of July, 1862, which is to be set apart as a sinking fund, and 
 the interest of which shall in like manner be applied to the purchase or 
 payment of the public debt, as the secretary of the treasury shall from 
 time to time direct. 
 
 Third. The residue thereof to be paid into the treasury of the United 
 States. 
 
1384 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Act Authorizing the 10.40's, 
 March 3, 1864— An act supplementary to an act entitled «An actio 
 provide ways and raeans for the support of the government," approved 
 March 3, 1863. 
 
 Sec. 1. Be it enacted, etc., That in lieu of so much of the loan author- 
 ized by the act of March 3, 1863, to which this is supplementary, the 
 secretary of the treasury is authorized to borrow, from time to time, on 
 the credit of the United States, not exceeding $200,000,000, durino-\he 
 current fiscal year, and to prepare and issue therefor coupon or registered 
 bonds of the United States, bearing date March 1, 1864, or any" subse- 
 quent period, redeemable, at the pleasure of the government after any 
 period not less than five years, and payable at any period not more than 
 forty years from date, in coin, and of such denominations as may be 
 found expedient, not less than $50, bearing interest not exceedino- six 
 per centum a year, payable on bonds not over $100 annually, and on all 
 other bonds semi-annually in coin; and he may dispose of such bonds 
 at any time, on such terms as he may deem most advisable, for lawful 
 money of the United States, or, at his discretion, for treasury notes, cer- 
 tificates of indebtedness, or certificates of deposit, issued under any act 
 of congress; and all bonds issued under this act shall be exempt from 
 taxation by or under state or municipal authority. And the secretary of 
 the treasury shall pay the necessary expenses of the preparation, issue, 
 and disposal of such bonds out of any money in the treasury not other- 
 wise appropriated ; but the amount so paid shall not exceed one-half of 
 one per centum of the amount of the bonds so issued and disposed of. 
 
 Act Authorizing the Consolidated Loan of 1865. 
 March 3, 1865— An act to provide ways and means to support the gov- 
 ernment. 
 Sec. 1. Be it enacted, etc., That the secretary of the treasury be and 
 he IS hereby, authorized to borrow, from time to time, on the credit of 
 the United States, in addition to the amounts heretofore authorized any 
 sums not exceeding in the aggregate $600,000,000, and to issue therefor 
 bonds or treasury notes of the United States, in such form as he may 
 prescribe ; and so much thereof as may be issued in bonds shall be of 
 denominations not less than $50, and may be made payable at any pe- 
 riod not more than forty years from date of issue, or may be made re- 
 deemable, at the pleasure of the government, at or after any period not 
 less than five years nor more than forty years from date, or may be made 
 redeemable and payable as aforesaid, as may be expressed upon their 
 face ; and so much thereof as may be issued in treasury notes may be 
 made convertible into any bonds authorized by this act, and may be of 
 
GOVERNMENT FINANCE MEASURES. 1385 
 
 such denominations — not less than $50 — and bear such dates and be 
 made redeemable or payable at such periods as in the opinion of the 
 secretary of the treasury may be deemed expedient. And the interest 
 on such bonds shall be payable semi-annually ; and on treasury notes 
 authorized by this act the interest may be made payable semi-anrmally, or 
 annually, or at maturity thereof ; and the principal or interest, or both, 
 may be made payable in coin or in other lawful money : Provided, That 
 the rate of interest on any such bonds or treasury notes, when payable 
 in coin, shall not exceed six per cent per annum ; and when not payable 
 in coin shall not exceed seven and three-tenths per cent per annum ; and 
 the rate and character of interest shall be expressed on all such bonds or 
 treasury notes. 
 
 Act creating Legal Tenders. 
 
 February 25, 1862 — An act to authorize the issue of United States notes 
 and for the redemption or funding thereof, and for funding the floa< 
 ing debt of the United States. 
 
 Sec. 1. * * * And provided further, That the amount of the 
 two kinds of notes together shall at no time exceed the sum of $150,- 
 000,000, and such notes herein authorized shall be receivable in payment 
 6f all taxes, internal duties, excises, debts, and demands of every kind 
 due to the United States, except duties on imports, and of all claims 
 and demands against the United States of every kind whatsoever, e'xcept 
 for interest upon bonds and notes, which shall be paid in coin, and shall 
 also be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public 
 and private, within the United States, except duties on imports and in- 
 terest as aforesaid. 
 
 Act limiting the Amount of " Greenbacks." 
 June 30, 1 864 — An act to provide ways and means for the support of 
 the government, and for other purposes. 
 Sec. 1. Be it enacted, etc., That the secretary of the treasury be, and 
 he is hereby, authorized to borrow, from time to time, on the credit of 
 the United States, $400,000,000, and to issue therefor coupon or re- 
 gistered bonds of the United States, redeemable at the pleasure of the 
 government, after any period not less than five, nor more than thirty 
 years, or, if deemed expedient, made payable at any period not more 
 than forty years from date. And said bonds shall be of such denomina- 
 tions as the secretary of the treasury shall direct, not less than fifty dol- 
 lars, and bear an annual interest not exceeding six per centum, payable 
 semi-annually in coin. And the secretary of the treasury may dispose 
 of such bonds, or any part thereof, and of any bonds commonly known 
 as five-tvi^enties i-emaining unsold, in the United States, or, if he shall 
 find it expedient, in Europe, at any time, on such terms as he may deem 
 
1386 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 most advisable, for lawful money of the United States, or, at his discre- 
 tion, for treasury notes, certificates of indebtedness, or certificates of 
 deposit issued under any act of congress. And all bonds, treasury notes, 
 and other obligations of the United States, shall be exempt from taxa- 
 tion by or under state or municipal authority. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the secretary of the treasury may issue on the credit of 
 the United States, and in liea of an equal amount of bonds authorized 
 by the preceding section, and as a part of said loan, not exceeding $200,- 
 000,000 in treasury notes, of any denomination not less than ten dollars, 
 payable at any time not exceeding three years from date, or, if thought 
 more expedient, redeemable at any time after three years from date, 
 and bearing interest not exceeding the rate of seven and three-tenths per 
 centum, payable in lawful money at maturity, or, at the discretion of the 
 secretary, semi-annually. And the said treasury notes may be disposed 
 of by the secretary of the treasury, on the best terms that can be ob- 
 tained, for lawful money ; and such of them as shall be made payable, 
 principal and interest, at maturity, shall be a legal tender to the same 
 extejit as United States notes for their face value, excluding interest, and 
 may be paid to any creditor of the United States at their face value, ex- 
 cluding interest, or to any creditor willing to receive them at par, includ- 
 ing interest, and any treasury notes issued under the authority of this 
 act may be made convertible, at the discretion of the secretary of the 
 treasury, into any bonds issued under the authority of this act. And 
 the secretary of the treasury may redeem and cause to be canceled and 
 destroyed any treasury notes or United States notes heretofore issued 
 under authority of previous acts of congress, and substitute, in lieu there- 
 of, an equal amount of treasury notes such as are authorized by this act, 
 or of other United- States notes : Provided^ That the total amount of 
 bonds and treasury notes authorized by the first and second sections of 
 this act shall not exceed $400,000,000, in addition to the amounts here- 
 tofore issued ; nor shall the total amount of United States notes, issued, 
 ever exceed $400,000,000, and such additional sum, not exceeding $50,- 
 000,000, as may be temporarily required for the redemption of tempo- 
 rary loan ; nor shall any treasury note bearing interest, issued under this 
 act, be a legal tender in payment oi- redemption of any notes issued by 
 any bank, banking association, or banker, calculated or intended to cir- 
 culate as money. 
 
 The Funding Bill, July 25, 1868. 
 
 An act providing for payment of the national debt, and for the reduction 
 
 of the rate of interest thereon. 
 
 Be it enacted, etc., That the secretary of the treasury is hereby author- 
 ized to issue coupon or registered bonds of the United States, in such 
 
GOVERNMENT FINANCE MEASURES. 1387 
 
 form as he may prescribe, and of denominations of one hundred dollars, 
 or any multiple of that sum, redeemable in coin at the pleasure of the 
 United States after thirty and forty years, respectively, and bearing the 
 following rates of yearly interest, payable semi-annually in coin, that is 
 to say : The issue of bonds falling due in thirty years shall bear interest 
 at four and a half per centum ; and bonds falling due in forty yeai-s 
 shall bear interest at four per centum ; which said bonds and the interest 
 thereon shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes or duties to the 
 United States, other than such income tax as may be assessed on other 
 incomes, as well as from taxation in any form by or under state, munici- 
 pal, or local authority, and the said bonds shall be exclusively used, par 
 for par, for the redemption of or in exchange for an equal amount of 
 any of the present outstanding bonds of the United States known as the 
 five-twenty bonds, and may be issued to an amount, in the aggregate, 
 sufficient to cover the principal of all such five-twenty bonds, and no 
 more. 
 
 Sec. 2. That there is hereby appropriated out of the duties derived 
 from imported goods the sum of one hundred and thirty-five millions of 
 dollars annually, which sum, during each fiscal year, shall be a])plied to 
 the payment of the interest and to the reduction of the principal of the 
 public debt in such a manner as may be determined by the secretary of 
 the treasury, or as congress may hereafter direct ; and such reduction 
 shall be in lieu of the sinking fund contemplated by the fifth section of 
 the act entitled " An act to authorize the issue of United States notes, 
 and for the redemption or funding thereof, and for funding the floating 
 debt of the United States," approved February twenty-fifth, eighteen 
 hundred and sixty-two. 
 
 Sec. 3. That from and after the passage of this act no percentage, 
 deduction, commission, or compensation of any amount or kind shall be 
 allowed to any person for the sale, negotiation, redemption, or exchange 
 of any bonds or securities of the United States, or of any coin or bullion 
 disposed of at the treasury department or elsewhere on account of the 
 United States; and all acts or parts of acts authorizing or permitting, by 
 construction or otherwise, the secretary of the treasury to appoint any 
 agent, other than some proper officer of his department, to make such 
 sale, negotiation, ^redemption, or exchange of bonds and securities, are 
 hereby repealed. 
 
 Another proposition which received some consideration in 1868, was 
 the postponement of the payment of the public debt or any part thereof 
 until the national resources should be largely increased. The opinion 
 had been steadily maintained by the treasury department that a sys- 
 tematic reduction of the proper circulation was the true way out of finan- 
 
1388 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 cial embarrassment. The policy was condemned by congress and an act 
 passed limiting the amount of reduction. In the year of which we 
 spealc the amount of government notes outstanding, was $389,435,058, 
 making with the circulation of the national banks, $685,118,302. The 
 existence of such a large amount of irredeemable paper money, not only 
 affected the business and morals of the people but seriously handicapped 
 the commercial relations of the United States to other nations. In addi- 
 tion to this burden was the notorious fact of the almost utter destruction 
 of our ship-building interest, and that our carrying trade was in foreign 
 bottoms. Again an unfavorable factor in the financial state of the 
 country was the almost unexampled extravagance brought on by the war 
 and redundant currency ; a lavishness only to be satisfied by the most 
 costly products of other countries. As this excess of imports was not 
 paid in our own productions, the foreign debt was continuously swelling 
 without a corresponding increase of ability to meet it. In spite of the 
 apparent prosperity growing out of great crops, largely increased, and 
 busy manufactures, and an unusual product of precious metals, the 
 country was unable to exchange its products on terms of equality with 
 other countries except in the last named instance. 
 
 The system of direct taxation adopted during the war had been 
 greatly modified since its close. During the succeeding three years all 
 taxes which discriminated against prudence and economy, as taxes on 
 repairs ; against knowledge, as taxes on books and printing ; against 
 capital and thrift, as the differential income tax ; against transportation 
 of freights and against the great leading raw materials such as coal, pig- 
 iron, cotton, sugar and petroleum, had been struck from the statute 
 book. No direct taxes were now imposed on any manufactured pro- 
 duct, with the exception of certain ones which were looked on in the 
 light of luxuries. Although by these changes an income of $170,000,- 
 000, had been rehnquished, no permanent detriment was wrought to 
 the treasury. The effect of legislation subsequent to the war had been 
 to make revenue subordinate to protection. The rule adopted in the 
 words of the Hon. David A. Wells was " the assumption that, whatever 
 rate of duty could be shown to be for the advantage of any interest, the 
 same would prove equally advantageous to the interests of the whole 
 country ! " There were three ends which clear sighted statesmen saw to 
 be necessary : the restoration of national credit and the resumption of 
 specie payments ; the refunding of the national debt at a lower rate of in- 
 terest ; the reduction of the cost of national production with the view of 
 enabling American products to compete on terms of greater equality 
 with foreign products. In the report made by oue of the most compe- 
 tent students of finance in America, Hon. David A. Wells, it was showa 
 
THE FINANCES SINCE THE WAR. 1389 
 
 that proper management, would leave an available surplus of $150,000,- 
 000 at the close of the year (1869). Mr. Wells proceeded to argue that 
 if one-half of such surplus were applied regularly, month after month, to 
 purchase and cancel gold-interest-bearing bonds so long as they could be 
 obtained at a discount ; and if at the same time the legal tenders were 
 made convertible under certain restrictions into interest-bearing bonds, 
 both bonds and currency would be so enhanced in value as to make 
 specie resumption a matter of much less difficulty. This estimate was 
 concurred in largely by the leading financiers of the country. 
 
 The policy of the secretary of the treasury during the succeeding 
 years did not essentially change from that we have referred to. In his 
 report for 1869, he expressed his opinion that the ability of the country 
 to resume specie payments did not depend on special legislation but on 
 the condition of its industries, and its financial arrangements with other 
 countries. The argument of the secretar}'^ was that the fundamental con- 
 dition for the payment of overdue or irredeemable paper was that the 
 debtor should have wherewith to pay. It was also necessary that the 
 exports should equal the imports in order to prevent a demand for 
 specie. There were other influences overlooked by the secretary as 
 operating on the diminution of our products. Aside from the dele- 
 terious influence of paper money on imports, excessive taxation was de- 
 pressing labor, by diminishing the ability to consume, and reducing the 
 demand for protection. He recommended to the government that he 
 should be clothed with authority to reduce the circulation of the United 
 States notes at the rate of two millions per month, which was afterwards 
 granted by action of congress. 
 
 One of the great factors of improvement in the finances of the coun- 
 try had been the great change for the better in the industrial interests of 
 the south. For two years after the war the crops were, to a great extent, 
 failures. The new labor system had not yet adjusted itself, and it was 
 with great difficulty that the freedmen could be made to work. But the 
 following year the harvest was so abundant that the surplus for exports 
 reached at least $300,000,000 in currency. A large degree of prosperity 
 was restored to the south, broken lines of railway communication re- 
 paired and new lines created. This evidence of the capacity of the coun- 
 try to repair its waste and extend its production, was highly satisfactory 
 and gave a brilliant promise for the future on the part of the country so 
 recently rent by the wounds of civil war. 
 
 There was a steady improvement in the federal finances throughout 
 the year ISYO. The premium on gold had steadily declined about 
 seventeen per cent. At the same time a gradual reduction had been 
 made in the amount of the public debt, to the extent of nearly $108,- 
 
1390 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 000,000. The views of the secretary of the treasury, relative to fund- 
 ing a portion of the public debt, presented to congress in the preceding 
 year, were subsequently approved by that body. An act was passed in 
 July, 1870, that authorized the secretary to issue $200,000,000 in cou- 
 pons or registered bonds of the United States, of denominations of fifty 
 dollars or some multiple thereof, redeemable in coin of standard value 
 after ten years from date of issue, bearing interest at five per cent. 
 Also a further sum of $300,000,000 payable fifteen years from date of 
 issue, bearing interest at the rate of four and a half per cent. Also a fur- 
 ther sura of $1,000,000,000, payable in thirty years, and bearing interest 
 at the rate of four per cent. These bonds were made exempt from taxa- 
 tion by federal, state or municipal authority ; they were ordered to be 
 sold at not less than their par value in coin and the proceeds were to be 
 applied to no other purpose than the redemption of the outstanding five- 
 twenty bonds at par value, or said bonds might be exchanged for the 
 five-twenties, par for par. 
 
 The outbreak of the Franco-German war shortly after rendered it im- 
 practicable to put this bill in immediate operation, but preparations how- 
 ever were so far advanced that the bonds could be delivered without de- 
 lay, whenever the opportunity was favorable to place the loan. The 
 tendency of the war to increase the demand for money abroad induced 
 congress, at its subsequent session, to authorize the issue of three hun- 
 dred millions additional of bonds, bearing interest at five per cent, and 
 payable quarterly. Measures were also adopted by congress to continue 
 the existing system of taxation with some modification, and to increase 
 the circulation of the national banks. This additional issue amounted 
 to $54,000,000, and a new apportionment of the circulation was made 
 on the basis of the census of 1870. The change in the system of taxa- 
 tion effected a total reduction of $77,000,000 in the aggregate. The 
 great prosperity of the year 1871 had a favorable effect on the finances 
 of the country, the revenues were largely increased both from direct and 
 indirect taxation, and about fifty millions of the principal of the public 
 debt was paid. 
 
 The importance of specie resumption and its method of accomplish- 
 ment were the subject of much discussion. We give a statement of 
 some of the numerous methods proposed. Some assumed that the paper 
 currency was redundant, in excess of healthy trade, and that this excess 
 should be retired. This redundancy was believed by such theorists to 
 have its only remedy in contraction. Perhaps the majority favored this 
 view, for congress, in 1866, actually provic^d for gradual withdrawal 
 and cancellation of United States notes to the extent of four millions per 
 mont]ji. Owing to the funding operations of the treasury the provision 
 
THEORIES OF CURRENCY AND SPECIE RESUMPTION. 1391 
 
 did not really go into effect until 1867, which year may be said to have 
 commenced the actual process of contraction. Unfortiinately, the strin- 
 gency in the money market, which occurred at this time, though at- 
 tributable to other causes which conspired to dam up the channels of 
 trade, was generally laid at the door of the depletion of the money mar- 
 kets, by the actual withdrawal of ten millions in six months,- and the 
 succeeding reduction at the rate .of four millions per month. With such 
 force did this opinion sway the public mind that a law was passed in 
 1868 prohibiting further reduction of the currency. So in the words of 
 the comptroller of the currency, *' if this is the only road to specie pay- 
 ment, it remains closed by the mandate of the people." 
 
 The antagonistic view to this demand for specie payments at all haz- 
 ards was, that the currency should be permanently divorced from a spe- 
 cie basis. It was urged that the convertibility of paper money into 
 coin was an unsound element of political economy, because it had rarely 
 been practicable when actually needed ; that convertibility was little more 
 than a name, easy enough when the times were easy, but dangerous and 
 mischievous during derangements of the money market. At such times 
 the demand was never limited to the percentage of reserve in the banks. 
 This knowledge, that provision for payment was not complete, was the 
 certain precursor of money panics and commercial disaster. The bank 
 of England was cited as showing that in every time of real need its 
 charter had been disregarded, and the history of the banks of the United 
 States was instanced as marked by a series of suspensions, occurring as 
 often as exact and prompt conversion was demanded. The advocates of 
 this theory maintained that, under the present currency system, the pre- 
 mium on gold could be gradually reduced until all the reasonable de- 
 mands of trade could be satisfied by exchange at merely nominal rates. 
 A distinction was drawn between convertibility by redemption and con- 
 vertibility by exchange. Thus all the benefits of resumption would ensue 
 without its attendant dangers, and the pressure on the banks and the 
 government would be relieved by obviating the necessity of furnishing 
 coin for nothing. 
 
 Another view which found extensive favor, reasoned that the cuiTency 
 should be maintained at its full volume until the industrial interests of 
 the country, by gradual recuperation from the effects of the war, the 
 natural growth in population and wealth, revival of enterprise, increased 
 facilities of trade, and the extension of our borders, should create legiti- 
 mate use for the entire outstanding amount of currency. This proposi- 
 tion based the appreciation of the currency on the continuous and steady 
 increase in resources and trade, without which it would forever remain 
 in excess. The advocates of the theory had in their favor the specious 
 
1392 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and telling argument that the currency under such a system would be 
 perfectly elastic and flexible, fitting the demands of commerce without 
 any special legislation or extraordinary measures. 
 
 The first of these theories, while meeting perhaps the approbation of 
 the soundest thinkers as a logical truth, and guiding the general course 
 of legislation on the subject, has been found to require much modifi- 
 cation in its practical operations ; but may be fixed as the general 
 standard of both public opinion under its wisest conditions and of con- 
 gressional action. A searching analysis of our financial history would, 
 however, find in the changes of the money market and the gradual ap- 
 preciation of currency, the operation of all the elements involved in the 
 different theories we have mentioned. 
 
 CHAPTER CXIII. 
 
 SECOND SESSION OF THE FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S THIRD 
 
 MESSAGE. POSTAL TELEGRAPHY. DEBATE ON RETRENCHMENT AND 
 
 INVESTIGATION INTO CIVIL SERVICE ABUSES. DEBATES ON BILLS RE 
 
 MOVING THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL DISABILITIES IMPOSED BY THE 
 
 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. ABLE DISCUSSION BY MESSRS. TRUMBULL, 
 
 MORTON, SHERMAN, SCHURZ, ETC. 
 
 The second session of the XLIId congress commenced Decem- 
 ber 4th, 1871* Vice-president Schuyler Colfax presided in the chair of 
 the senate, the Hon. James G. Blaine in that of the house. President 
 Grant's third annual message was received, and read. After the usual 
 stereotyped common-places of congratulation, the president proceeded to 
 allude to the arrangements for the tribunal of arbitration on the Ala- 
 bama claims at Genoa. His majesty, the king of Italy, the president of 
 the Swiss confederation and the emperor of Brazil had each consented 
 to name an arbitrator for the tribunal. The emperor of Germany had 
 also complied with the joint requests of the two governments and had 
 consented to arbitrate on the disputed water boundary between the 
 United States and Great Britain, 
 
 The commission appointed to adjudicate on the claims of the citizens of 
 the United States against Spain, growing out of the Cuban insurrection, 
 had made their report, which had been transmitted to congress. The 
 national debt had been reduced to the extent of eighty-six millions of 
 
•Sag ^tyAB-Bitcta^ • 
 
 ^(Wkaa^ fWv. <^^^^^ 
 
 vrv^ 
 

THE president's THIRD MESSAGE. 1393 
 
 dollars during the year, and the negotiation of the national bonds at a 
 lower rate of interest had diminished the sum necessary for the interest 
 account of the forthcoming year by nearly seventeen millions of dollars. 
 A readjustment of the tarifif and tax laws was recommended. The en- 
 larged receipts of the post office department exhibited a gratifying in- 
 crease. The president indorsed the suggestion of the post-master gen- 
 eral for uniting the telegraphic system of the country with the postal 
 system. It was believed that such a course would reduce the cost of 
 telegraphing and improve its administration, as well as extend the system 
 to portions of the country unavailable to private enterprise. The presi- 
 dent's reference to the ku-klux bill and the southern disturbances, which 
 had prompted its passage, is given in full : 
 
 " There has been imposed upon the executive branch of the govern- 
 ment the execution of the act of congress approved April 20, 1871, and 
 ct mmonly known as the ku-klux law, in a portion of the state of South 
 Carolina. The necessity of the course pursued will be demonstrated by 
 the report of the committee to investigate southern outrages. 
 
 " Under the provisions of the above act I issued a proclamation calling 
 the attention of the people of the United States to the same, and de- 
 claring my reluctance to exercise any of the extraordinary powers there- 
 by conferred upon me except in case of imperative necessity, but making 
 known my purpose to exercise such powers whenever it should become 
 necessary to do so for the purpose of securing to all citizens of the 
 United States the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to them 
 by the constitution and the laws. 
 
 " After the passage of this law, information was received from time to 
 time that combinations of the character referred to in this law existed, 
 and were powerful in many parts of the southern states, particularly in 
 certain counties in the state of South Carolina. Careful investigation 
 was made, and it was ascertained that, in nine counties of that state, 
 such combinations were active and powerful, embracing a sufficient portion 
 of the citizens to control the local authority, and having, among other 
 things, the object of depriving the emancipated class of the substantial 
 benefits of freedom, and of preventing the free political action of those 
 citizens who did not sympathize with their own views. 
 
 " Among their operations were frequent scourgings and occasional as- 
 sassinations, generally perpetrated at night by disguised persons, the 
 victims, in almost all cases, being citizens of different political sentiments 
 from their own, or freed persons who had shown a disposition to claim 
 equal rights with other citizens. Thousands of inoffensive and well- 
 disposed citizens were the sufferers by this lawless violence. Thereupon,. 
 on the 12th day of October, 1871, a proclamation was issued, in terms 
 
1394 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 of the law, calling upon the members of those combinations to disperse 
 within five days, and to deliver to the marshal or military officers of the 
 United States all arms, ammunition, uniforms, disguises, and other 
 means and implements used by them for caiTying out their unlawful 
 purposes. This warning not having been heeded, on the lYth of Octo- 
 ber another proclamation was issued suspending the privileges of the 
 writ of habeas corpus in nine counties in that state. 
 
 " Direction was given that, within the counties so designated, persons 
 supposed, upon credible information, to be members of such unlawful 
 combinations should be arrested by the military forces of the United 
 States, and delivered to the marshal, to be dealt with according to law. 
 In two of said counties, York and Spartanburg, many arrests have been 
 made. At the last accounts, the number of persons thus arrested was 
 one hundred and sixty-eight. Several hundred, whose criminality was 
 ascertained to be of an inferior degree, were released for the present. 
 These have generally made confessions of their guilt. Great caution 
 has been exercised in making these arrests, and, notwithstanding the 
 large number, it is believed that no innocent person is now in custody. 
 The prisoners will be held for regular trial in the judicial tribunals of the 
 United States. As soon as it appeared that the authorities of the 
 United States were about to take vigorous measures to enforce the law, 
 many persons absconded, and there is good ground for supposing that 
 all of such persons have violated the law. A full report of what has been 
 done under this law will be submitted to congress by the attorney-general." 
 
 Among the other subjects discussed in the message were the abolition 
 of slavery in Brazil, the initiation of which had recently taken place, the 
 proposed Pacific Mail subsidies, the surveys of the Isthmuses of Darien 
 and Tehuantepec under the commands respectively of captains Selfridge 
 and Shufeldt, the desirability of removing the disabilities imposed by 
 the fourteenth amendment, the great fire in Chicago, and civil service 
 reform. In regard to the latter the president was sanguine that the com- 
 missioners would devise a plan which would redound greatly to the in- 
 terest of the public service, though their labors were as yet incomplete, 
 and the difficulties in their way hard to eradicate. 
 
 In the house, on Dec. 4th, Mr. Beck, (Dem.) of Kentucky, offered a 
 resolution demanding from the president under what provisions of the 
 law of April 20th, 18*71, he had suspended the constitution and laws of 
 the countiy and of the state, and also the writ of habeas corpus in nine 
 counties of South Carolina. The resolution was referred to the Joint 
 Committee on the Condition of the Late Insurrectionary States. A 
 similar resolution in the senate, offered by Mr. Blair, (Dem.) from Mis- 
 souri, was voted down. 
 
DEBATE ON RETRENCHMENT. 1395 
 
 In the house, on Dec. 5th, Mr. Randall, (Dem.) of Pennsylvania, called 
 attention to resolutions offered by Mr. Dawes, (Rep.) of Massachusetts, 
 proposing to establish an especial committee upon postal telegraphy. 
 He was aware of the proposition to be submitted to congress, looking to 
 the purchase of the telegraph lines of the country, at the estimate and 
 cost of $10,000,000 and upwards. He was opposed to the creation of 
 any special committee. Mr. Farnsworth, (Rep.) of Illinois, moved to 
 amend the resolution of Mr. Dawes by ordering a reference to the Com 
 mittce on Post-OfRce and Post roads. Mr. Niblack, (Dem.) of Indiana, 
 referred to the immense patronage that the government purchase of the 
 telegraphic system would confer on the appointing power. According 
 to the estimates which had been submitted, the number of appointees 
 would reach at least eight thousand. He entered his protest most earn 
 estly against the whole proposition, and denounced it as the most ex- 
 traordinary every brought before congress. Mr. Farnsworth also op- 
 posed the measure as uncalled for and dangerous. It was proposed that 
 government should do all the telegraphic business and become a mo- 
 nopolist. If it undertook telegraphing it would need do it all, private, 
 confidential, financial and commercial. 
 
 Mr. Beck said he was a member of the select committee which had 
 carefully investigated this question, and opposed it on the ground of its 
 being a dangerous political monopoly. There were in the United States 
 about five thousand telegraph stations, seventy-five thousand miles of 
 line, and seventy thousand employees. There were transmitted annually 
 about eleven and a half million of messages. Under the government plan 
 there would be at least twenty-five thousand telegriph offices, a hundred 
 and fifty thousand miles of line, and twenty-five thousand employees. 
 The resolution was finally referred to the committee on appropriations. 
 
 In the senate, on Dec. 11th, Mr. Conkling, (Rep.) of New York, 
 moved to postpone the pending and previous orders and consider a reso- 
 lution, that the committee on military affairs be instructed to inquire 
 into the recent defalcation of paymaster Hodge of the army, and to as- 
 certain whether there were other cases of dereliction, and whether further 
 legislation or regulation were needed for the future. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull, (Rep.) of Illinois, moved to amend the resolution by 
 asking for the appointment of a joint select committee on retrenchment, 
 consisting of four members of the senate and seven of the house ; that 
 said committee be instructed to investigate the public service of the 
 United States in all its details, and in what forms change or retrench- 
 ment was advisable; also to consider the expediency of so amending the 
 appointment system that the public service could no longer be used as 
 an instrument of party patronage. 
 
1396 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull wanted a substantial reform in the civil service. A 
 long step toward reform would be a law disconnecting members of congress 
 from all appointments. The independence of members of congress and 
 of the heads of departments could not be maintained so long as they put 
 themselves under obligations to each other in the matter of appoint- 
 ments. He referred also to the robbery of the public by its officials ; 
 he wished examination to go to the bottom without fear or favor, in the 
 treasury department, in the pay department, in the customs, and every- 
 where facilities for robbing the public purse existed. 
 
 There was an impression throughout the land that demoralization and 
 corruption were deep rooted in the public service. The recent exposures 
 of the Tweed ring in New York showed robberies to the extent of mill- 
 ions of dollars, and had awakened public sentiment on the subject. The 
 millions stolen under the Tammany regime had been paid largely to pack 
 conventions and stuff ballot-boxes. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds, (Rep.) of Vermont, thought everybody on all sides of 
 the chamber would agree in condemning robbery, peculation and favor- 
 itism. The point was not whether it was right to purify the public 
 service, but as to the most effectual method of doing it. There were 
 peculiar difficulties however in the way, and it was not easy to draw the 
 line between appointing a man on account of his political status and his 
 want of political status, or some other reason. He could say of his 
 friend from Illinois, that it was his political status that made him a sena- 
 tor, and not because he was thought to be the only man in Illinois whose 
 character and ability were beyond question. The senator then eulogized 
 the president of the United States for his faithfulness and care in weed- 
 ing out the public service. 
 
 The senate went into executive session and further discussion was sus- 
 pended on the subject. 
 
 On Dec. 13, Mr. Anthony, (Rep.) of Rhode Island, offered a resolu- 
 tion for a standing committee of seven, to be known as the Committee 
 of Investigation and Retrenchment, to report on such subjects as might 
 be committed to it. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull approved the resolution but moved to amend it by giv- 
 ing it the same power as that proposed in his own resolution for a joint 
 select committee. After some debate on the technical differences be- 
 tween the resolutions of the senators of Illinois and Rhode Island re- 
 spectively, Mr. Edmunds, (Rep.) of Vermont, proceeded to speak. If 
 he were a stranger to the politics of the country he should fancy that 
 'the presidential campaign was about to be opened in form, so that by 
 ■sounding and glittering generalities the impression might be created that 
 we had fallen on very evil times ; that we had been rapidly gi'owing 
 
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM, 1397 
 
 worse and worse since the Johnson administration ; and that the whole 
 people were crying aloud for vengeance upon the entire body of public 
 officers, who were plundering them in every direction. He was sure 
 that the honorable senator from Illinois, who looked with an eye single- 
 minded for the public good, would agree with him that the whole body 
 of government officers and agents, under this administration, would com- 
 pare favorably with any since the days of George Washington. He 
 wished to protest against the assumption, that there was now any ex- 
 traordinary condition of evil in the public service. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, (Dem.) of Ohio, branded the foregoing speech as a 
 whitewashing statement. People generally would be uncharitable enough 
 to require some further testimony. 
 
 Mr. Schurz, (Rep.) of Missouri, referred to a statement formerly made 
 by the senator from Vermont, admitting the demoralization of the civil 
 service. He could not conceive of the organization of the proposed com- 
 mittee on mere motives of political hostility to the administration. As 
 for that senator's claim of great improvements in official morality he had 
 doubts. Nowhere in the history of the country could there be found 
 four consecutive months crammed so full with fraud, embezzlement and 
 defalcation. For years the senate had been voting for conferring exactly 
 the powers now demanded for the committee on retrenchment. Sud- 
 denly it was found improper, even dangerous, to do so. There was talk 
 of secret proceedings, of ruining innocent persons, of star chambers and 
 other frightful things. If a committee with such powers was not dan- 
 gerous before why should it be dangerous now ? The only persons who 
 could be injured were the corrupt men, whose misdeeds ought to be 
 dragged into daylight. Whatever might be said of the improvements 
 in the civil service, the people were startled at the frequency and enor- 
 mity of the disclosures accumulating from day to day. The American ' 
 people demanded the exposure and overthrow of coi-ruption, regardless 
 of person or party. They were standing on the threshold of a great 
 moral revolution, when cheap declarations against the sinfulness of sin 
 would no longer pass as legal tender. The public wanted energetic and 
 fearless efforts to uproot abuses in practice as well as theory. Congress 
 should make it clear to the whole world that it hated no political party 
 as much as it hated corruption, and that it loved no party more than it 
 loved honesty and good government. 
 
 Mr. Morton, (Rep.) of Indiana, thought that the committee contem- 
 plated would become a mere inquisition with the power of rising to 
 tyrannv, the margin for abuse of power was enormous. No standing 
 committee had ever been granted such a range of power in congress, in 
 parliament, or any legislative body. He could not be mistaken about 
 
1398 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the drift of this debate. It was designed to show gross corruption in 
 the administration and to reflect on the republican party. He contended 
 that no party had ever exerted itself to maintain purity to a greater ex- 
 tent, or punished crime with more promptness and vigor. Mr. Morton 
 was prepared to give the committee jurisdiction over all matters of re- 
 trenchment, but could not consent to invest it with those large general 
 powers which seemed to be contemplated. 
 
 Mr. Schurz replied that his object was to uncover and correct abuses 
 without regard to political aflSliations. He referred to the old committee 
 on retrenchment which had just such powers, and had never heard of 
 any complaint of persons being dragged before that star chamber, as it 
 was now called. We were at present told that the liberties of the 
 American people would be in danger if we continued . to do what all the 
 senators had voted for from 1866 to the opening of this congress. He 
 ridiculed the statement that it was a reflection upon the republican 
 party. Either the party was not what it pretended to be, a party of 
 reform, or else it should, instead of repelling the denunciation of abuses, 
 rather encourage the spirit of frank, free, and fearless investigation'. 
 
 The question was then called on the amendment of the senator from 
 Illinois, and it was lost by a vote of 35 to 24, 12 being absent. The 
 question recurred on the original resolution and it was agreed to. Mr. 
 Trumbull then moved his amendment as an independent proposition. 
 He said he had no hostile disposition to the republican party, and did 
 not believe that investigation would be hostile to that party. He had 
 not suggested that the republican party was hypocritical in its preten- 
 sions as a reform party, and he could not see how an inquiry made into 
 the expenditures of the service and into the accountability of public 
 officei's and agents was hostile to the republican party. He could not 
 understand this zeal to rush into the defense of republicanism and the 
 president, when nobody proposed to assail either. There had been 
 enough of defalcation and fraud within the last few months to justify 
 an inquiry, and no honest man should object to such an inquiry. 
 
 Mr. Morton wished to say one word in regard to reform. There seemed 
 to be a disposition on the part of some to monopolize that business, and 
 to claim that it was the business of their lives to hunt down corruption. 
 He wished to inform these monopolists, that he was as good a reformer 
 as any of them, only he did not make quite as much pretension. It 
 had been said that because they were opposed to investing a committee 
 with general power to send for persons and papers, to investigate any- 
 body on any public or private charge, that they were against the power, 
 which had been always conceded to this committee. 
 
 No final action was taken on this resolution. In the senate on Deceua- 
 
MR, TRUMBULL ON OFFICIAL CORRUPTION. 1399 
 
 ber 18th, Mr Anthony offered a resolution that the committee to be ap- 
 pointed under the previous resolution, should consist of Mr. Bucking- 
 ham, Mr. Pratt, Mr. Howe, Mr. Harlan, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Pool, and Mr. 
 Bayard. In the debate which followed, Mr. Trumbull moved to amend 
 the resolution, to enlarge the powers of the committee in accordance 
 with his previous amendment. Mr. Morton again repelled with indigna- 
 tion what he claimed was the stigma attempted to be fastened on the 
 majority of the republican senators. The people would put a very dif- 
 ferent estimate on this proceeding. It had been said that there were 
 great frauds committed in the administration and that the criminals 
 should be brought to light, and that this would be brought about by 
 the resolution of the senator from Illinois. He claimed that resolution 
 had been sailing under false colors from beginning to end. Containing 
 no authority to investigate frauds, and not meeting with the judgment 
 of the majority, it had been heralded throngh the country as showing a 
 disposition to cover up fraud, on the part of that majority. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull : " Now Mr. President I propose briefly to give a narra- 
 tive which I think ought to go to the country and ought to be under- 
 stood by the senate, of this resolution, and of the course which has been 
 pursued here in regard to it. We have had the resolution adopted 
 originally in the thirty-ninth congress, at the instance of the senator 
 from Vermont, (Mr. Edmunds ;) in the fortieth congress at the instance 
 of the senator from Rhode Island ; and in the forty-first congress at the 
 instance I think of the senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Patterson ;) 
 and we have had various gentleman upon this committee : 
 
 " The first joint committee on retrenchment consisted, on the part of 
 the senate, of Messrs. Edmunds, Williams, and Buckalew, appointed in 
 1866. In 1869, Messrs. Edmunds, Williams, Patterson, and Buckalew, 
 constituted the committee on the part of the senate. In 1870, Messrs. 
 Harris, Patterson, Schurz, and Thurman, constituted the committee on 
 the part of the senate. 
 
 " Now, sir, I supposed that a proposition to raise a committee that 
 had had an existence ever since 1866, with precisely the same powers 
 that I asked for it in 1871, would have been adopted in this body with- 
 out objection. On the 7th day of December, 1871, I offered a resolu- 
 tion to revive the committee on retrenchment, which had expired with 
 the forty-first congress on the 3d of March last. After I had offered the 
 resolution, the senate immediately adjourned without any action upon it. 
 
 " On Monday, the resolution, if I recollect aright, came up, and was 
 considered to some extent, but without arriving at any definite conclu- 
 sion. On Tuesday the senate sat but a few minutes ; and again, if I 
 recollect aright, the same thing was gone through with on Wednesday, 
 
1400 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and tbe newspapers of the country say that a caucus of republican sena- 
 tors was held in reference to this resolution. I wish tho senator from 
 Indiana to consider what I am saying. The newspapers of the country 
 say that a party caucus of republican senators was called to determine 
 whether this resolution of investigation and inquiry to reduce the ex- 
 penses of the government should pass or not. Who gave this a party 
 turn, or sought to give it a party turn ? In my judgment, it was not a 
 proper subject for party consideration. The very fact that republican 
 senators got together to consider whether a resolution of inquiry into the 
 abuses of the government should be permitted to pass this body showed 
 that the meeting was called for the purpose of considering it in a party 
 point of view. The whole country has been given to understand that 
 the republican senators were called together, for what ? For the purpose 
 of considering whether a resolution that had passed this body for five 
 consecutive years without objection should be permitted to pass again. 
 
 " Sir, I deny that the republican party of this Country is to be bound 
 by any such action, and for one, I repudiated on the spot the idea of 
 being bound by any such caucus. I will never consent, while I have 
 the honor of a seat here, that a party caucus, or any other combination 
 or organization, shall prevent my bringing before the senate for its in- 
 vestigation matters that I believe the public good requires to be in- 
 vestigated. 
 
 " Sir, what followed ? The resolution then followed in this body of- 
 fered by the senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Anthony), to do what? 
 To create a committee of investigation and retrenchment, to consider 
 such matters as should be referred to it, a committee with no power 
 whatever. It could not move a step until something was referred to it." 
 
 Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, the m'over of the original resolution, 
 moved to strike out the clauses authorizing the committee to examine 
 into the expediency of withdrawing the public seiTice from being used 
 as an instrument of political patronage. 
 
 The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 
 
 The question on adopting the original amendment as amended reccTred 
 and was adopted. 
 
 On Dec. 20th Mr. Robertson, (Rep.) of South Carolina, moved that 
 all pending and previous orders be postponed, and that the senate pro- 
 ceed to the consideration of the bill indicated by him. The motion was 
 agreed to, and the senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to 
 consider the bill for the removal of legal and political disabilities im- 
 posed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments to 
 the constitution of the United States. The bill proposed to remove all 
 legal and political disabilities imposed by the third section of the four- 
 
DEBATE ON REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES. 1401 
 
 teentli article of amendments to tlie constitution of the United States on 
 persons therein mentioned, because of their having engaged in insurrec- 
 tion or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to 
 the enemies thereof, with the exception of persons Included in either of 
 the following classes, namely : first, members of the congress of the 
 United States who withdrew therefrom and aided the rebellion ; second, 
 officers of the army or navy of the United States who, being above the 
 age of twenty-one years, left said army or navy and aided the rebellion ; 
 third, members of state conventions which adopted pretended ordinances 
 of secession, who voted for the adoption of such ordinances. Before 
 any person could be entitled to the benefit of the act he should, within 
 the district where he resides, before a clerk of some court of the United 
 States or a United States commissioner, take and subscribe an oath or 
 affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and to bear 
 true faith and allegiance to the same, which oath or afiirmation should 
 be forwarded by the officer to the secretary of state of the United 
 States, who should cause a list of all persons complying with the provis- 
 ions of the act to be laid before congress at the opening of each session 
 thereof ; and the officer before whom such oath or affirmation was made 
 was to give to the person taking it a certificate of the fact under such 
 forms and regulations as the secretary of state might prescribe. 
 
 Mr. Robertson said the passage of this bill would give great strength to 
 the republican party in the south. Mr. Buckingham, (Rep.) of Con- 
 necticut, opposed it because it opened a door for the re-entrance into 
 politics and power of the great mass of disloyal who sought to destroy 
 the government. He would enter his caveat to stay further proceedings. 
 Mr. Morton moved an amendment that the act should not be con- 
 strued to validate the election or appointment of any person to office 
 who at the time of election or appointment was ineligible. Mr. Sumner 
 thought they should be just before they were generous. He proposed 
 to be just to the colored race as well as generous to the ex-confederates. 
 He asked the senate to adopt as an amendment the supplementary civil 
 rights bill which he sent to the chair to be read. 
 
 Mr. Hill, (Dem.) of Georgia, regretted to see the bill which had been 
 so carefully matured in the house overlaid with amendments not germain 
 to it. People who did not live south could not know the bitter grievances 
 which would be remedied by this important measure. Like other sena- 
 tors he himself had had no sympathy or toleration for the rebellion. 
 Time had soothed his feelings, and he believed in the fullest generosity 
 and kindliness. The present measure was not even liberal enough, but 
 was on the whole well considered and well devised. Ho hoped that it 
 would not be interfered with by contradictory amendments. 
 
1402 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Sumner suggested that nearly one-half of the people of Georgia, 
 the colored population, were excluded from the equal rights they were 
 entitled to. He did not think that the quondam rebels were the only 
 people in Georgia. 
 
 Mr. Hill then attacked the theory of social equality as being logically 
 involved with that of political equality. There was no question of civil 
 rights being denied, by there being separate, separate schools or separate 
 churches for different classes ; that was a question of regulation on the 
 part of the institution itself. He referred to the churches of the south. 
 Before the war the master and slave had worshiped together in the 
 same congregation, but now the colored people preferred to occupy their 
 own churches, and their former masters were frequently applied to for 
 help to build them. Mr. Hill defines his position in answer to certain 
 sharp interrogations from Mr. Sumner. His definition of rights differed 
 materially from that of the senator from Massachusetts. What the 
 latter termed a right, might be, the right of any man who pleased to 
 enter his parlor and become his guest. That was not the right of any 
 colored man on earth, nor of any white man, unless it were agreeable to 
 him (Mr. Hill). He said that such matters were subject to municipal 
 regulations by the states for their own people. In hotels and on rail- 
 roads all were subject to the certain regulations provided. Both white 
 and colored people were entitled to all the security and comfort that 
 might be presented to the most favored guest or passenger. But the 
 question was essentially one of individual taste and comfort. He him- 
 self had been excluded from ladies' cars on railroads but did not regard 
 himself as insulted on that account. In further controversy senator 
 Hill ridiculed the idea of this great government descending to the busi- 
 ness of regulating hotels, common taverns, street railroads, stages, etc. 
 
 The supplementary bill which Mr. Sumner desired to have amended 
 to the bill was then read by the clerk. Mr. Morton modified his own 
 proposed amendment so as not to include persons raised to office under 
 any state. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull did not like these various amendments that were at- 
 tempted to be tacked to the bill. He did not altogether approve of that 
 bill, but believed on the whole that no more acceptable Christmas present 
 could be extended to the south. He appealed to both the senators who 
 had offered amendments, not to press them, as they would be likely to 
 delay action and postpone the act of grace for another year. 
 
 Mr. Alcorn, (Rep.) of Mississippi, also urged the prompt passage of the 
 bill in its original shape. The two amendments were then successively 
 taken up and were rejected. 
 
 Mr. Morton again proposed his former amendment in a different form 
 
MR. SUMNER ON CIVIL RIGHTS. 1403 
 
 and it was agi'eed to. The bill was reported from the committee of the 
 whole, and on the report being accepted, Mr Sumner again renewed his 
 amendment known as the civil rights bill. Mr. Sumner said : 
 
 " Mr President, slavery, in its original pretension, reappears in* the 
 present debate. Again the barbarous tyranny stalks into this chamber, 
 denying to a whole race the equal rights promised by a just citizenship. 
 Some here thought slavery dead. This is a mistake. If not in body, at 
 least in spirit or as a ghost, making our country hideous, the ancient 
 criminal yet lingers among us, insisting upon the continued degradation 
 of a race. 
 
 " Property in man has ceased to exist. The human auction-block is 
 departed. No human being can call himself master, with impious 
 power to separate husband and wife, to sell the child from its parents, 
 to shut out the opportunities of religion, to close the gates of knowl- 
 edge, and to rob another of his labor and all its fruits. These guilty 
 prerogatives are ended. To this extent the slave is free. No longer a 
 chattel, he is a man, justly entitled to all that is accorded by law to any 
 other man. 
 
 " Such is the irresistible logic of his position. Ceasing to be a slave, 
 he became a man, whose foremost right is equality of rights. And yet 
 slavery has been strong enough to postpone his entry into the great pos- 
 session. Cruelly, he was not permitted to testify in court ; nor was he 
 allowed to vote. More than four millions of people, whose only offense 
 was a skin which had been the badge of slavery, were shut out from the 
 court-room, and also from the ballot-box, in open defiance of the great 
 promises of our fathers that all men are equal in rights, and that just 
 government stands only on the consent of the governed. Such was the 
 impudent behest of slavery, prolonged after it was reported dead. At 
 last these crying wrongs were overturned. The slave testifies ; the slave 
 votes. To this extent his equality is recognized. 
 
 " But this is not enough. Much as it may seem compared with the 
 past, when all was denied, it is too little, because all is not yet recog- 
 nized. The denial of any right is a wrong that darkens the enjoyment 
 of all the rest. Besides the right to testify and the right to vote, there 
 are other rights, without which equality does not exist. The precise 
 rule is equality before the law ; nor more nor less ; that is, that condi- 
 tion before the law in which all are alike — being entitled, without any 
 discrimination, to the equal enjoyment of all institutions, privileges, ad- 
 vantages, and conveniences, created or regulated by law, among which 
 are the right to testify and the right to vote. But this plain require- 
 ment is not satisfied, logically or reasonably, by these two concessions, 
 so that when they are recognized all others are trifles. The court-house 
 
1404 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and ballot-box are not the only places for tbe rule. These two are not 
 the only institutions for its operation. The rule is general ; how, then, 
 restrict it to two cases ? It is, all are equal before the law — not merely 
 befcJi'e the law in two cases, but before the law in all cases, without limi- 
 tation or exception. Important as it is to testify and to vote, life is not 
 all contained even in these possessions. 
 
 " The new-made citizen is called to travel for business, for health, or 
 for pleasure, but here his trials begin. The doors of the public hotel, 
 which, from the earliest days of our jurisprudence, have always opened 
 hospitably to the stranger, close against him, and the public conveyances, 
 which the common law declares equally free to all alike, have no such 
 freedom for him. He longs, perhaps, for respite and recreation at some 
 place of public amusement, daly licensed by law, and here also the same 
 adverse discrimination is made. With the anxieties of a parent, seeking 
 the welfare of his child, he strives to bestow upon him the inestimable 
 blessings of education, and takes him affectionately to the common school, 
 created by law, and supported by the taxation to which he has contrib- 
 uted, but these doors slam rudely in the face of the child where is gar- 
 nered up the parent's heart. ' Suffer little children, and forbid them 
 not, to come unto me ;' such were the words of the divine Master. But, 
 among us, little children are turned away, and forbidden at the door of 
 the common school, because of the skin. And the same insulting ostra- 
 cism shows itself in other institutions of science and learning ; also in 
 the church, and in the last resting-place on earth. 
 
 " What is the national government, coextensive with the republic, if 
 fellow-citizens, counted by the million, can be shut out from equal rights 
 in travel, in recreation, in education, and in other things, all contributing 
 to human necessities ? Where is that great promise by which the ' pur- 
 suit of happiness ' is placed with life and liberty, under the safe-guard of 
 axiomatic, self-evident truth ? Where is justice, if this ban of color is not 
 promptly removed j 
 
 " The two excuses show how irrational and utterly groundless is this 
 pretension. They are on a par with the pretension itself. One is that 
 the question is of society and not of rights, which is clearly a misrepre- 
 sentation ; and the other is that the separate arrangements provided for 
 colored persons constitute a substitute for equality in the nature of an 
 equivalent ; all of which is clearly a contrivance, if not a trick, as if there 
 could be any equivalent for equality. 
 
 ** Of this first excuse it is difficult to speak with patience. It is a sim- 
 ple misrepresentation, and, wherever it shows itself, must be treated as 
 €uch. There is no colored person who does not resent the imputation 
 that he is seeking to intrude himself socially anywhere. This is no 
 
MR. SUMNEk's speech CONTINUED. 1405 
 
 question of society ; no question of social life ; no question of social 
 equality, if anybody knows what this means. The object is simply equal- 
 ity before the law, a term which explains itself. Now, as the law does 
 not presume to create or I'egulate social relations, these are, in no respect, 
 affected by the pending measure. Each person, whether senator or citi- 
 zen, is always free to choose who shall be his friend, his associate, his 
 guest. And does not the ancient proverb declare that a man is known 
 by the company he keeps ? But this assumes that he may choose for 
 himself.' His house is his ' castle ;' and this very designation, borrowed 
 from the common law, shows his absolute independence within its walls ; 
 nor is there any difference, whether it be palace or hovel ; but, when he 
 leaves his * castle ' and goes abroad, this independence is at an end. He 
 walks the streets ; but he is subject to the prevailing law of equality ; 
 nor can he appropriate the sidewalk to his own exclusive use, driving 
 into the gutter all whose skin is less white than his own. But nobody 
 pretends that equality in the highway, whether on pavement or sidewalk, 
 is a question of society. And permit me to say that equality, in all in- 
 stitutions created or regulated by law, is as little a question of society. 
 
 " In the days of slavery, it was an oft-repeated charge, that emancipa- 
 tion was a measure of social equality, and the same charge became a cry 
 at the successive efforts for the right to testify and the right to vote. 
 At each stage the cry was raised, and now it makes itself heard again^ 
 as you are called to assure this crowning safeguard. 
 
 " Then comes the other excuse, which finds equality in separation. 
 Separate hotels, separate conveyances, separate theatres, separate schools, 
 separate institutions of learning and science, separate churches, and sep- 
 arate cemeteries — these are the artificial substitutes for equality ; and 
 this is the contrivance by which a transcendent right, involving a tran- 
 scendent duty, is evaded ; for equality is not only a right, but a duty. 
 
 " How vain to argue that there is no denial of equal rights when this 
 separation is enforced ! The substitute is invariably an inferior article. 
 Does any senator deny it ? Therefore, it is not equality. At best, it is 
 an equivalent only ; but no equivalent is equality. Separation implies 
 one thing for a white person, and another thing for a colored person ; 
 but equahty is where all have the same alike. There can be no substi- 
 tute for equality ; nothing but itself. Even if accommodations are the 
 same, as notoriously they are not, there is no equality. In the process 
 of substitution, the vital elixir exhales and escapes. It is lost and can- 
 not be recovered ; for equality is found only in equality. ' Naught but 
 itself can be its parallel ; ' but senators undertake to find parallels in 
 other things. 
 
 " Thus do I reject the two excuses. But I do not leave the cause 
 
1406 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 here. I go further and show how consistent is the pending measure 
 with acknowledged principles, illustrated by undoubted law. 
 
 " The bill for equal rights is simply supplementary to the existing 
 civil rights law, which is one of our great statutes of peace, and it stands 
 on the same requirements of the constitution. If the civil rights law is 
 above question, as cannot be doubted, then also is the supplementary 
 amendment, for it is only the complement of the other, and necessary to 
 its completion. Without the amendment the original law is imperfect. 
 It cannot be said, according to its title, that all persons are protected in 
 their civil rights, so long as the outrages I expose continue to exist; 
 nor is slavery entirely dead. 
 
 **No doubt the supplementary law must operate, not only in national 
 jurisdiction, but also in the states, precisely as the civil rights law. Other- 
 wise it will be of little value. Its sphere must be coextensive with the 
 republic, making the rights of the citizen uniform everywhere. But 
 this can be only by one uniform safeguard sustained by the nation. 
 
 " An enlightened public opinion must be invoked. But this will not 
 be wanting. The country will rally in aid of the law, more especially 
 since it is a measure of justice and humanity. But the law is needed 
 now as a help to public opinion. It is needed by tlie very people whose 
 present conduct makes it necessary. Prompted by the law, leaning on 
 the law, they will recognize the equal rights of all ; nor do I despair of 
 hailing a public opinion which shall stamp the denial of these rights as 
 an outrage not unlike slavery itself. Custom and patronage will then be 
 sought in obeying the law. 
 
 " Mr. President, asking you to unite now in an act of justice to a 
 much-oppressed race, being only a small installment of that heavy debt 
 accumulated by generations of wrong, I am encouraged by the pending 
 measure of amnesty, which has the advantage of being recommended in 
 the president's annual message. I regretted, at the time, that the presi- 
 dent signalized by his favor the removal of disabilities imposed upon a 
 few thousand rebels who had struck at the republic, while he said noth- 
 ing of cruel disabilities inflicted upon millions of colored fellow-citizens, 
 who had been a main-stay to the national cause. But I took courage 
 when I thought that the generosity proposed could not fail to quicken 
 that sentiment of justice which I now invoke. 
 
 " Believing that duty to these millions is foremost, and that until they 
 are assured in equal rights we cannot expect the tranquillity which all 
 desire, nay, sir, we cannot expect the blessings of Almighty God upon 
 our labors, I bring forward this measure of justice to the colored race. 
 Such a measure can never be out of order or out of season, being of 
 urgent necessity and unquestionable charity. 
 
SPEECH OF MR. FRELINGHUYSEN. 1407 
 
 " There are strong reasons why it should be united with amnesty , es- 
 pecially since the latter is pressed. Each is the removal of disabilities, 
 aud each is to operate largely in the same region of country. Nobody 
 sincerely favoring generosity to rebels should hesitate in justice to the 
 colored race. According to the maxim in chancery, ' Whoso would 
 have equity must do equity.' Therefore, rebels seeking amnesty must 
 be just to colored fellow-citizens seeking equal rights. Doing this 
 equity they may expect equity. 
 
 " Another reason is controlling. Each is a measure of reconciliation, 
 intended to close the issues of the war ; but these issues are not closed 
 unless each is adopted. This adoption together is better for each, and, 
 therefore, better for the country than any separate adoption. Kindred 
 in object, they should be joined together and never put asunder. It is 
 wrong to separate them. Hereafter the rebels should remember that 
 their restoration was associated with the equal rights of all, being con- 
 tained in the same great statute. 
 
 " Clearly between the two the pre-eminence must be accorded to that 
 for the equal rights of all, as, among the virtues, justice is above gener- 
 osity. And this is the more evident when it is considered that, accord- 
 ing to Abraham Lincoln, the great issue of the war was human equality." 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, said : " I desire to submit, in the 
 hearing of the senator from Massachusetts, a few suggestions, in refer- 
 ence to the amendment which he has offered to the pending bill. The 
 first section of his amendment, in its last clause, contains the directory 
 part of the law, and provides that 'this right shall not be denied or 
 abridged on any pretense of race, color, or previous condition of servi- 
 tude.' This is all well, but the previous part of the section, the declara- 
 tory part, states a proposition which cannot commend itself to the judg- 
 ment of any senator, and which none can desire to enact. The section 
 reads : 
 
 ' That all citizens of the United States, without distinction of race, 
 color, or previous condition of servitude, are entitled to the equal and 
 impartial enjoyment of any accommodation, advantage, facility, or priv- 
 ilege, furnished by common carriers, whether on land or water, by inn- 
 keepers, etc' 
 
 " In other word?, it declares that all citizens, white or black, are en- 
 titled to the equal and impartial enjoyment of these privileges of common 
 carriers, inns, schools, churches, etc. Mr. President, this is not true, and 
 neither we nor the senator from Massachusetts desire to make it true. 
 No one desires that all, white or black, shall be entitled to the equal ac- 
 commodation furnished by common carriers, inns, schools, etc. No one 
 seriously proposes that we should render it illegal for a railroad company 
 
14:08 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to provide a class of cars for ladies and gentlemen, or for an inn-keeper 
 to exclude persons having contagious disease, or who are intoxicated, or 
 indecently clad. We do not desire the passage of a law that shall make 
 it obligatory upon the trustees of cemeteries, established especially for 
 asylums or hospitals, to admit to burial every one for whom a license 
 may be sought. Such is not the object of this law or the purpose of the 
 senator from Massachusetts ; and yet that is the effect of the provision, 
 that all citizens are entitled to these privileges. 
 
 " I suggest that we strike out the words, ' that all citizens of the 
 United States, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of 
 servitude, are entitled,' etc., and substitute the words, * that race, color, 
 or previous condition of servitude, shall not debar or deprive any citizen 
 of the United States of the equal and impartial enjoyment of any accom- 
 modation, advantage, facility, or privilege furnished by common carriers,' 
 ^tc. That will not have the effect of asserting the unreasonable propO' 
 sition that all citizens have the equal right to enjoy the facilities of cars, 
 inns, schools, churches, etc., whether intoxicated or afflicted by conta- 
 gious disease, whether indecently clad, or whether violating the customs 
 and proprieties appertaining to the sexes ; but it will have the effect of 
 enacting that there shall be no discrimination on account of color, and 
 that is all that the senator seeks to obtain. 
 
 " The amendment as it stands declares that all citizens, white or black, 
 are entitled to equal accommodations and facilities in all these institu- 
 tions named. No one thinks that true, or desires that it shall be. What 
 ■we seek is, that race, color, or previous condition of servitude, shall not 
 deprive or debar any person from these privileges — a very different 
 proposition. Let us say so. That will produce the equality which the 
 senator seeks. 
 
 " The second section of the amendment contains the sanction of the 
 law, and imposes penalties for any violation of the law as stated in the 
 first section; that is, if any common carrier, inn-keeper, etc., refuses the 
 full use of cars, inns, schools, churches, etc., to any citizen whatever, he 
 shall be subjected to the penalties stated. The senator does not seek 
 any such unreasonable end. The amendment proposed simply destroys 
 discrimination between citizens of different races. 
 
 " I desired to submit the amendment I have stated and one or two 
 others to the senator from Massachusetts, that his amendment may be 
 perfected. After it shall have been thus amended there will still be ob- 
 jection to it. There is in almost every town in the land a church where 
 the real estate has been purchased and the building erected from the 
 hard earnings of colored people, the congregation being composed en- 
 tirely of colored people, and the church their property. We do not 
 
SPEECH OF MR. FRELINGHUYSEN. 1409 
 
 seek to pass a law that shall divest them of such churches. The white 
 population are the more numerous, and possibly grasping ; the property 
 has appreciated in value ; there is no propriety in enabling the white 
 citizens, by giving them the same privileges in these churches that the 
 colored people possess, to wrest this property from the colored people. 
 There are churches of that kind in this city, in the city in which I re- 
 side, and throughout the union. This is also true of schools and of col 
 leges. I would avoid this effect of the law by adding as an amendment, 
 at the end of the first section, as follows : 
 
 ' Provided, That churches, schools, cemeteries, and institutions of learn- 
 ing established exclusively for either the white or the colored race, shall 
 not be taken from the control of those who established them, but shall 
 remain devoted to their use.' 
 
 " You cannot make the amendment I propose extend only to the col- 
 ored people without falling into the absurdity of discriminating against 
 whites while attempting to abolish the distinction of races. Therefore, 
 let the law be that churches, schools, cemeteries, etc., established exclu- 
 sively for either of the races, shall not be taken from their control, but 
 remain devoted to their use. That provision modifies to some degree 
 the law, but it does not affect the main subjects of the law, to wit, com- 
 mon carriers, inn-keepers, schools, etc., but does perpetuate to the colored 
 j)eople their own institutions. 
 
 " The second section provides : 
 
 * That any person violating the foregoing provision, or aiding in its vio- 
 lation, or inciting thereto, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay 
 the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby.' 
 
 " If a wh'ole congregation or all the passengers of a steamboat or car 
 violate some of the provisions of the foregoing section, every one so aid- 
 ing in or inciting to such violation should not be liable to and the party 
 aggrieved be entitled to recover from each one a penalty of $500. And 
 in case the offense complained of be a refusal of burial, who is to recover 
 the penalty ? The deceased is not aggrieved, and cannot bring suit if he 
 is. I suggest after the word ' grave,' eleventh line of the section,, this 
 amendment : 
 
 ' Provided, That the party aggrieved shall not recover more tha.n one 
 penalty ; and, where the offense is a refusal of burial, the penalty afore- 
 said may be recovered by the heirs-at-law of the person to wbose body 
 burial has been so refused.' 
 
 " There is still another amendment to this second section, andi that 
 is to strike out all the residue of the section, which is in these 
 words : 
 
 * And any corporation, association, or individual, holding a charter or 
 
1410 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 license under national or state authority, violating the aforesaid provis- 
 ions, shall, on conviction thereof, forfeit such charter or license.' 
 
 " I understand that the federal government, excepting for a national 
 purpose, cannot grant a charter, cannot incorporate a bank or railroad 
 company for a state, that being beyond the jurisdiction of congress; 
 and so unquestionably it is beyond the power of federal jurisdiction to. 
 forfeit a state charter. Besides, the penalty suggested is unreasonable. 
 "Were I ejected from the cars of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Com- 
 pany, there would be no propriety in mulcting them in damages to the 
 amount of $20,000,000. I suppose that the franchises of that company, 
 which the bill would under such circumstances forfeit, are worth that. 
 The penalties imposed in the previous part of the section, $500 by per- 
 sonal suit and $500 on indictment for misdemeanor, are sufficient for 
 the offense committed. And farther, the stockholders of the company 
 offending might be favorable to the spirit of the bill he would promote ; 
 they might be the very colored people whom we seek to protect and 
 who had been guilty of no offense, and yet the forfeiture of the charter 
 would destroy their property and render them bankrupt. The penalties 
 in the foregoing part of the section are abundant. 
 
 " The section next to the last also requires amending. It provided 
 that— 
 
 ' Every law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, whether national 
 or state, inconsistent with this act, or making any discriminations against 
 any person on account of color, by the word " white," is hereby 
 repealed.' 
 
 *' I understand that congress have no power to repeal a state statute 
 any more than we have to enact a state statute. That provision of the 
 law is unconstitutional, and is entirely unnecessary. If we enact a con- 
 stitutional law, all laws of the states inconsistent therewith are virtually 
 annulled, because the constitution of the United States provides that 
 'this constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof shall be 
 the supreme law of the land, the constitution and laws of any state to 
 the contrary notwithstanding.' The section is unnecessary, and worse. 
 In any view we should strike out the words ' whether national or state,' 
 and thus suffer the section to have such effect as the courts may prop- 
 erly give to it. 
 
 "The amendment being thus modified, its effect is not impaired. 
 The question now arises whether this amendment is within the constitu- 
 tional power of the general government. The ku-klux bill, which we 
 passed under the authority of the fourteenth amendment, was in aid of 
 the suppression of insurrection and for the preservation of the public 
 peace, and was clearly national in its character. It may be insisted thiat 
 
DEBATE ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 1411 
 
 the general government cannot enact a law generally regulating inns 
 and cemeteries, schools, churches, colleges, etc., in the states. If this 
 law, as modified, does undertake such regulation, unless there is some 
 express authority m the constitution giving us this power, I agree that 
 the act is unconstitutional. 
 
 "But the amendment of the senator from Massachusetts, as modified, 
 in no manner assumes to regulate the relations of common carriers, inn- 
 keepers, etc., with the public. All this it leaves to the states, excepting 
 that it provides that every citizen shall be treated as a citizen, be he 
 white or colored. That is constitutional. If the people of South Caro- 
 lina, in their former animosity to the people of New England, should 
 deprive them of the common rights of citizenship in that state, should 
 refuse them the accommodation of cars or inns, we would find some con- 
 stitutional power to protect them in the equal rights of American citizen- 
 ship. We have the same right and are under the same obligation to the 
 citizens of color. 
 
 " This act virtually says there has existed in this country an enslaved 
 and degi'aded race ; and the people have prejudices incident to their 
 being associated with slavery. We have just passed through a war 
 from which we have garnered three great principles which it is the pur- 
 pose of this law to enforce. One is, that every person in the land has a 
 chartered right to freedom. Before the thirteenth amendment it was in 
 the power of a state to make any one a slave. They did by state law 
 make four million such ; and the supreme court held that the slaves had 
 none of the rights of freemen. Now, every man has a charter for his 
 freedom, which no state, no power on earth can take from him. 
 
 " I hope that the amendment of the senator from Massachusetts, after 
 due consideration by him, will be properly amended and be passed by 
 this senate. To that end I prefer that it should be presented as an in- 
 dependent bill, so as to require only a majority and not a two-thirds vote 
 to pass it. But of that he must be the judge. 
 
 " Mr. President, I have a word to say as to the proposed amnesty. 
 There are conflicting considerations, some prompting me to vote for, 
 and some to vote against it. Understanding that a proposition is to be 
 made to strike out all the exceptions in the bill and to make the amnesty 
 universal, I will, while I have the floor, say to those who are in favor of 
 the passage of the bill, that if they undertake thus to change the bill 
 they will lose many votes, probably enough to defeat the measure." 
 
 Mr. Sawyer, of South Carolina, said : " No sound principle is sacrificed 
 by granting amnesty. Political disabilities, whatever apology or excuse 
 might have existed for them when they were imposed, have ceased to 
 have any reasonable ground for existence. The last of the southern 
 
1412 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 states is admitted to its full privileges as a member of the brotherhood 
 of states ; the constitutional amendments, intended to secure the princi- 
 ples established by the war and subsequent events, have been accepted as 
 valid. There can be no fear or danger of their being disturbed. Politi- 
 cal rights once acquired by a people are not surrendered except through 
 the process of despotism, a process from which we need fear nothing 
 unless we are untrue to ourselves and to all the traditions and instincts 
 I of our race. 
 
 *' A few words more, Mr. President, and I shall have done. I have 
 said, sir, that I regard the attempt to attach the supplementary civil 
 rights bill to the pending measure as an unfriendly act toward the 
 former. Well may the civil rights bill ask to be delivered from such 
 peril. I say, also, Mr. President, that the attempt to unite these two 
 measures is in effect an unfriendly act to the amnesty measure. I do 
 not charge the senator from Massachusetts with the purpose to defeat 
 the amnesty bill by this unnecessary and unnatural union. I do say 
 that the amnesty bill is endangered by the alliance. I shall work for 
 the passage of each at the earliest practicable moment. That moment 
 will, in my judgment, be considerably delayed by attempting to unite 
 them. The amnesty bill is the pending bill. I say let us now work for 
 that. Were the bill of the senator from Massachusetts the pending 
 measure, or were there good reason to suppose that each would be 
 strengthened by the other, I should say let us work for that." 
 
 Meanwhile, on Jan. 15th, in the house, Mr. Ilale, (Rep.) of Maine, 
 moved to suspend the rules for putting on its passage a bill for the re- 
 moval of legal and political disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amend- 
 ment. The first section provided the exceptions to amnesty should be 
 members of congress and officers of the army and navy above the age of 
 twenty-one who had withdrawn to aid the rebellion. The second section 
 provided for the course to be taken by those who sought to avail them- 
 selves of the privileges of the bill. 
 
 On putting the question the vote was l7l yeas to 31 nays, 37 not 
 voting. So the bill (known as H. R. No. 1050) was passed. 
 
 In the senate on January 22d Mr. Robertson, (Rep.) of South Caro- 
 lina, moved to take up house bill No. 1050, and to lay aside the bill then 
 before the senate. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull hoped the motion would prevail, as the last bill that 
 passed the house was the most liberal and the best, and was not entangled 
 and modified by various amendments. 
 
 Mr. Conkling, (Rep.) of New York, did not think that the house bill 
 was specially to be i-ecommended, because it extended amnesty to the 
 men who had plunged the union into the red sea of blood. 
 
CIVIL RIGHTS AND GENERAL AMNESTT. 1413 
 
 Mr. Morton said there was no class of men more undeserving of am- 
 nesty than those who tried to carry the states out of the union by their 
 votes in the conventions. These men it was proposed to amnesty by this 
 substituted bill. He himself urged the consideration of the former bill 
 with all its amendments. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, in speaking of Mr. Sumner's amendment to 
 the former bill, said it assumed to regulate not the rights but the privi- 
 leges of American citizens. Under the very nature of things all citizens 
 have equal privileges in whatever is created or regulated by law. All 
 the privileges demanded for the colored citizen were guaranteed to him 
 by the fourteenth amendment. That amendment distinctly says that 
 " no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privi- 
 leges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was perfectly 
 clear that congress could not interfere in the matter of legislation until 
 a state should pass or enforce a law to deprive any citizen of such im- 
 munities. Mr. Morton said that amnesty was to be viewed purelv in the 
 matter of expediency and conciliation. The rebellion had been forced 
 on the people by the politicians, daring a period of thirty years machi- 
 nations ; universal amnesty would remove the last mark of legal disap- 
 probation from this rebellion and from the men who fomented it. Grant 
 universal amnesty and the next step would be pensioning the rebel 
 soldiers, and burying the confederate dead in the federal cemeteries ; not 
 only that but we might look for payment to the rebels for property taken 
 from them during the war. He argued with the senator from Massachu- 
 setts, justice before spurious magnanimity. Mr. Thurman replied to this 
 with great effect. If the senator from Indiana were making a stump 
 speech, the general color and character of his remarks could easily be ac- 
 counted for. It was the same monotonous old tune, of payment of the 
 rebel debt, reinstitution of slavery, which the senator had been grinding 
 out ever since the war closed. His lively imagination conjured up the 
 same frightful array of ghosts as formerly, but he believed to© well of 
 his kind to suppose that any other human being out of the insane asylum 
 honestly agreed with him. The senator proceeded to show that such 
 bugbears as the payment of the rebel debt, etc., were explicitly prohibited 
 in the fourteenth amendment 
 
 Mr. Schurz, (Rep.) of Missouri, sketched the questions involved in the 
 debate in a brief but eloquent speech : 
 
 " Let me, in a few words, sum up the whole meaning of the question 
 which we are now engaged in discussing. No candid man can deny that 
 our system of political disabilities is in no way calculated to protect the 
 rights or the property, or the life or the liberty, of any living man, or 
 in any way practically to prevent the evil-disposed from doing mischief. 
 
1414 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Why do you think of granting any amnesty at all ? Is it not to pro- 
 duce on the popular mind at the south a conciliatory effect; to quicken 
 the germs of good intentions, to encourage those who can exert a Leue- 
 ficial influence, to remove the pretexts of ill-feeling and animosity, and 
 to aid in securing to the southern states the blessings of good and honest 
 government ? If that is not your design, what can it be ? 
 
 " But if it be this, if you really do desire to produce such moral 
 effects, then I entreat you also to consider what moral means you have 
 to employ in order to bring forth those moral effects you contemplate. 
 If an act of generous statesmanship, or of statesman-like generosity, is 
 to bear full fruit, it should give not as little as possible, but it should 
 give as much as possible. You must not do things by halves if you 
 want to produce whole results. You must not expose yourself to the 
 suspicion of a narrow-minded desire to pinch off the size of your gift 
 wherever there is a chance for it, as if you were afraid you could by any 
 possibility give too much, when giving more would benefit the country 
 more, and when giving less Would detract from the beneficent effect of 
 that which you do give. 
 
 " Let me tell you, it is the experience of all civilized nations the world 
 over, when an amnesty is to be granted at all, the completest amnesty is 
 always the best. Any limitation you may impose, however plausible it 
 may seem at first sight, will be calculated to take away much of the vir- 
 tue of that which is granted. I entreat you, then, in the name of the 
 accumulated experience of history, let there be an end of these bitter and 
 useless and disturbing questions; let the books be finally closed, and, 
 "when the subject is forever dismissed from our discussions and our 
 minds, we shall feel as much relieved as those who are relieved of their 
 political disabilities. 
 
 " Sir, I have to say a few words about an accusation which has been 
 brought against those who speak in favor of universal amnesty. It is 
 the accusation resorted to, in default of more solid argument, that those 
 who advise amnesty, especially universal amnesty, do so because they 
 have fallen in love with the rebels. No, sir, it is not merely for the 
 rebels I plead. We are asked, Shall the rebellion go entirely unpun- 
 ished ? No, sir, it shall not. Neither do I think that the rebellion has 
 gone entirely unpunished. I ask you, had the rebels nothing to lose but 
 their lives and their offices ? Look at it. There was a proud and arro' 
 gant aristocracy planting their feet on the necks of the laboring people, 
 and pretending to be the born rulers of this great republic. They 
 looked down, not only upon their slaves, but also upon the people of the 
 north, with the haughty contempt of self-asserting superiority. When 
 their pretensions to rule us all were first successfully disputed, they re- 
 
MR. SCHURZ ON GRNKRAL AMNESTY. 1415 
 
 solved to destroy this republic, and to build up on the corner-stone of 
 slavery an empire of their own in which they could hold absolute sway. 
 They made the attempt with the most overweeningly confident expecta- 
 tion of certain victory. Tlien came the civil war, and, after four years 
 of struggle, their whole power and pride lay shivered to atoms at our 
 feet, their sons dead by tens of thousands on the battle-fields of this 
 country, their fields and tlieir homes devastated, their fortunes destroyed ; 
 and more than that, the whde social sjstem in which they had their 
 very being, with all their hopes and pride, utterly wiped out ; slavery 
 forever abolished, and the slaves themselves created a political power 
 before which they had to bow their heads, and they, broken, ruined, 
 helpless and hopeless in the dust before those upon whom they had so 
 haughtily looked down as their vassals and- inferiors. Sir, can it be said 
 that the rebellion has gone entirely unpunished ? 
 
 " You may object that the loyal people, too, were subjected to terri- 
 ble sufferings ; that their sons, too, were slaughtered by tens of thou- 
 sands ; that the mourning of countless widows and orphans is still dark- 
 ening our land ; that we are groaning under terrible burdens which the 
 rebellion has loaded upon us, and that therefore part of the punishment 
 has fallen upon the innocent. And it is certainly true. 
 
 " But look at the difference. We issued from this great conflict as 
 conquerors ; upon the graves of our slain we could lay the wreath of 
 victory ; our widows and orphans, while mourning the loss of their dear- 
 est, still remember with proud exultation that the blood of their hus- 
 bands and fathers was not spilled in vain ; that it flowed for the greatest 
 and holiest, and at the same time the most victorious of causes ; and 
 when our people labor in the sweat of their brow to pay the debt which 
 the rebellion has loaded upon us, they do it with the proud conscious- 
 ness that the heavy price they have paid is infinitely overbalanced by the 
 value of the results they have gained : slavery abolished ; the great 
 American republic purified of her foulest stain ; the American people no 
 longer a people of masters and slaves, but a people of equal citizens ; the 
 inost dangerous element of disturbance and disintegration wiped out 
 from among us ; this coimtry put upon the course of harmonious de- 
 velopment, greater, more beautiful, mightier than ever in its self-con- 
 scious power. And thus, whatever losses, whatever sacrifices, whatever 
 Bufferings we may have endured, they appear before us in a blaze of 
 glory. 
 
 "But how do tlie southern people stand there ? All they have sacri- 
 ficed, all they have lost, all the blood they have spilled, all the desolation 
 of their homes, all the distress that stares them in the face, all the wreck 
 and ruin they see around them, all for nothing, all for a wicked folly, all 
 
1416 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 for a disastrous infatuation ; the very graves of their slain notliing but 
 monuments of a shadowy delusion ; all their former hopes vanished for- 
 ever ; and the very magniloquence which some of their leaders are still 
 indulging in nothing but a mocking illustration of their utter discom- 
 fiture ! Ah, sir, if ever human efforts broke down in irretrievable dis- 
 aster, if ever human pride was humiliated to the dust, if ever human 
 hopes were turned into despair, there you behold them. 
 
 " You may say that they deserved it all. Yes, but surely, sir, you 
 cannot say that the rebellion has gone entirely unpunished. Nor will 
 the senator from Indiana, with all his declamation (and I am sorry not 
 now to see him before me), make any sane man believe that, had no 
 political disabilities ever been imposed, the history of the rebellion, as 
 long as the memory of man retains the recollection of the great story, 
 will ever encourage a future generation to rebel again, or that, if even 
 this great example of disaster should fail to extinguish the spirit of re- 
 bellion, his little scarecrow of exclusion from office will be more than a 
 thing to be laughed at by little boys." 
 
 The yeas and nays were then ordered on the question of laying the 
 pending bill on the table and taking up the house bill ; this was voted 
 down by 20 in the affirmative to 33 in the negative, 20 being absent. 
 
 CHAPTER CXIV. 
 
 REJECTION OF SENATOR SUMNEr's " CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT." PASSAGE 
 
 OF THE ENFORCEMENT BILL THROUGH CONGRESS. REVIVAL OF THE DE- 
 BATE OVER THE "kU-KLUx" BILL. SHARP PASSAGE AT ARMS BETWEEN 
 
 SENATORS EDMUNDS, MORTON, PRATT, ALCORN, BLAIR, STEVENSON, CAR- 
 PENTER, THURMAN, HAMILTON AND SAULSBURY. NEW APPORTIONMENT 
 
 LAW. ABOLITION OP IMPORT DUTIES ON TEA AND COFFEE. 
 
 The question on the amendment of the senator from Massachusetts, 
 recurred immediately after the disposal of the house bill as mentioned in 
 the last chapter. The amendment of Mr. Sumner to the original bill 
 removing political and legal disabilities, was put to the vote and resulted 
 in a tie, on which the vice-president gave his casting vote in the affirm- 
 ative and the amendment was agreed to. The bill as amended was then 
 voted on with 33 in the affirmative and 19 in the negative, 21 being 
 absent. Failing of the required two-thirds vote it was rejected. 
 
THE ENFORCEMENT ACT. 
 
 1417 
 
 In the senate on March 8th Mr. Boreman, (Rep.) of West Virginia, 
 moved to take up the house bill for the removal of political disabilities, 
 generally called the amnesty bill. The bill was read by the secretary of 
 the senate, on which Mr. Sumner proposed to strike out all after the en- 
 acting clause and insert what was known as the supplemental civil rights 
 bill. The bill, which was summarized in the preceding chapter, as 
 amended by the civil rights bill was rejected in consequence of its not 
 receiving a two-thirds vote, there being 32 yeas to 22 nays, 20 being 
 absent. 
 
 On May 10th, the senate being in committee of the whole, proceeded 
 to consider the bill to amend an act entitled " An act to amend an act 
 approved May 31st, 1870, entitled an act to enforce the rights of citizens 
 of the United States to vote in the several states of the union and for 
 other purposes." Mr. Morton, (Rep.) of Indiana, explained that the 
 original bill authorized the judges of the United States circuit court to 
 appoint inspectors of election of opposite politics in cities of twenty 
 thousand inhabitants, these inspectors to remain at the polls until the 
 votes were counted and to certify the result. Also authorizing the ap- 
 pointment of deputy marshals in such cities, at the option of the marshal 
 of the district. The object of the present bill was to extend the first 
 provision of that law to every voting precinct of the United States. In 
 case there were three parties, inspectors were to be appointed to represent 
 the two principal parties ; and in case of the absence of the circuit judge 
 that the appointing power should inhere in the district judge. A debate 
 on this was participated in by Messrs. Morton, Thurman, Trumbull, Ed- 
 munds and Casserly, (Dera.) of California. 
 
 The objections of the opposition were very well stated in the remarks 
 of the latter named senator. 
 
 The opposition to bills of this character rested in the fact of the enor- 
 mous power put in the hands of the administration to strike down the 
 freedom of election in the states. Full of oppressive details, these bills, 
 especially the one then under consideration, placed it in the power of 
 any man, though a convict just graduated from state prison, to break 
 up any poll in the country by ex parte affidavit. As for the question 
 whether the appointment of' these congressional supervisors should be 
 vested in the circuit judges or in the district judges, it was unimportant. 
 The original bill enabled the president to appoint any number of deputy 
 commanders-in-chief of the army and navy. In the second of these 
 bills, the power given to the supervisors was absolute and unparalleled, 
 vesting them with entire control over the results of the election. No 
 source of appointment could purge such a body of men of their despotic 
 and unconstitutional powers. Several amendments were proposed, some 
 
1418 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 being rejected, some accepted. The most important was one offered by 
 Mr. Saulsbury, (Dem.) of Delaware, providing for the punishment of any 
 official or other person having duties to perform under the act, who 
 sliould prevent any legally entitled person from voting. The bill as 
 amended was passed in the senate by a vote of 36 to 17, 21 being absent. 
 
 An appropriation bill, to provide for expenses of election under the 
 ku-klux and registration bills in the south, was taken up in the senate 
 June l7th, at the instance of Mr. Kellogg, (jElep.) of Louisiana, This, 
 after considerable debate, was passed in the senate. It was however non- 
 concurred in by the house. After several committees of conference, .the 
 bill as finally amended, the changes in which did not alter its essential 
 provisions, passed congress by a vote in the house of 102 to 79, 59 being 
 absent; in the senate by 39 to 17, 18 bemg absent. 
 
 On May l7th the senate, being in committee of the whole, took up 
 the bill to extend the provisions of the fourth section of the act approved 
 April 20th, 1871, commonly known as the ku-klux bill. The latter bill, it 
 will be remembered, assuming the existence of organized and secret leagues 
 to violate and set at naught the authority of the states and of the United 
 States, authorized the president of the United States at any time to sus- 
 pend the writ of habeas corpus, 
 
 Mr. Scott, (Rep.) of Pennsylvania, began the debate with an examina- 
 tion into the truth of the alleged facts on which the necessity of the bill 
 hinged. He said the existence of the ku-klux-klan stood confessed ; that 
 the testimony taken by the joint committee of congress clearly established 
 that this organization had been active and widespread since 1868 in 
 North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi. 
 It was also believed that it lay in ambush in other states now quiet. The 
 evidence furnished by members of the league itself stamped it as one of 
 the foulest blots on modern civilization. (The speaker here detailed 
 some of the testimony given by members of the order who had turned 
 states-evidence.) The league j^revailed in ninety-nine counties of the 
 states he had mentioned. General N. B. Forrest had conceded that in 
 1868 there were forty thousand in Tennessee, and five hundred thousand 
 in the whole of the southern states. There had been proven in two 
 years five hundred and twenty-six horaicidtis, and twenty-nine hundred 
 and nine aases of less extreme outrage. The minority report of the 
 joint committee had practically admitted the leadership of such men as 
 General Napoleon B. Forrest and General John B. Gordon, in the organ- 
 ization of the ku-klux-klan. Both of these gentlemen were men of high 
 political standing in the south, and both identified with the democratic 
 party. The views of the minority assigned many causes for the out- 
 rages, such as the debts of the states, the reconstruction acts, bad legisla- 
 
DEBATE ON THE ENFORCEMENT BILL. 1419 
 
 tion, etc. He would not discuss the causes but only the magnitude and 
 power of the evil. Withdraw from the president of the United States 
 the power to suspend the writ of habeobs corpus and no man could answer 
 for the scenes of bloodshed and violence which would ensue, while the 
 very existence of the power would irender its exercise unnecessary. 
 
 Mr. Pratt, (Rep.) of Indiana, thought the only question necessary to 
 argue was whether the condition of things in any part of the south made 
 it prudent to authorize, for a limited time, the suspension of this .T;frit. 
 He claimed that the existence of a widespread conspiracy overthrowing 
 the laws guarding life and liberty, which the local courts w.ere powerless 
 to deal with, made such action indispensable. He said : 
 
 " Even the mmority do not . deny, and I now quote their language, 
 'that bodies of disguised men have in several of the states of the south 
 been guilty of the most flagrant crimes.' But, sir, who are the guilty 
 parties, and what are their motives ? I know what is claimed by the op- 
 position here, and I know the theory on this subject of those who give 
 tone to public opinion in the south. They pretend that these crimes 
 have no poUtical significance whatever, but are the. work of the poor, 
 the lawless, and irresponsible white men of that region, who, it is said, 
 are the enemies of the freedman, jealous of his lately-acquired civil and 
 political rights, envious of the planter's preference for his labor, and bent 
 on getting rid of his competition. Such is the theory of the minority 
 of the committee. They insist that these outrages are neither committed 
 nor sanctioned by the respectable classes, and that they . are not to be 
 held responsible for them. But is this true ? So far from being true, I 
 insist that the investigations, thorough and exhaustive, which have been 
 made by the congressional committee and in the federal courts, have con- 
 clusively implicated the intelligent and property-holding classes in these 
 outrages, and fixed the responsibility on them for their indulged contin- 
 uance without punishment or prosecution even. From whom but this 
 class come the funds which support these costly military organizations, 
 which supply the horses, equipments, arms, ammunition, and disguises ; 
 the intelligence which directs the movements of these lawless bodies and 
 prevents discovery? Who have the greatest motives for inflicting these 
 punishments ? Suppose the charge to be that a freedman has stolen 
 cotton, corn, or cattle ; the planter is the injured party, and not the poor 
 white class, who have nothing to be stolen. He is the only one inter- 
 ested in punishing the thief. He may employ these poor whites as his 
 instruments, but he is the moving power ; he is the I'esponsible party. 
 
 " Colored schools are broken up and the school-houses- burned by the 
 hundred. This is a favorite pastime with the ku-klux • gentlemen. 
 These brave fellows especially delight to deal with school-mistresses. 
 
1420 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 There is no danger there. But who are most interested in breaking up 
 schools and instigating raids upon the teachers and school-houses? I 
 answer, the men of property, the tax-payers, the men who hold tax- 
 payers' conventions and denounce taxes, and compel those who levy 
 them to resign ; the men who fill the country with their clamor that 
 they are impoverished, robbed, and plundered, under the new order of 
 things ! " 
 
 Mr. Saulsbury, (Dem.) of Delaware, appealed to the senator not to 
 prefer a wholesale indictment against the property-holders and respecta- 
 ble citizens of the south, but to confine himself to those implicated in 
 the crimes. Mr. Blair (Dem.) of Missouri charged that the bill practi- 
 cally gave power to the president to elect himself by force, putting at 
 his disposal the whole military power of the government, during the 
 time of election. The act now proposed would keep in force the power 
 which would otherwise cease with the present congress. This was in- 
 tended to feel the temper of the people, to ascertain if they would con- 
 sent to the overthrow of the great writ of habeas corpus under the cir- 
 cumstances defined in the bill, circumstances which did not authorize 
 congress or the president to suspend the privileges of that writ, as the 
 conditions of such suspensions were expressly defined in the constitution. 
 The plain object of this bill was to give the president the power to elect 
 himself at the point of the bayonet. Martial law was not an unusual 
 device under radical rule for carrying elections in this country ; it had 
 been made use of with the approval of the administration, and the 
 country had come to this that the party in power were endeavoring to 
 prop themselves by the use^of the army of the United States in control- 
 ling popular elections. After some sharp controversy with Mr. Scott, 
 Mr. Blair closed his argument as follows : 
 
 *' Now, sir, what is to prevent any state or any city or county in the 
 United States from being put under martial law by the president, if re- 
 bellion and insurrection are made by one isolated outrage of disguised 
 men and the burning of a school-house ? These are all that are claimed. 
 The senator says he could refer to one or two others. These are all that 
 he thought it worth while to put in his speech delivered here last Friday, 
 and which I now hold in my hand. The president had not one word to 
 say on the subject at the time when the offenses were committed. He 
 could not have got any information of crimes committed there from the 
 ku-klux committee, although he refers to the joint select committee as 
 being one of the sources of his information. He could not have referred 
 to any thing stated to him by that committee, because the committee 
 never authorized any one to give the information to the president. He 
 may have got information from one of its members ; but no one of its 
 
MR. BLAIR ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS. 1421 
 
 members could have given him information of any ci'ime or outrage 
 committed within less than nine months previous to the declaration of 
 martial law, for no such crime or outrage is proven, and none can be 
 found in their reported testimony. Here is a book with its seven thou- 
 sand pages, here is the committee's report made subsequent to that de- 
 claration of martial law, and, to justify it, they name no crime com- 
 mitted ; the people were quiet, arrests were made, a one-armed sheriff 
 arrested individuals throughout that district without aid or assistance 
 from any one. 
 
 " The chief magistrate of this country has seen proper to exercise this 
 great authority never before given to a president of the United States, 
 yielded against the protests of the ablest republicans in this house and in 
 the other, and which ought not to have been used except in the clearest 
 and most overwhelming case of necessity. It has been exercised. The 
 president has failed to show to us that there existed, at the time he ex- 
 ercised this authority, any ground of justification whatsoever. Admit- 
 ting all that is claimed, that from a year to eighteen months, or two 
 years previous, there had been such a condition of things as has been 
 described by the senator in his eloquent speech, it had passed away. 
 You might as well attempt to defend the exercise of this power of de- 
 claring martial law, and suspending the privileges of the writ of habeas 
 corpus, because the rebellion existed seven years before this declaration. 
 The occasion had passed ; there was no disturbance. The officers there 
 admit there was no disorder. My colleague of the house, Mr. Van 
 Trump, who was there with the senator, declares in his report, which is 
 michallenged, which cannot be successfully denied, that there was no 
 disturbance; that he knew it of his own knowledge. The president 
 does not pretend that there was. The senator cannot make it appear 
 that there was any ; and here was the wanton exercise of this power, to 
 overthrow the guarantees of the constitution for the personal liberty of 
 the individual, without excuse and without cause ! 
 
 " Martial law is still maintained within those nine counties. Hun- 
 dreds of citizens have been dragged, without any allegation of crime, 
 from their homes, without the right of appeal to the courts, to be dis- 
 charged from illegal custody. Thousands, as has been said by the sena- 
 tor, have fled from their homes, and he, in imitation of the president, 
 declares that those who have fled from illegal arrest confess, by flying, 
 their guilt, when they knew that, if arrested, they would not have the 
 light of the writ of habeas corpus. The senator knows well that they 
 could be followed and arrested ; if charges could be brought against them, 
 the courts are open ; but no military arrest could be made outside of 
 these counties, upon which the courts would not have a right to pass." 
 
1422 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. , 
 
 Mr. Alcorn, (Rep.) of Mississippi, repelled the charge that justice was 
 hot' administered in Mississippi. There was no necessity for the suspen- 
 sion of the writ of habeas corpus ; if congress would allow the people to 
 settle the reconstruction of the state, and the new order of things to ad- 
 just itself, everything would be in Mississippi as could bfe desired. He 
 said that violent intervention- only engendered hostility between races 
 and put oS the time when peace and prosperity would be restored. 
 
 Mr. Stevenson, (Dem.) of Kentucky, entered a solemn protest agaiilst 
 this bill. With all the courts open, with hundreds of indictments pend- 
 ing for the punishment of secret and illegal combinations, with the peo- 
 ple denied all participation in government, broken in fortune, beggared 
 by reverses, it was proposed to clothe the president of the United States 
 with absolutely dictatorial power in the south. It had been attempted 
 also by selecting isolated instan<;es of violence and outrage to rekindle 
 the expiring embers of sectional hate. Could senators point to a state 
 north or south of the Ohio, where outbreaks and secret combinations did 
 not exist. According to a recently published judicial charge of Judge 
 Durham, more violent deaths had recently occurred in that state than in 
 any of the states north or south. Mr. Carpenter, (Rep.) of Wisconsin, 
 after a legal definition of the conditions prescribed by the constitution, 
 under which the right of suspension existed, believed that the present 
 act was clearly within the limits of right. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, (Dem.) of Ohio : " Mr. President, we are making to- 
 night a precedent the influence of which may not cease as long as this 
 government shall last. It is to be a precedent on the side of liberty or 
 on the side of despotism ; and that consideration is a sufficient excuse 
 for me for troubling the senate with a few words in reply to what has 
 just been said. 
 
 " The senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Carpenter) agrees with me that 
 the power to suspend the writ of habeas corptis is given to the govern- 
 ment and can only be exercised in pursuance of law. When he says 
 that it is ^ven to the government, I do not think he speaks quite accu- 
 rately, for the government is composed of three departments, legislative, 
 executive, and judicial, and certainly it is in no wise conferred upon the 
 judicial department to determine whether the privilege of this writ shall 
 be suspended or not ; nor in any proper sense can it be said to be con- 
 ferred upon the executive department of the government ; for what is 
 the executive department of the government ? It is that department 
 which is charged with the e.tecutioQ of- the law. The constitution is the 
 highest law, and the laws enacted by tHe legislative department are the 
 remainder of the body of the law, and it is simply to execute these laws 
 that the executive department is ordained and instituted. So that in the 
 
MR. THURMAN ON THE ENFORCEMENT ACT. 1423 
 
 nature of things the power to decide whether the privilege of th^ writ 
 shall be suspended — a power which requires the exercise of judgment 
 and of discretion, of volition — must necessarily belong to the legislative 
 department of the government. In its nature it is not an executive 
 power, for, as I have said, the executive power is a power to execute the 
 law. In its nature it is not a judicial power, for the judicial power never 
 comes into exercise, as has been repeatedly decided by the supreme court 
 of the United States, until there is a case, which means a plaintiff and a 
 defendant in a court of justice. So that it necessarily follows that the 
 power to suspend the privilege of the writ is a legislative power. 
 
 We are agreed upon this; but the senator from Wisconsin thinks it 
 is a sufficient compliance with the constitution for congress to enact a 
 law which authorizes the president to suspend the privilege on the hap- 
 pening of certain contingencies or of certain events, of which, not con- 
 gress, but the president is to be the judge. There is where our differ- 
 ence is. And now he cites the act of 1795 as proof of the fact that the 
 president may be invested with a power which primarily rests in the legis- 
 lative department of the government. But that is an entire mistake. 
 The act of 1*795 did not provide for the suspension of the writ of habeas 
 corpus at all. What did it provide ? Let me refer to the first and sec- 
 ond sections of that act : 
 
 'That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent 
 danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be 
 lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number 
 of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger 
 or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and 
 to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the mili- 
 tia as he shall think proper.' 
 
 " This is not the exercise of the power imder the guarantee clause, but 
 it is the exercise of another power in the constitution, the power to call 
 forth the militia : 
 
 ' The congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia 
 to execute the laAvs of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel in- 
 vasions.' 
 
 " That is one of the powers of congress under section eight of the first 
 article. 
 
 " Now, what is that power ? It is not a power, as in the case of the 
 suspension of the writ of habeas corptcs, to decide when the public safety 
 requires the suspension of the writ. It is not expressed in such words 
 as require congress to decide whether the casus has arisen or not ; but 
 it is a power to provide — to provide how? — to provide by law in antici- 
 pation of such a case ; and therefore under that congress might well 
 
1424 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 enougli provide for a calling forth the militia. It is a curious thing ; so 
 jealous were our fathers of the rights of the states that the constitution 
 did not give congress the power to call forth the militia as a matter of 
 course, but only the right to call them when it was necessary, as this 
 clause specifies, to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection, 
 and repel invasion. But there is the power to provide for calling them 
 forth whenever it may be necessary. It is necessary to execute the laws 
 of the union all the time whether congress is in session or not. It is 
 necessary to provide to suppress insurrection at all times whether con- 
 gress is in session or not. It is necessary to provide for repelling inva- 
 sion at all times whether congress is in session or not. But it is not 
 necessary to provide for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpiis at all 
 times whether congress is in session or not ; and so jealous were our fore- 
 fathers of that that they did not say that congress should have power to 
 provide for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in case of insur- 
 rection or invasion. There is no such language as that, that congress 
 shall have power to provide for the suspension of the writ of habeas cor- 
 pus ; but the words are mandatory, and negative, and prohibitory that 
 the privilege of the writ shall not be suspended unless when in cases of 
 rebellion or invasion the public safety shall require it. It is a very dif- 
 ferent thing from a provision that congress may provide for calling forth 
 the militia to execute the laws of the anion which must be executed all the 
 time, or to suppress insurrections which must be suppressed whenever they 
 occur, or to repel invasions which must be repelled whenever they happen. 
 " So much for that. Now we come to the next clause : 
 '•And in case of insurrection in any state against the government 
 thereof, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, on ap- 
 plication of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the 
 legislature cannot be convened), to call forth such number of the militia 
 of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge suffi- 
 cient to suppress such insurrection.' 
 
 "We have seen that that relates to insurrection, and' comes under the 
 same clause of the constitution, ' to provide for calling forth the militia 
 to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel inva- 
 sions ;' and that refers not only to insurrection taken in connection with 
 another clause of the constitution to suppress insurrections against the 
 general government, but also insurrections against a state, but with this 
 difference : that in regard to insurrection against a state there is no 
 power (and this very act is drawn upon that theory) to call forth the 
 militia where the insurrection is simply against the authority of a state 
 and not against the federal government, unless the state shall require it. 
 Let us turn, therefore, to the guarantee clause of the constitution : 
 
MR. THURMAN ON THE ENFORCEMENT BILL. 1425 
 
 * The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a re- 
 publican form of government, and shall protect each of them against in- 
 vasion, and, on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when 
 the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.' 
 
 " ' The United States shall guarantee,' it ' shall protect each of them 
 against invasion.' " 
 
 Mr. Carpenter : " Whether congress is in session or not ? " 
 
 Mr. Thurman : " Yes, whether congress is in session or not, and in 
 that case whether the state applies for it or not ; but, so far as insurrec- 
 tion against the state is concerned, it is only to act in case the legislature 
 when in session, or the executive when the legislature cannot be con- 
 vened, shall apply to the government of the United States. This pro- 
 vision of .the constitution makes the application by the legislature of a 
 state or by the executive of a state conclusive evidence of the fact that 
 there is such- an insurrection. 
 
 " But, Mr. President, I was speaking of this clause : 
 
 ' The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, ^ 
 unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may re- 
 quire it.' 
 
 " We admit that the power to suspend is a legislative power. That 
 being the case, if you can authorize tire president in his discretion to 
 suspend it for six months, you may authorize him to suspend it by a law 
 which has no limit upon it at all, and therefore in legal contemplation is 
 to exist for all time. If you can authorize him to suspend it from now 
 until the 4th of March next, you may make it a permanent statute on 
 your statute-book, which implies that it is to last as long as the govern- 
 ment shall endure. If you can do that, then congress has given up its 
 legislative power, has been guilty of a perfect self-abnegation in that 
 respect, and that great privilege, which was so sacred in the eyes of our 
 forefathers, that they did not allow it to be suspended even by congress 
 when there was flagrant war with a foreign nation, unless our soil was 
 invaded, may be given into the hands of a single man. 
 
 " When is it proposed to pass this bill ? When a presidential elec- 
 tion is pending, when the man into whose hands this power is given is a 
 candidate for re-election to that office ; then his supporters in the con- 
 gress of the United States, more regardful of his success in the election, 
 and the perpetuation of the power of their own party than of the wel- 
 fare of the country and the principles of the constitution, are for yield- 
 ing up the power the constitution vests in them and devolving it upon a 
 man who can use it in order to re-elect himself. 
 
 " Mr. President, nothing that I can say could present this measure in 
 a stronger light than these few words. I say that my friend from Wis- 
 90 
 
1426 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 consin, with all his ingenuity, and with all his diligence, has utterly 
 failed to justify this bill." 
 
 The debate was further continued by speeches from Messrs. Hamilton 
 of Maryland, and Saulsbury of Delaware, both democratic senators. 
 The roll call on the passage of the bill gave the result of 28 yeas to 15 
 nays, 31 being absent. In the house, on May 28th, Mr. Poland moved 
 to suspend the rules, so as to take from the speaker's table the same bill. 
 But as two-thirds did not vote in favor, the rules were not suspended. 
 
 Among the important measures, adopted at this session of congress, 
 was one for the apportionment of representation according to the census 
 of 1870. By this act the number of members of the house of repre- 
 sentiitives was fixed at 283. The Tuesday after the first Monday in No- 
 vember in the year 1876, was fixed as the day for the election of repre- 
 sentatives in the forty-fifth congress, and the Tuesday after the first Mon- 
 day in November, in every second year thereafter, was fixed as the day 
 for the election fot representatives and delegates to congress, commenc- 
 ^ing on the fourth day of March thereafter. The act further provided 
 that no state should be admitted to the union without having the popu- 
 lation necessary to entitle it to at least one representative. It was fur- 
 ther provided that if any state should deny or abridge the right of any 
 legal elector under the constitution, except for participation in rebel- 
 lion or other crime, the number of representatives apportioned in the act 
 should be reduced in proportion to the number of such citizens to the 
 whole number of citizens. 
 
 An act to remove political disabilities imposed by the fourteenth 
 amendment was ])assed and approved by the president on May 2 2d. It 
 removed all political disabilities imposed by the aforesaid amendment, 
 except in the case of senators and representatives of the thirty-sixth and 
 thirty- seventh congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval ser- 
 vice of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers 
 of the United States. The import duties on tea and coffee were abol- 
 ished by an act which took effect on July 1st, 1872. This session of 
 congress terminated on the 10th day of June. 
 
CHAPTER CXV. 
 
 SKETCH OF THE NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNINO THE ALABAMA CLAIMS FROM 
 
 THEIR COMMENCEMENT. DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1868, 
 
 BY LORD BTANLEV, JOHN STUART MILL, GLADSTONE, ETC. THE CLAR- 
 ENDON-JOHNSON TREATY AND ITS REJECTION BY THE SENATE. DEFINI- 
 TION OF THE AMERICAN POSITION BY HON. HAMILTON FISH. THE NEW 
 
 COMMISSION AND THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. CLAMOR IN GREAT 
 
 BRITAIN.^ — THE GENEVA CONFERENCE. DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE 
 
 UNITED STATES.— SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN's DISSENT. 
 
 One of the most important diplomatic events in the history of the 
 country was consummated in the year 1872. This was the happy con- 
 clusion of the labors of the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva. The award 
 of this exalted court and the record of their proceedings constitute a 
 highly interesting and valuable chapter in the literature of international 
 law. With the conclusion of the session's of this tribunal, a most diffi- 
 cult and perplexing question was removed from the politics of two gi'eat 
 nations ; restoring to the minds alike of statesmen and of the people 
 that cordial good feeling so necessary to their mutual welfare, which had 
 been seriously interrupted by this ominous and long debated problem. 
 It could be called an important crisis in the philosophy of history. Na- 
 tions had frequently plunged into the horrors of war on much slighter 
 excuse than that which was involved in the question of the Alabama 
 claims. The spectacle of two of the most powerful and highly civilized 
 nations submitting their grievances to a common arbiter, was a significant 
 fact in the growth of civilization ; not only because it was almost unpre- 
 cedented in the history of the world, but because it pointed to a glori- 
 ous future when the great principles of peace and national brotherhood 
 should take the place of the horrid functions of war. This event was of 
 so much importance that we give a comprehensive though brief sketch 
 of all the negotiations connected with the early preferment and final set- 
 tlement of the Alabama claims. 
 
 It is not necessary to refer to the facts in the history of the war on 
 which these celebrated claims were based, except so far as they are 
 sketched in the debates of both the English parliament and the American 
 congress. The question of the payment by Great Britain of the claims 
 of American ship owners for the depredations of confederate vessels, 
 
1428 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 fitted out in England during "the late war, was revived in the house of 
 commons on March Yth, 1868, by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. He made an elo- 
 quent speech in which he argued a prompt settlement, on Ihe plan pro- 
 posed by the American government. He called for the papers on the 
 subject and thought that future negotiators would only add to complica- 
 tions already existing. He proceeded to sketch the progress of the re- 
 cent civil war in the UJnited States. A month after Mr. Lincoln's pro- 
 clamation of the fall of Fort Sumter, Great Britain recognized the south 
 as a belligerent power. Without any fleet, the southern insurgents had 
 purchased ships in English ports, and these armed vessels had been hos- 
 pitably received in all the British colonies. More than two hundred 
 American merchant-ships were destroyed during the war, and the com- 
 merce of the United States literally driven from the seas to the immense 
 advantage of the British merchant service. For this reason the Ameri- 
 can claims ought to be treated generously. The first demand had been 
 made in 1862, by Mr. Adams, the American minister, but was refused 
 by Lord John Russell. The question of recognition by England was 
 only as to her rights, if these might safely be referred. Englishmen had 
 insisted that the responsibility of England, with regard to the Alabama 
 claims, was only a moral one. The less said about the morality of this 
 question the better. He did not regard the breaking out of war between 
 the two countries as probable, but thought all needless irritation should, 
 nevertheless, be shunned. 
 
 Lord Stanley praised the pacific tone of the previous speaker and 
 complimented the American minister for his conciliatory spirit. While 
 Englishmen should not make indiscriminate concessions, they should 
 clearly understand the points of the case ; especially as much allowance 
 was to be made for the feeling in America. While England had been 
 entirely neutral in his judgment, no neutrality would have pleased the 
 United States. What that country wanted was neutrality coupled with 
 wai-m sympathy. The Queen was ready to submit all questions to ai-bi- 
 tration except the fundamental one of recognizing the belligerent rights 
 of the south. Great Britain had not recognized these until after they 
 had been distinctly admitted by Mr. Seward, the American secretary of 
 state. The battle of Bull Run was fought in 1861, and the confederate 
 ship Alabama did not sail from England until 1862. Would the United 
 States ^\y that its case against the Alabama had been altered, if Great 
 Britain had made the declaration of neutrality six, rather than eleven 
 months before she sailed? Lord Stanley referred to the speeches of 
 Daniel Webster in the United States senate, on the recognition of Hun- 
 gary, as a support of his argument. England could not refuse to recog- 
 nize a civil war, which the United States had recognized some weeks 
 
DEBATE IN THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. 1429 
 
 before. He deprecated the debate and thought a friendly solution of the 
 difficulty was practicable. The friendly reception of Minister Thornton 
 at AVashington was in itself a pledge of peace. , 
 
 Mr. W. E. Forster, the member for Bradford, reasoned that Mr 
 Seward's views of the Alabama claims were on the whole right and sen- 
 sible. He complained of the backwardness in parliament when the 
 universal wish of the United Kingdom was for a speedy settlement. 
 With an impartial minister at Washington representing Great Britain, 
 the dispute could be easily adjusted. John Stuart Mill the member for 
 Westminster, said the real question was whether England was bound to 
 prevent such expeditions as that of the Alabama. He did not believe 
 that the United States claimed^that the recognition of the south was a 
 violation of law, only that it was a hostile, rash, and unprecedented act. 
 America pressed the point in consequence of her belief that the Alaba- 
 ma depredations would not have occurred but for British unfriendliness. 
 He thought an arbiter between the two countries was needless and that 
 reparation was due to the United States. He advised the appointment 
 of a mixed commission for the adjustment of the dispute. Mr. W. E. 
 Gladstone, member from South Lancashire, thanked the members of the 
 house of commons for their temperate discussion. He could not un- 
 derstand why the negotiation ended nor could he agree with Mr. Mill 
 that Lord Stanley had admitted the rightfulness of reparation or that 
 arbitration would probably go against England, He himself had doubts 
 of the justice of reparation for the Alabama depredations. It was how- 
 ever right that the dispute should be referred either to a commission or 
 an umpire. He inferred from the remarks of Lord Stanley, the foreign 
 secretary, that negotiations between the two governments had not closed. 
 The whole country would suport his lordship in an honorable settlement 
 of the case. We have thus given the gist of the debate in the English 
 parliament, because it was the first practical and decided evidence of a 
 disposition to settle the Alabama dispute on an authoritative basis. Mr. 
 Reverdy Johnson succeeding Mr. Adams as minister to St. James, imme- 
 diate negotiations were opened for .the settlement of these claims. This 
 negotiation was carried on with Lord Stanley and his successor Lord 
 Clarendon, finally resulting in a treaty to be submitted to the respective 
 governments. The following synopsis gives a summary of its leading 
 points: 
 
 For the settlement of all claims made at various times from the time 
 of the last convention between the United States and Great Britain in 
 1853, claims made separately by British subjects on the United States, 
 and by American citizens on Great l5ritain, Reverdy Johnson the Ameri- 
 can minister to England, and Lord Clarendon principal foreign secretary, 
 
1430 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 have been appointed plenipotentiaries, and have agreed as follows : All 
 questions in dispute shall be referred to four commissioners, two to rep- 
 resent the United States and two Great Britain. The commissioners 
 shall meet at the earliest practicable period and be sworn to decide ac- 
 cording to their views of absolute justice and equity. An umpire or 
 umpires shall be selected by them to decide in cases of difference be- 
 tween them. The commissioners shall proceed to investigate the claims 
 brought to their notice on such information as shall be furnished by 
 their respective governments, fully examining all statements laid be- 
 fore them in proof, and if necessary to hear counsel on behalf of either 
 or both of the contending parties. In case of difference the arbitrator 
 shall decide without appeal. If it is desirable that the sovereign of a 
 friendly state shall sit as umpire, the fact shall be reported and withiti 
 six months the aforesaid arbitrator be invited to decide the claim. Each 
 claim shall be presented within six months from the day of the first 
 meeting. And all claims shall be decided in two years from the day of 
 the first meeting which shall be held in the city of Washington. All 
 sums of money awarded shall be paid in coin or its equivalent within 
 eighteen months after the decision without interest. The high contract- 
 ing parties engage to consider the result as a perfect and final settlement 
 of all the aforesaid claims. 
 
 After the rejection by the senate of the United States, of this treaty 
 on the Alabama claims, there was further correspondence, but nothing 
 new or definite was elicited immediately. Mr. Motley, who succeeded 
 Mr. Reverdy Johnson as minister to St. James', was instructed to say that 
 the American government, in rejecting the recent convention, did not 
 abandon its own claims, nor the hope of an early and friendly settle- 
 ment. The cause for grievance against England was based not on Brit- 
 ish recognition of the confederacy, but on what occurred subsequently. 
 Mr. Motley for some reason did not represent his instructions properly, 
 but said to Lord Clarendon in a somewhat dictatorial fashion, that such 
 conduct as had been pursued by Great Britain must be taken with a full 
 view of the grave responsibilities assumed. In consequence of this, 
 negotiations were withdrawn from London and Mr. Motley's action dis- 
 approved. Mr. Fish, in a dispatch of September 25th, 1869, clearly de- 
 fined the position of the United States. In this he pointedly said the 
 rightfulness of an act, according the states of belligerency to insurgent 
 subjects of another power, was one Avhich the morality of public law 
 and practice required should be deliberate, seasonable, and just with ref- 
 erence to surrounding facts. He held that the international duty of the 
 Queen's government was above and independent of mere municipal law. 
 Reparation was due not merely on specific injuries committed by the 
 
SKETCH OF PRELIMINARIES TO THE TREATY, 1431 
 
 rebel cruisers, but on account of the vast national injury done to the 
 United States. This country was ready to entertain propositions when- 
 ever England should think proper to present them. Lord Clarendon 
 replied that the Queen's government desired to turn the difficulties which 
 had arisen to good account by making their solution subservient to the 
 adoption of such changes in the rules of international law as would pre- 
 vent 3 future recurrence. After the death of Lord Clarendon, which 
 shortly occurred, Mr. Motley was removed to afford the government a 
 chance of being represented by a person more in harmony with its 
 views. 
 
 Active measures for the settlement of disputes between the two coun- 
 tries were taken during 1871. Early in the year. Sir Edward Thornton, 
 the British minister, under instructions from his government, proposed 
 to secretary Fish a joint commission ; to be composed of members 
 named by each government and to hold its sessions at Washington. On 
 February 9th president Grant sent a message to the senate nominating 
 the following gentlemen as the United States commissioners : Hon. Ham- 
 ilton Fish, secretary of state, Hon. Samuel Nelson, associate justice of 
 the supreme court, Hon. Robert C. Schenck, minister to England, Hon. 
 E. Rockwood Hoar, ex-attorney general of the United States, and Hon. 
 George H. Williams, senator from Oregon. The British commissioners 
 appointed were Earl de Gray and Ripon, Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, 
 Sir Edward Thornton, minister to the United States, Sir John Alexander 
 Macdonald, atttorney general of Canada, and Professor Montague Ber- 
 nard, of Oxford University. The subjects decided to be discussed by the 
 commission with reference to arbitration, were as follows : The fish- 
 enes ; the na\agation of the St. Lawrence ; the reciprocal trade between 
 the L^nited States and the. Dominion of Canada ; northwest water boun- 
 dary, and the island of San Juan ; the claims of the United States 
 against Great Britain on account of acts committed by rebel cruisers ; 
 claims against the United States for acts committed during the recent 
 civil war. 
 
 At the inaugural meeting of the commission in Washington, February 
 27th, 1871, it was decided that Lord Tenterden, secretary of the British 
 commissioners, and Hon. J. Bancroft Davis, who perfonned the same 
 office for the American diplomats, should draw up the joint protocol, or 
 preliminary basis of negotiation. The commission held sittings till 
 May 6th when they completed the full text of the treaty of Washington, 
 and adjourned. This treaty was of such importance that we give some 
 of its more striking portions in full, especially those sections relating to 
 the Alabama claims : 
 
 Article. 1.. Whereas differences have arisen between the srovemnjent 
 
1432 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the United States and the government of her Britannic majesty, and 
 still exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels 
 which have given rise to the claims generally known as the Alabama 
 Claims ; and whereas her Britannic majesty has authorized her high 
 commissioners and plenipotentiaries to express in a friendly spirit the 
 regret felt by her majesty's government for the escape, under whatever 
 circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and 
 for the depredations committed by those vessels ; now, in order to re- 
 move and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United 
 States, and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims which 
 are not admitted by her Britannic majesty's government, the high con- 
 tracting parties agree that all the said claims growing out of acts com- 
 mitted by the aforesaid vessels, and generally known as the Alabama 
 Claims, shall be referred to a tribunal of arbitration, to be composed of 
 five arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner, that is to say: 
 One shall be named by the president of the United States, one shall be 
 named by her Britannic majesty, his majesty the king of Italy shall be 
 requested to name one, the president of the Swiss Confederation shall be 
 requested to name one, and his majesty the emperor of Brazil shall be 
 requested to name one. In case of death, absence, or incapacity to 
 serve, of either of the said arbitrators, or in the event of either of the 
 said arbitrators omitting, or declining, or ceasing to act as such, the 
 president of the United States, or her Britannic majesty, or his majesty 
 the king of Italy, or the president of the Swiss Confederation, or his 
 majesty the emperor of Brazil, .as the case may be, may forthwith name 
 another person to act as arbitrator in the place and stead of the arl^itra- 
 tor originally named^by such head of state ; and in the event of refusal 
 or omission, for two months after the receipt of the request, from either 
 of the high contracting parties, of his majesty the king of Italy, or the 
 president of the Swiss Confederation, or his majesty the emperor of 
 Brazil, to name an arbitrator, either to fill the original appointment or 
 in place of one who may have died, be absent, or incapacitated, or who 
 may omit, decline, or from any cause cease to act as such arbitrator, his 
 majesty the king of Sweden ^and Norway shall be requested to name one 
 or more persons, as the case may be, to act as such arbitrator or arbi- 
 trators. 
 
 Art. 2. The arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland, at the 
 earliest day convenient after they shall have been named, and shall pro- 
 ceed impartially and carefully to examine and decide all questions that 
 shall be laid before them on the part of the governments of the United 
 States and her Britannic majesty respectively. All questions considered 
 by the tribunal, including the final award, shall be decided by a majority 
 
THK TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 1433 
 
 of all the arbitrat6rs. Each of all of the high contracting parties shall 
 also name one person to attend the tribunal as its agent to represent it 
 generally in all matters connected with the arbitration. 
 
 Art. 3. The written or printed case of each of the two parties, accom- 
 panied by the documents, the official correspondence, and other evidence 
 on which each relies, shall be delivered in duplicate to each of the arbi- 
 trators, and to the agent of the other party, as soon as may be after the 
 organization of the tribunal, but within a period not exceeding six 
 months frorti the date of the exchange of the ratification of this treaty. 
 
 Art. 4. Within four months after the delivery on both sides of the 
 written or printed case, either party may, in like manner, deliver in du- 
 plicate to each of the said arbitrators, and to the agent of the other 
 party, a counter-case, and additional documents, correspondence, and 
 evidence, in reply to the other party. The arbitrators may, however, 
 extend the time for delivering such counter-case, documents, correspond- 
 ence, and evidence, when, in their judgment, it becomes necessary, in 
 consequence of the distance of the place from which the evidence to be 
 presented is to be procured. If, in the case submitted, any report or 
 document in the exclusive possession of any party be omitted, such party 
 shall be bound, if the other party thinks proper to apply for it, to fur- 
 nish that party with a copy thereof, and either party may call upon the 
 other, through the arbitrators, to produce the originals or certified copies 
 of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in each instance such reason- 
 able notice as the arbitrators may require. 
 
 Art. 5. It shall be the duty of the agent of each party, within two 
 months after the expiration of the time limited for the delivery of the 
 counter-case on both sides, to deliver in duplicate to each of the said ar- 
 bitrators, and to the agent of the other party, a written or printed argu- 
 ment, showing the points and referring to the evidence upon which his 
 government relies; and the arbitrators may, if they desire further eluci- 
 dation with regard to any point, require a written or printed statement 
 or argument, or oral argument by counsel upon it. But in such case the 
 other party shall be entitled to reply, either orally or in writing, as the 
 case may be. 
 
 Art. 6. In deciding the matters submitted to the arbitrators, they 
 shall be governed by the following three rules to be taken as applicable 
 to the case, and by such principles of international law, not inconsistent 
 therewith, as the arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to 
 the case. 
 
 Rules. — A neutral government is bound, Jirst, to use due diligence to 
 prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdi'-don, of 
 any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise 
 
1434 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace, and also tc 
 use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any 
 vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having 
 been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to 
 warlike use ; secondly, not to permit or suSer either belligerent to make 
 use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the 
 other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military 
 supplies 'or arms, or the recruitment of men ; thirdly, to exercise due dili- 
 gence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its juris- 
 diction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. 
 
 Her Britannic majesty has commanded her high conJmissionei-s and 
 plenipotentiaries to declare that her majesty's government cannot assent 
 to the foregoing rules, as a statement of principles of international law 
 which were in force at the time when the elaimsi mentioned in Article 1 
 arose, but that her Britannic majesty's government, in order to evince 
 its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two coun- 
 tries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that, in 
 deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those 
 claims, the arbitrators should assume that her majesty's government had 
 undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules, and the 
 high contracting parties agree to observe these rules between themselves 
 in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, 
 and to invite them to accede to them. 
 
 Art. 7. The decision of the tribunal shall, if possible, be made within 
 three months from the close of the argument on both sides. It shall be 
 made in writing, and dated, and shall be signed by the arbitrators who 
 may assent to it. The said tribunal shall first determine as to each ves- 
 sel separately, whether Great Britain has by any act or omission, failed 
 to fulfill any of the duties set forth in the foregoing three rules or recog- 
 nized by the principles of international law, not inconsistent with such 
 rules, and shall certify such fact as to each of the said vessels. In case 
 the tiibunal find that Great Britain has failed to 'fulfill any duty or duties 
 as aforesaid, it may, if it think proper, proceed to award a sum in gross 
 to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for all the claims re- 
 ferred to it ; and in such case the gross sura so awarded shall be paid in 
 coin by the government of Great Britain to the government of the 
 United States at Washington, within twelve months after the date of 
 the award. The award shall be in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be 
 delivered to the agent of the United States for his government, and the 
 other copy shall be delivered to the agent of Great Britain for his 
 government. 
 
 Art. 8. Each government shall pay its own agent, and provide for the 
 
THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON CONTINUED. 1435 
 
 proper remuneration of the counsel employed by it, and of the arbitrator 
 appointed by it, and for the expense of preparing and submitting its 
 case to the tribunal. All other expenses connected with the arbitration 
 shall be defrayed by the two governments in equal moieties. 
 
 Art. 9. The arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of their proceed- 
 ings, and may appoint and employ the necessary officers to assist them. 
 
 Art. 10. In case the tribunal finds that Great Britain has failed to 
 fulfill any duty or duties, as aforesaid, and does not award a sum in 
 gross, the high contracting parties agree that a board of assessors shall 
 be appointed to ascertain and determine what claims are valid, and what 
 amount or amounts shall be paid by Great Britain to the United States 
 on account of the liability arising from such failure as to each vessel, 
 according to the extent of such liability, as decided by the arbitrators. 
 The board of assessors shall be constituted as follows: One member 
 thereof shall be named by the president of the United States, one mem- 
 ber thereof shall be named by her Britannic majesty, one member there- 
 of shall be named by the representative at Washington of his majesty 
 the king of Italy ; and, in case of a vacancy happening from any cause, 
 it shall be filled in the same manner in which the origiri^l appointment 
 was made. As soon as possible, after such nominations, the board of 
 assessors shall be organized in Washington, with power to hold their 
 sittings there, or in New York or in Boston. The members thereof 
 shall severally subscribe a solemn declaration that they will impartially 
 and carefully examine and decide, to the best of their judgment, and ac- 
 cording to justice and equity, all matters submitted to them, and shall 
 forthwith proceed, under such rales and regulations as they may pre- 
 scribe, to the investigation of the claims which shall be presented to 
 them by the government of the United States, and shall examine and 
 decide upon them in such order and manner as they may think proper, 
 but upon such evidence or information only as shall be furnished by or 
 on behalf of the governments of Great Britain and of the United States 
 respectively. They shall be bound to hear on each separate claim, if 
 required, one person on behalf of each government as counsel or agent. 
 A majority of the assessors in each case shall be sufficient for a decision. 
 The decision of the assessors shall be given upon each claim in writing, 
 and shall be signed by them respectively and dated. Every claim shall 
 be presented to the assessors within six months from the day of their 
 first meeting ; but they may, for good cause shown, extend the time for 
 the presentation of any claim to a further period not exceeding three 
 months. The assessors shall report to each government, at or before 
 the expiration of one year from the date of their first meeting, the 
 amount of claims decided by them up to the date of such report. If 
 
1436 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 further claims then remain undecided, they shall make a further report 
 at or before the expiration of two years from the date of such first meet- 
 ing ; and, in case any claims remain undetermined at that time, they 
 shall make a final report within a further period of six months. The 
 report shall be made in duplicate, and one copy thereof shall be deliv- 
 ered to the secretary of state of the United States, and one copy thereof 
 to the representative of her Britannic majesty at Washington. All sums 
 of money which may be awarded under this article shall be payable at 
 Washington, in coin, within twelve months after the delivery of each 
 report. The board of assessors may employ such clerks as they shall 
 think necessary. The expenses of the board of assessors shall be as- 
 sumed equally by the two governments, and paid from time to time, as 
 may be found expedient, on the production of accounts certified by the 
 board. The remuneration of the assessors shall also be paid by the two 
 governments in equal moieties, in a similar manner. 
 
 Art. 11. The high contracting parties engage to consider the result of 
 the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration and of the board of assessors, 
 should such board be appointed, as a full, perfect, and final settlement 
 of all the claims hereinbefore referred to, and further engage that every 
 such claim, whether the same may or may not have been presented to 
 the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the tribunal or board, shalj, 
 irom and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the tribunal or 
 board, be considered and treated as finally settled, bari'ed, and thence- 
 forth inadmissible. 
 
 In regai*d to the claims of British subjects on the United States a 
 commission was provided for, consisting of one member named by the 
 president, one by the queen, and a third by the two conjointly ; failing 
 the latter the third commissioner was to be named by the ambassador of 
 the king of Spain. The same general rules were prescribed as those in 
 the case of the arbitration of the Alabama claims. The question of the 
 fisheries, ^. e., the relative value of the privileges conceded by the gov- 
 ernment of England and those of the United States on the respective 
 coasts of each, was to be referred to a commission consisting of one ap- 
 pointed by the president, one by the queen, and one by the two con- 
 jointly ; in default of the latter he was to be named by the ambassador 
 of Austria in London. The navigation of the St. Lawrence, Lake Michi- 
 gan, and reciprocity in commercial relations were also satisfactorily pro- 
 vided for. In regard to the disputed northern boundary, the question was 
 referred to the emperor of Germany and his award was to be received 
 as absolutely conclusive. The treaty was ratified by the senate of the 
 United States on the 24th of May, 1871, by a vote of 50 to 12. 
 
 On the same day the British commissioners accompanied by United 
 
 i 
 
THE WOEK OF THE GENEVA CONFERENCE. 1437 
 
 States Minister Sclienck sailed for England. On the iVth of June rati- 
 fications of the treaty were exchanged in London, and on July 4th presi- 
 dent Grant proclaimed it as valid and binding. The board of arbitrators 
 which formed the Geneva conference was composed of Sir Alexander 
 Cockburn on the part of Great Britain, Hon. Charles Francis Adams on 
 the part of the United States, ex-president Staempfli on the part of 
 Switzerland, Count Sclopis on the part of Italy, and Baron Itajuba on 
 the part of Brazil. The British and American governments each pre- 
 pared their respective claims beforehand and were represented before 
 the arbitrators by counsel. The British-American claims commission 
 was composed of Russell Gurney for Great Britain, Judge J. S. Fraser 
 for the United States, and Count Louis Corti was the third member. 
 • The first informal meeting of the international conference at Geneva 
 occurred in Dec, 1871. Each nation served on the other party to the 
 arbitration copies of its case, that of America being prepared by the Hon. 
 J. C. Bancroft Davis, that of Great Britain by the official counsel for the 
 crown. For some time the American statement did not seem to attract 
 much opposition in England, but we will anticipate a fuller reference to 
 the matter by saying that toward the middle of Jan., 1872, a great 
 clamor arose in the British cabinet as well as in the public journals, to 
 the eSect that the United States had acted- with, a conspicuous unfair- 
 ness in perverting the intention of the treaty by presenting a long cata- 
 logue of indirect claims for damages. Violence and bitterness ensued 
 in both countries, and had not the respective governments somewhat 
 subsided from the first tendency to recriminate upon each other, there 
 was a large probability that the two nations would have drifted into a 
 war. Temperate counsels however prevailed and the work of arbitration 
 was allowed to proceed in the calm and peaceful spirit with which it was 
 at first projected. 
 
 We give a condensed statement of the work of the commission from 
 the report made by the Hon. Bancroft Davis, the United States agent, 
 to the secretary of state. The American commissioners, in the inaugu- 
 ral meetings of the conference, defined the demands of the United States 
 growing out of the acts of the Alabama and the other confederate cruis- 
 ers, in the following language : " Extensive direct losses in the capture 
 and destruction of a large number of vessels with their cargoes, and in 
 the heavy national expenditure in the pursuit of the cruisers,, and indi- 
 rect injury in the transfer of a large part of the American commercial 
 marine to the British flag, in the enhanced payment of insurance, in the 
 prolongation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum to the cost 
 of the war and the suppression of the rebellion." It was indicated that 
 these claims could be substantiated under the following heads: The 
 
1.438 THB AMERICAN STATESMAN-. 
 
 claims for the loss of private property in the ordinary manner ; the cost 
 of the pursuit of the confederate cruisers by certificates of government 
 accounting officers ; and what they styled indirect losses by estimates. 
 The argument of the Hon, Caleb Gushing, the Hon. William M. Evarts, 
 and of Judge Waite proved that this definition of the American claims 
 was in strict accordance with all the negotiations between the two gov- 
 ernments, and the various official sanctions mutually given thereto. It 
 was distinctly ordered by the president that a decision on all the claims 
 growing out of the acts of the confederate cruisers should be exacted 
 from the tribunal. The American case as presented to the Geneva con- 
 ference was constructed on the following theories of fact and law ; theo- 
 ries which had received the sanction of the most eminent lawyers and 
 statesmen of the United States, and which were, to no small extent, 
 adopted by the arbitrators : 
 
 (a.) That the tribunal of arbitration was a judicial body, substituted 
 by the parties to take the place of force, and empowered to try and de- 
 termine issues which otherwise could be settled (if at all) only by war. 
 
 (b.) That the injuries of the United States should be stated, therefore, 
 with the fullness necessary to a determination in a court of law, and 
 with the same frankness with which they would be stated in case of an 
 appeal to force. It was not thought that the United States could obtain 
 full justice at the hands of the arbitrators, if any appreciable part of 
 their wrongs were left untold. 
 
 (c.) That the government of Great Britain, by its indiscreet haste in 
 counseling the queen's proclamation recognizing the insurgents as bel- 
 ligerents, by its preconcerted joint action with France respecting the 
 declarations of the congress of Paris, by its refusal to take steps for the 
 amendment of its neutrality laws, by its refraining for so long a time 
 from seizing the rams at Liverpool, by its conduct in the affair of the 
 Trent, and by its approval of the course of its colonial officers at various 
 times; and that the individual members of the government, by their 
 open and frequent expressions of sympathy with the insurgents, and of 
 desires for their success, had exhibited an unfriendly feeling, which 
 might affect their own course, and could not but affect the action of 
 their subordinates ; and that all this was a want of the " due diligence " 
 in the observance of neutral duties which is required at once by the 
 treaty and by international law. 
 
 It seemed to the American counsel that such facts, when proved, im- 
 bued with the character of culpable negligence many acts of subordinates 
 in the British service for which, otherwise, the government might not 
 be held responsible ; as, for instance, acts of the collector of customs at 
 Liverpool respecting the Florida and the Alabama ; acts of the author!- 
 
ON THE GENEVA CONFERENCE. 1489 
 
 ties at Nassau respecting the arming of the Florida at Green Bay, and 
 subsequently respecting her supplies of coal ; acts of the authorities at 
 Bermuda respecting the Florida; and acts of the authorities at Mel- 
 bourne respecting the Shenandoah. There were many such acts of 
 subordinates which, taken individually and by themselves, would not 
 form a just basis for holding culpable a government which was honestly 
 and with vigilance striving to perform its duty as a neutral ; but which, 
 taken in connection with each other, and with the proofs of animus 
 which we offered, establish culpability in the government itself. 
 
 (d.) That the insurgents established and maintained, unmolested 
 throughout the insurrection, administrative bureaus on British soil, by 
 means of which the several cruisers were dispatched from British ports, 
 or were enabled to make them bases of hostile operations against the 
 United States, and that the British government was cognizant of it. 
 
 (e.) That Great Britain, from the outset, denied, and to the last per- 
 sisted in denying, that the departure of vessels like the Alabama and the 
 Florida, under any circumstances, could be a breach of international duty ; 
 and had refused to exercise diligence to prevent such departure. 
 
 (/.) That in point of fact no such diligence had been exercised ; and 
 that, while there were particular facts 'as to each vessel, tending to fix 
 responsibility upon Great Britain, these general indisputable facts were 
 sufficient to carry responsibility for the acts of all the cruisers. 
 
 Among those consulted in the preparation of the case were president 
 Woolsey of Yale College, William Beach Laurence, the eminent publicist, 
 Judge E. R. Hoar, one of the members of the joint high commission, 
 the Hon. Caleb Gushing, the members of the cabinet, and the most dis- 
 tinguished jui'ists in congress. The case was presented to the arbitrators 
 with seven volumes of accompanying documents, correspondence and 
 evidence. 
 
 Shortly after, the leading London journals charged that the faith of 
 the British government was called in question in the presentation of the 
 American case. The Standard thought we had " sacrificed the consist- 
 ency and dignity of our pleadings to satisfy popular prejudice at home." 
 The Telegraph spoke of the " effrontery " with which the American de- 
 mands were set forth, and said that " it must be borne in mind that gen- 
 eral Grant seeks re-election." The Saturday/ Review spoke of the narra- 
 tive as " perverted and spiteful " and a " malignant composition," and . 
 said that " if the Americans wished to express still more hostile feelings 
 they must discontinue verbal controversy." The Fall-Mall Gazette said 
 that the claims had been boughi up by " American legislators and 
 oflBcers of state even among the higher and more influential grades," 
 The Spectator charged us with " sharp practice " and a " discreditable 
 
1440 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 forcing of the natural meaning of the treaty in order to win popularity 
 at the elections," The Daily News called the claims " extravagant de- 
 mands intended as an electioneering card," and complained that the case 
 was a " long and passionate pleading " in which " chapter after chapter 
 is devoted to .the presumed motives of our (British) public men." On 
 February 3d, the British ministry announced officially, that they had not 
 anticipated the presentation of what were known as the indirect claims. 
 It has since become known that the cabinet of the queen had under 
 consideration at one time, the propriety of asking for the entire with- 
 drawal of the American case. For some months the attack on what was 
 denominated American trickery was vehemently pressed in the British 
 journals. It is a fact however worthy of comment that the verdict of 
 the publicists and writers throughout the continent of Europe, was in 
 favor of the American construction of the treaty and no less decided in 
 . proclaiming, that England could not retire without dishonor. 
 
 The time between the 15th of April, and the 15th of June, was occu- 
 pied by the American counsel in the preparation of their argument, 
 which attracted great admiration as a masterly production. On the 15th 
 of June the argument of the United States was duly delivered, but the 
 British agent asked for an adjournment of several months in order to 
 enable the two governments to arrange questions in dispute frojn the 
 political standpoint. These differences however were adjusted by the 
 direct action of the tribunal. The arbitrators announced their opinion 
 that the indirect claims did not constitute, on principles of international 
 law, sufficient foundation for an award of compensation. The British 
 argument was then filed, and an attempt was made on that side to re- 
 open argument and to secure a rehearing of the whole question. 
 
 On July 15th the conference assembled after a recess. It was then 
 decided to give the opinion of the arbitrators seriatim on each cruiser, 
 beginning with the Florida. Arguments were presented on the following 
 points both in the English and the French languages : On the meaning 
 of the words " due diligence ;" On the effect of a commission on the 
 offending vessel ; On supplies of coal ; On the recruitment of men for the 
 Shenandoah at Melbourne ; On the effect of the entry of the Florida 
 into the port of Mobile ; On the subject of interest ; On the general 
 subject of the statement of claims. The tribunal decided unanimously 
 that there was responsibility for the acts of the Alabama. Count 
 Sclopis, M. Staempfli and Mr. Adams held that there was responsibility 
 for the acts of the Shenandoah after leaving Melbourne, but not before. 
 Great Britain was released from responsibility as to other vessels except 
 the Florida. The deliberations of the tribunal on the subject of damages 
 were held with closed doors, and on the 15th of September the l-esult 
 
RESULTS OF THE GENEVA CONFERENCE. 1441 
 
 was reached that the sura of fifteen and one-half millions should be 
 awarded in gross, to be paid by Great Britain to the United States. 
 
 The somewhat extraordinary course taken by Sir Alexander Cockburn 
 during the proceedings of the conference, is worthy of some special 
 comment. He confessed that he sat in the tribunal not as a judge but 
 in some special sense as the representative of Great Britain. The lord 
 chief justice of England did not hesitate to denounce legal propositions 
 made by such eminent lawyers as General Gushing, Mr. Evarts and Mr. 
 Waite, over their own'signatures and under the responsibility of counsel, 
 as " strange misrepresentations." In his dissenting opinion he used such 
 bitter and undignified phrases as the following: " their imaginations must 
 have been lively while their consciences slept ;" " an extraordinary series 
 of propositions and the most singular, confusion of ideas, misrepresenta- 
 tions of facts, and ignorance, both of law and history, which were 
 perhaps ever crowded into the same space." He called the argument of 
 the American counsel " an affront offered to the tribunal by such an 
 attempt to practice on our supposed ignorance or credulity," and said 
 that he " is at a loss to understand how counsel familiar with English 
 law can take upon themselves to make statements of this sort." He 
 also charged that the case of the United States poured forth the pent up 
 venom of national and personal hate, and spoke of the abuse it freely 
 bestowed, complaining of the hostile and insulting tone so offensively 
 adopted toward Great Britain, her statesmen and her institutions. 
 These charges appeared to have been founded upon the proof of the 
 desire of various members of the British government for the success of 
 the insurgents in the south, taken from the mouths of the speakers and 
 presented to the tribunal as collateral evidence on the issue of " due dili- 
 gence," then pending before the conference. 
 
 Mr. Bancroft Davis, in his report to secretary Fish, says of this extra- 
 ordinary document of the lord chief justice of England : 
 
 " A complete vindication of the line of argument in the case (if any 
 were needed) could be drawn from Sir Alexander Cockburn's paper : 
 ' There can be no doubt,' he says, * that these speeches not only ex- 
 pressed the sentiments of the speakers, but may be taken to be the ex- 
 ponent of the sentiments generally entertained at that time ;' and he 
 adds : ' though partiality does not necessarily lead to want of diligence, 
 yet it is apt to do so, and in case of doubt would turn the scale.' With 
 such an admission as this, it is surprising that a man of the robust sense 
 of the chief-justice should have reproduced the rash imputations of the 
 British press." 
 
 The strangest circumstance connected with the action of the distin- 
 guished British jurist, who united in his proper person the functions o£' 
 91 
 
1442 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 an arbitrator, a special pleader, and a political partisan, is that his volu- 
 minous paper was not presented in time to be read by his associate ar- 
 bitrators. As if conscious that it would have drawn their unanimous 
 disapproval, he presented it in bulk without any statement respecting its 
 character. No one had any reason to imagine its contents, until it was 
 made public several days after the dissolution of the tribunal, and the 
 separation of its members. 
 
 In concluding this resume of the negotiations connected with the 
 Alabama claims, we cannot do better than to quote again from the oflEi- 
 cial report of Mr. Bancroft Davis. 
 
 " Thus surrounded by difficulties which at one time seemed insupera- 
 ble, this great cause has reached its conclusion. Nations have, ere now, 
 consented to adjust by arbitration questions of figures and questions of 
 boundaries ; but the world has had few, if any, earlier examples of the 
 voluntary submission to arbitration of a question in which a deep-seated 
 conviction of injuries and wrongs which no possible award could com- 
 pensate, animated a whole nation. It is out of such sentiments and feel- 
 ings that wars come. The United States elected the path of peace. 
 Confident of receiving justice, they laid the story of their wrongs before 
 an impartial tribunal. This story, so grievous in its simple truthfulness, 
 threatened for a time to break up the peaceful settlement Avhich the 
 parties had promised each other to make. Notwithstanding all obsta- 
 cles, however, the great experiment has been carried to a successful end ; 
 and hereafter it cannot be denied that questions involving national senti- 
 ment may be decided by arbitration, as well as questions of figures." 
 
 In the treaty of Washington it was provided that the emperor of 
 Germany should act as umpire in the case of the disputed north-western 
 boundary line. By the original treaty of June 15th, 1846, it was provided 
 that this line between the United States and the British possessions from 
 the point in the forty-ninth parallel of latitude up to which it had then 
 been ascertained, should be continued westward along the same parallel 
 to the middle of the channel separating the continent fron Vancouver's 
 Island, and thence southerly along the middle of said channel and of 
 Fuca Strait to the Pacific Ocean. The commissioners appointed by the 
 contracting parties to determine that part of the boundary running 
 through the channel, the representative of Great Britain claiming that 
 such line should run through Rosario Strait, and the United States com- 
 missioner claiming it should pass through the Haro Channel. The decis- 
 ion of the German emperor confirmed the claim of the United States. 
 
CHAPTER CXVI. 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, PARTIES, THEIR PLATFORMS, AND CANDI- 
 DATES. RE-ELECTION OF GENERAL GRANT. FINANCIAL MATTERS IN THE 
 
 YEAR 1872, THE LOUISIANA IMBROGLIO. CONTEST OF FACTIONS IN 
 
 NEW ORLEANS. RIVAL LEGISLATURES AND RIVAL GOVERNORS. 
 
 The 3^ear 1872 was marked by that quadrennial political excitement 
 which always accompanies a presidential campaign. The preparations 
 for the election of a president displayed their beginnings during the pre- 
 ceding year in various significant ways. It early became evident that 
 the presidential canvass of 1872 would be one of more than ordinary 
 excitement and activity. The vaiious questions on which congress had 
 passed its legislative decision, and the earnestness and acerbity of the 
 partisans who had debated the questions in congress, stirred up great 
 dissension in public sentiment. The somewhat radical course of the 
 administration in dealing with the various southern problems had re- 
 sulted in alienating many of the ablest republican statesmen, and, follow- 
 ing in their track, large masses of the people from their hitherto un- 
 swerving fidelity to party. This was specially noticeable in the senate, 
 where such brilliant lights of the old republican organization as Trum- 
 bull of Illinois, and Schurz of Missouri, voted almost uniformly with the 
 democratic minority. In the wake of these able leaders followed many 
 politicians of less note but of wide spread public influence, who made a 
 distinct issue with their party colleagues, and created a formidable 
 schism. The questions at issue within the ranks of the dominant party 
 were as much brought up for decision in the election, as the broader 
 differences which separated the republicans from the democrats. Many 
 diverse interests early appeared in the field, but these subsequently sub- 
 ordinated themselves to one or the other of the two great parties. 
 
 The first political convention of note was that of the labor reform 
 party, made up of delegates of twelve states, met at Columbus, Ohio, on 
 February 21st, 1872. This represented the growing element in national 
 politics, based on the claims of the laboring classes to be more distinctly 
 recognized in public measures, and their hopes to sway legislation into 
 an active protection of their assumed rights as against capital. Their 
 platform emphasized the duty of government to provide a national circu- 
 lating medium, independent of the intervention of banking corporations. 
 
1444 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 It urged that the national debt should be paid according to the original 
 contract, without mortgaging the property of the people and the earnings 
 of future labor. It condemned the exemption from taxation of govern- 
 ment bonds, and the importation of Chinese laborers. It asked for a 
 modification of the tariff, the adoption of the eight-hour-a-day system 
 of labor, and the exercise of governmental power over railroad and tele- 
 graph corporations for a reduction of rates. Universal amnesty was fa- 
 vored, and the restoration of all the states to the fullest equality, as also 
 a rectification of the patent laws and a practical application of the prin- 
 ciples of civil service reform. Judge David Davis, of the supreme court, 
 was nominated for president, and Joel Parker, of New Jersey, for vice- 
 president. Both of these gentlemen however declined, and at a subse- 
 quent convention of the delegates of the same party in Philadelphia, 
 Charles O'Conor, of New York, was nominated for president, the place 
 of vice-president being left vacant. 
 
 The colored national convention convened in New Orleans April 1 5th. 
 Delegates were present from fourteen states and Frederick Douglas of 
 Washington was appointed chairman. The platform adopted was for 
 the most part devoted to laudation of the republican party and of the 
 administration of General Grant. It appealed to the colored population 
 of the country to render unswerving allegiance to the party that had re- 
 deemed them out of the house of bondage, and impressed on them the 
 importance of only supporting those candidates for positions who had 
 shown themselves true to the interests of the colored race. 
 
 The movement in Missouri in 1S70, which consi&led in a fusion of a 
 wing of the republicans with the democrats, and the election of state of- 
 ficers on a liberal ticket, was maintained throughout 1871 in a series of 
 meetings and minor conventions. An immense mass-meeting, in the in- 
 terest of the movement, was held at Jefferson City, Mo., Jan. 24th, 1872, 
 and at this meeting nearly every county in the state was represented. 
 It issued a call for a national convention to be held in Cincinnati on the 
 first Monday of the following May. The convention declared its adhe- 
 sion to the union, emancipation, and equality of civil rights ; demanded 
 complete amnesty and equal suffrage for all ; a reform of the tariff, and 
 the removal of such duties as involved an increase in the price of do- 
 mestic products ; denounced the use of federal patronage for the control 
 of elections ; called for a thorough and genuine reform of the public 
 service ; rebuked the use of coercion to ratify a treaty, the packing of 
 the supreme court to relieve rich corporations ; the use of unconstitu- 
 tional laws to cure the ku-klux disorders ; and finally, con'uption in gen- 
 eral, and called for an uprising of honest citizens. 
 
 Following this up the central committee of Missouri democrats issued 
 
THE LIBERAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTION. 1445 
 
 an address recommending to their party a fusion policy ; in other word? 
 of making no nomination, but supporting the candidates of the disaf 
 fected repubUcans. These movements, while they elicited no response 
 from the democratic party at large, met with immediate sympathy from 
 republicans in the various parts of tne country, among whom were Hor- 
 ace Greelej^ and the Hon. Charles Francis Adams, then on his way to the 
 Geneva arbitration. The latter was spoken of as the probable candidate 
 of the convention. 
 
 On May 1st the liberal republican convention assembled at Cincinnati, 
 and was organized by the appointment of the Hon. Carl Schurz of Mis- 
 souri as permanent chairman. The platform, adopted by the convention, 
 after pledging fidelity to the result of the war and opposing any reopen- 
 ing of the questions settled by the last three amendments, demanded the 
 immediate removal of all disabilities imposed on account of the rebellion. 
 It demanded that the national policy should aim at local self-government 
 and not at centralization, that the civil authority should be supreme over 
 the militaiy, that the writ of habeas corpus should be jealously upheld ; 
 in few words that there should be no federal subversion of the internal 
 polity of the several states and municipalities. Civil service reform and 
 a judicious system of taxation were urged. The platform further de- 
 nounced repudiation in every form and guise, and asked for a speedy re- 
 turn to specie payments. Purposely this declaration of principles was 
 made simple, compact, and comprehensive, a common ground on which 
 both parties could meet. On the sixth ballot Horace Greeley, of New 
 York, received the majority of votes. Hon. B. Gratz Brown, of St. 
 Louis, Missouri, was then elected the candidate for vice-president. Both 
 of the candidates accepted their nominations in able and trenchant letters. 
 A passage in Mr. Greeley's speaks " of a new departure from jealousies, 
 strifes and hates, which have no longer adequate motive or even plausible 
 pretexts, into an atmosphere of peace, fraternity and mutual good will." 
 He proceeded to say further : " in vain do the drill sergeants of decaying 
 organizations flourish menacingly their truncheons and angrily insist that 
 the files shall be closed and straitened ; in vain do the whippers-in of 
 parties once vital, because rooted in the vital needs of the hour, protest 
 against straj'ing and bolting, denounce men nowise their inferiors as trai- 
 tors and renegades and threaten them with infamy and ruin." * * * 
 " I accept your nomination in the confident trust that the masses of our 
 countrymen north and south are eager to clasp hands across the bloody 
 chasm which has so long divided them, forgetting that they have been 
 enemies in the joyful consciousness that they are henceforth and must re- 
 main brethren." The nomination of Mr. Greeley was felt by many of the 
 liberal republicans to be an organic mistake in policy. Generally recog- 
 
1446 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 nized as an earnest, able, and good man, his vagaries of opinion during 
 his long experience as a journalist had left him open to the imputation 
 of being an enthusiast. It is true that in vital questions of politics the 
 New York Tribune (and Mr. Greeley was the Tribune in an essential 
 sense never before or since realized in the records of American journalism) 
 had always been consistent and logical in its advocacy of leading policies 
 and measures, but in other respects its columns had represented experi- 
 mental doctrines in a degree which rendered it liable not only to sharp 
 criticism but to bitter ridicule. Aside from this association of Mr. 
 Greeley's name with so many tentative theories in social and political 
 life, his whole career had stamped him as one of the most bitter and un- 
 sparing enemies of democratic doctrines. Not only had he been a life- 
 long enemy of slavery, but he had uniformly denounced democracy as 
 being in league with all the most dangerous and unsound elements in 
 politics. An extreme advocate of protection and high tariffs, his oppo- 
 sition to the doctrine of free trade had settled him as a person unfit to 
 be trusted in the new complications of parties which changed conditions 
 had brought about. His name, for these reasons, in spite of the fact 
 that he had been the strenuous advocate since the war of universal am- 
 nesty and generous treatment of the south, was extremely distasteful to 
 large masses of the democratic party. In spite therefore of some power- 
 ful arguments in favor of his selection it was felt by many of the liberal 
 republicans to be an unfortunate step. A meeting was held in Steinway 
 Hall, New York, on May 30th, composed of these disaffected persons, 
 among whom were Carl Schurz, William Cullen Bryant, and David A. 
 Wells. A series of resolutions was adopted and the following new nomi- 
 nations made : William P. Groesbeck, of Ohio, for president, and Fred- 
 erick L. Olmstead, of New York, for vice-president. During the excite- 
 ment of the canvass it is unnecessary to say that this ticket was almost 
 'forgotten. 
 
 The regular republican convention met on June 5th in Philadelphia, 
 and was organized by the appointment of Thomas Settle of North Carolina 
 as permanent chairman. The following is a digest of the resolutions 
 adox>ted as the platform of the party : The first spoke of the grand work 
 of the republican party in suppressing the gigantic rebellion, emancipa- 
 ting four millions of slaves, and establishing universal suffrage. Unpar- 
 alleled magnanimity had been shown in not punishing any man for 
 political offenses, while the I'esults of the disorders of a great war had 
 been steadily decreased with a firm hand. Generous aid had been given 
 to the Pacific railroad and similar vast enterprises, a uniform national 
 currency had been provided ; repudiation frowned down ; the national 
 credit sustained under o-reat burdens, and new bonds nea:otiated at lower 
 
DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CONVENTIONS. 1447 
 
 rates. The public debt had been reduced at the rate of $100,000,000 
 per annum, and peace and plenty prevailed throughout the land. Men- 
 acing foreign difficulties had been peacefully settled and the honora- 
 ble name of the nation kept in high respect throughout the world. 
 This glorious record of the past was the party's best pledge for the 
 future. It was hoped that the government would never be entrusted to 
 any combination of men made up of those who had resisted every step 
 of this beneficent progress. The platform insisted on the most complete 
 equality in the enjoyment of civil, political, and public rights ; that the 
 recent amendments to the constitution should not merely be tolerated 
 because they were law, but earnestly enforced by appropriate legislation. 
 Civil service reform and a reduction of taxation were favored. It was 
 insisted also that congress and the president had fulfilled an imperative 
 duty in their measures to suppress violent and treasonable organizations 
 in the lately rebellious regions. Repudiation of the public debt in any 
 form was denounced, aud the early resumption of specie payment looked 
 forward to. President Grant was renominated by acclamation, and the 
 Hon. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts received the majority of votes on 
 the first ballot, both of whom accepted the nomination. 
 
 The regular democratic convention assembled in Baltimore on July 
 6th and the Hon. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin was appointed per- 
 manent chairman. The committee on resolutions reported a platform 
 essentialh' the same as that of the liberal republicans except that it used 
 more emphatic and outspoken phraseology. In its last clause it invited 
 the co-operation of all patriotic citizens, without regard to previous af- 
 filiations. As a result of the deliberations of the convention, Horace 
 Greeley was nominated president, and B. Gratz Brown vice-president. 
 In his informal letter of acceptance Mr. Greeley expressed the hope that 
 an opportunity would be afforded him to show that the democratic party 
 was not less, but more democratic, in having selected him as their candi- 
 date ; while he himself was no less a republican than before. In his 
 more formal letter nearly a month later he enlarged on this somewhat 
 enigmatic sentence in the following words : 
 
 " But, that your convention saw fit, in adopting the Cincinnati ticket, 
 to reaffirm the Cincinnati platform, is to me a source of the profoundest 
 satisfaction. That body was constrained to take this important step by 
 no party necessity, real or supposed. It might have accepted the candi- 
 dates of the liberal republicans upon grounds entirely its own, or it 
 might have presented them (as the first whig national convention did 
 Harrison and Tyler) without adopting any platform whatever. That it 
 chose to plant itself deliberately, by a vote nearly unanimous, upon the 
 fullest and clearest enunciation of principles which are at once incontest- 
 
1448 THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ibly republican and emphatically democratic, gives trustworthy assur- 
 ance that a new and more auspicious era is dawning upon our long- 
 distracted country. 
 
 Gentlemen, your platform, which is also mine, assures me that democ- 
 racy is not henceforth to stand for one thing and republicanism for 
 another, but that those terms are to mean in politics, as they always have 
 meant in the dictionary, substantially one and the same thing — namely, 
 equal rights regardless of creed, or clime, or color. I hail this a's a gen- 
 uine new departure from out-worn feuds and meaningless contentions, in 
 the direction of progress and reform." 
 
 Many of the more extreme democrats profoundly dissatisfied with the 
 nomination of a candidate, who, however available on the score of ap- 
 parent policy, had yet been the most bitter and life-long foe of demo- 
 cratic principles, called a convention which met at Louisville on Septem- 
 ber 3d. This convention adopted a platform repudiating the fusion of 
 their more liberal brethren with the republican minority under the ban- 
 ner of Mr. Greeley, and affirmed the principle of state rights in its 
 straightest, severest form. The candidates nominated were Charles 
 O'Conor of New York, and John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts. 
 Both of these gentlemen, however, refused to serve, though a small num- 
 ber of votes was given to the ticket throughout the country. Several 
 other conventions were held, among which were a liberal colored con- 
 vention indorsing Mr. Greeley's nomination ; a woman's rights conven- 
 tion ; and a convention to urge a religions amendment to the constitu- 
 tion by which God should be immediately recognized in the organic 
 law. 
 
 The election for president and vice-president took place on November 
 6th with the following result as compared with the two previous elec- 
 tions : Lincoln's majority over McClellan 407,342 ; Grant's over Sey- 
 mour, 805,458 ; Grant's over Greeley, 762,991. Among the notable 
 events of this year, reference to which has already been made in the 
 digest of congressional proceedings, was the act of congress passed in 
 May, removing all political disabilities imposed by the fourteenth amend- 
 ment, except in certain specified cases. One hundred aud fifty thousand 
 people, including those persons in the south of the most capacity and ex- 
 perience in public affairs, were relieved by this long delayed act of just 
 and sound policy, Between three and five hundred of those formerly 
 conspicuous in southern political life were however excepted. The pas- . 
 sage of the act quashed a great number of cases pending in the supreme 
 court of the United States, being suits against persons holding office 
 contrary to the provision of the constitution. 
 
 Among the interesting questions involving points of constitutional law, 
 
FINANCIAL MATTERS. 1449 
 
 was a decision in the supreme court of the United States confirming the 
 validity of slave contracts entered into before the emancipation procla- 
 mation. In the case referred to (Osborn vs. Nicholson) there was a war- 
 rantee that the slave was sound and that he was a slave for life. The 
 court held that the contract, being valid when made, was enf orcible in 
 the courts and that the emancipation of the slave, in virtue of the sov- 
 ereign power of the state, did not invalidate the contract. In another 
 case which came up by writ of error from the state courts of Georgia, 
 there was an action on a promissory note given for the purchase money 
 of a slave. The defense made the point that the new constitution of 
 Georgia refused to recognize any cases involving the validity of a slave 
 contract. The supreme court of the United States made a very important 
 decision on three points : 1. That the states in rebellion were never out 
 of the union, and were never absolved from the prohibition in the con- 
 stitution of the United States against passing any law impairing the ob- 
 ligation of contracts ; 2. That as the constitution of Georgia took away 
 the remedy upon the contract, it did not only simply deny jurisdiction 
 of her courts to enforce it but annihilated the contract also, and was 
 therefore in this regard repugnant to the constitution of the United 
 States ; 3. That the constitution of Georgia was nol the act of congress 
 directly or indirectly, (as was claimed) but the act of the people of 
 Georgia, and that therefore it came within the prohibition contained in 
 the United States constitution. This decision settled a number of im- 
 portant cases then pending, and established a precedent for the decision 
 of points likely to arise under the new conditions of the reconstructed 
 states. 
 
 During the year 1872 there was but little change in the financial policy 
 of the country. Although there was a reduction in the rates of taxation, 
 there was a steady decrease in the principal of the public debt and many 
 portions of it were funded at a lower rate of interest. So large were 
 the monetary operations of the government that nearly fourteen hundred 
 persons were engaged at Washington in handling its coin and securities. 
 Two hundred millions in five per cent bonds were negotiated, and two 
 hundred millions in six per cent five-twenty bonds were redeemed. The 
 receipts of the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1872, were a little over four 
 hundred and eighty-four millions, the expenditures a little over three 
 hundred and seventy-seven millions. The reduction of the public debt 
 from March 1st, 1869, to March 1st, 1872, was $363,697,000. 
 
 The secretary of the treasury in his report advocated a paper currency 
 composed in part of United States notes and in part of national bank 
 notes. In his argument he says : 
 
 " In the view I am now to take, I exclude the idea that the govern- 
 
1450 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ment will ever abandon tlie issue of national bank notes, and undertake 
 the issue of United States notes in their place. The result of such a 
 policy may be foreseen. The people, deprived of the facilities for busi- 
 ness afforded by banks, would seek relief through state institutions, and 
 "without much delay congress would concede to them the right to issue 
 notes for circulation. This concession would be followed by a surren- 
 der by the general government of all control over the paper circulation 
 of the country. The true policy will be found in continuing the na- 
 tional banking system, without, however, yielding to the claim for a ma- 
 terial increase of its issues in proportion to the volume of paper in cir- 
 culation. There are two effectual and certain ways of placing the 
 country in a condition when specie and paper will possess the same 
 commercial value. By diminishing the amount of paper in circulation 
 the difference between the commercial value of paper and coin will 
 diminish, and by pursuing this policy the difference will disappear alto- 
 gether. All legislation limited in its operation to the paper issues of the 
 banks and of the government, whether bearing interest or not, and 
 which, in its effects, shall tend to diminish the market value of coin, will 
 be found, upon analysis, to contain a plan for contracting the volume of 
 paper currency ; and all legislation so limited, which does not contain 
 such a plan, will prove ineffectual. Accepting this proposition, and be- 
 lieving that the country is not prepared to sustain the policy of contrac- 
 tion, it only remains for me to consider the means by which the value of 
 our currency must be improved. The basis of a policy of improvement 
 must be found in a sturdy refusal to add to the paper in circulation un- 
 til it is of the same value substantially as coin. This being accepted as 
 the settled purpose of the country, there can be no permanent increase 
 of the difference between paper and coin, and an opportunity will be 
 given for the influence of natural causes, tending, upon the whole, to a 
 better financial condition. We may count first among these the increase 
 of population and its distribution over new fields of business and labor ; 
 secondly, in the south especially, the number of persons having property, 
 and using and holding money, will increase ; next, we may anticipate a 
 more general use of paper in Texas and the Pacific states, by which, 
 practically, for the rest of the country, the volume of paper will be 
 diminished, and the quantity of coin increased — two facts tending to 
 produce an equality of value. The influence of these natural causes will 
 be counteracted in some degree by the increasing facility for the transfer 
 of money from one point to another, and by the greater use of bank 
 checks and certificates of deposit. The rapid transit of merchandise, in 
 bringing the period of its consumption nearer to the time of its production, 
 is an agency of a similar sort, giving to these views their full weight." 
 
AFFAIRS IN LOUISIANA. 1451 
 
 It was during this year that the condition of public affairs in Louis- 
 iana loomed up into that importance in connection with national politics 
 that they did not cease to occupy during the next four years. Perhaps 
 none of the southern state governments was so cursed with internecine 
 feuds and maladministration. The contest between the wings of the 
 republican party was no less bitter than that between the so-called 
 carpet-bag interest, and the white democrats of the state. Of course the 
 latter named conflict characterized the politics of nearly if not all the 
 reconstructed states, but in Louisiana it was complicated by peculiar 
 elements of bitterness and difficulty. The republican camp was divided 
 up into sections which hated each other, not less than they hated the 
 common enemy. It was only when the instincts of self-preservation 
 compelled them to show a united front, that they forgot the animosities 
 engendered by an eager rapacity for the spoils of politics. So largely did 
 Louisiana affairs enter into the general problem of national politics sub- 
 sequent to the year 1872, that it would be difficult to clearly understand 
 all the complications to come without a brief sketch of what transpired 
 at this time in the state. 
 
 In 1871 there was a bitter contest for supremacy in the republican 
 party between the governor, Henry C. Warmouth, and lieutenant-governor 
 Dunn. Each charged the other with fraud and malversation of office, 
 and their partisans were still more emphatic in their mutual denuncia- 
 tions. It is a well-known fact that the public debt of Louisiana had 
 been immensely increased without any rational cause therefor ; and the ex- 
 penses of each succeeding legislature augmented at such a ratio as to 
 alarm the prudent and disgust the honest. The election of a United 
 States senator, then pending, resulted in the success of General West, 
 known as Warmouth's candidate. The governor, in his message to the 
 legislature of 1872, commented on the extravagant expenses of the legis- 
 lature of the preceding year, and recommended a careful auditing of the 
 accounts and an examination into the abuses which everywhere flour- 
 ished so vigorously. The radical corruption of Louisiana politics may 
 be imagined when it is stated that the expense of the legislature of 1871 
 was $5,300 for each senator, and $7,300 for each member of the house, 
 or an average of $118.50 per day for each member during the session. 
 An injunction was granted on an application from governor Warmouth, 
 restraining the state auditor from paying outstanding warrants. The 
 examination entered into revealed the fact that no form of rascality had 
 been neglected to swell the spoils of the legislators. Forgeries and il- 
 legal warrants were found at every hand. Although the facts developed 
 were so heinous, it was deemed judicious to smooth them over gently, 
 and no specific charges of fraudulent transactions were brought against 
 
1462 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 any one. The war of factions continued during nearly the whole of the 
 year, resulting in one instance in such danger of mob law taking the 
 place of order, that it amounted to an incipient insurrection. Three 
 companies of United States infantry with two Gatling guns were neces- 
 sary to restore the reign of law. Rival conventions defied each other 
 from adjoining buildings, each claiming to be the proper representative 
 of the republican organization. In this conflict the gubernatorial party 
 was almost uniformly opposed by the federal office-holders, who had the 
 ear of the Washington authorities. The death of lieutenant-governor 
 Dunn, and a new election by the senate at a special session, resulted in 
 the choice of P. B. S. Pinchback, the Warmouth candidate. The rage 
 of factions was renewed with increased bitterness at the assembling of 
 the legislature in 1872. The Warmouthites were fixed in their purpose 
 to oust speaker Carter from his position at the head of the house, and 
 to drive his adherents from power; and the opposition faction, known 
 as the Carterites, were no less determined to control the legislature and 
 cause the downfall of governor Warmouth and his followers. While 
 this contest was going on, the halls of the legislature were filled with 
 armed metropolitan police, called into special service by the governor, 
 and the street outside swarmed with an armed and excited crowd. 
 Without going into the details of this disgraceful state of affairs, which 
 threatened at any moment to fill the streets of New Orleans with riot 
 and bloodshed, a reference to the report of the congressional committee 
 will be sufficient to give a clear insight into the questions involved and 
 the causes lying at the bottom. 
 
 This committee continued their sessions about a fortnight and ex- 
 amined upwards of fifty witnesses. Mr. Schofield, the chairman, and 
 Mr. McCrary gave a circumstantial account of the difficulties, stating 
 that the contest was simply between the friends and opponents of the 
 administration of governor Warmouth, and denying that the federal 
 office-holders were as a body opponents of the governor. It was stated 
 that both the federal officials and the democratic leaders participated 
 sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other, as interest seemed to 
 require. 
 
 Mr. Smith, the other republican member of the committee, concurred 
 in this, qualifying it with the admission that many of the Louisiana of- 
 fice-holders were unscrupulous and desperate men. Mr. Spear and Mr. 
 Archer, the democratic minority on the committee, said that the politi- 
 cal rascals and adventurers in Louisiana had quarreled among them- 
 selves, and that there could be no relief until the interests of the state 
 were placed in honest hands. They commented on the infamous laws 
 which placed imperial powers in the governor. These powers had been 
 
THE LOUISIAfTA IMBROGLIO, 1453 
 
 used with the most rapacious and reckless disregard of decency. The 
 world had rarely known a legislature so rank with ignorance and corrup- 
 tion. In reference to governor Warmouth it was stated, that with an 
 annual salary of $8,000, he had accumulated in four years a property of 
 from $500,000 to $1,000,000. 
 
 During the year a new election for governor and members of the legis- 
 lature was held. Two returning boards, one in the interest of governor 
 Warmouth and the other representing the opposition factionists, pre- 
 sented the spectacle to the country of the election of dual legislatures 
 and governors. 
 
 By the returns, as canvassed and published by the " Lynch " returning 
 board, the Grant and Wilson electors received a majority, William Pitt 
 Kellogg as governor, and the other straight republican candidates for 
 the state offices were declared elected. This board counted the ballots 
 attached to the affidavits of thousands of colored iT>en who claimed them- 
 selves to have been wrongfully prevented from voting. According to 
 the returns as canvassed by the Warmouth board, the Greeley electors 
 received a majority, and John McEnery was declared to be the governor, 
 while the candidates for state offices and the legislature in the same in- 
 terest were also recognized. Both parties sent representatives to Wash- 
 ington asking for recognition, but the federal authorities declined to in- 
 terfere. The Lynch or custom-house legislature, as it was called, was 
 organized on Dec. 9th, 1872. Lieutenant-governor Pinchback in the 
 chair of the senate declared that Governor Warmouth had offered him 
 $50,000 to agree to certain proposed arrangerhents. Thereupon resolu- 
 tions were adopted for impeaching governor Warmouth of high crimes 
 .and misdemeanors, and suspending him from office during his trial. 
 Lieutenant-governor Pinchback assumed the office of governor, although 
 an injunction was placed on him by Judge Elmore at Warmoutb's ap- 
 plication, A despatch from United States attorney-general Williams 
 assured Pinchback that he was recognized by the president as the lawful 
 executive, A few days afterwards the opposition legislature met and a 
 message from governor Warmouth was submitted, claiming that the 
 election in November was honestly and fairly held. He also issued a 
 proclamation, warning all good citizens from recognizing the fraudulent 
 assemblage known as the "Lynch" legislature, or the person who claimed 
 to act as governor by virtue of the pretended impeachment. Articles of 
 impeachment were drawn up and preferred against governor Warmouth 
 in the Lynch legislature,.but the trial was postponed. An armed collision 
 in the streets, growing out of the conflict of authority between War- 
 mouth and Pinchback, was threatened. Pinchback removed General 
 Campbell from the command of the state militia, but the militia would 
 
1454 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 not recognize the appointment of General Longstreet On their refusing 
 to surrender their arms, the metropolitan police were ordered to compel 
 them by force, but the officers of the militia finally consented to sur- 
 render to a United States officer. Meanwhile the appeal for interference 
 by the federal government was renewed. At a public mass-meeting held 
 on December 10th, a memorial was drawn up to be presented to the 
 president and congress, containing a statement of the facts from a War- 
 month point of view. This memorial closed with an appeal to the presi- 
 dent and congress not to sanction the infamous proceedings which had 
 prevented the legal legislature from assembling, by the injunction of the 
 United States court and the threatened interposition of the federal 
 soldiers. The memorial expressed the belief that when all the facts and 
 testimony were examined the president would not tolerate the perversion 
 of federal authority, by means of which the conspirators had succeeded 
 in their designs. John McEnery, who claimed to have been elected 
 governor, at once telegraphed to the president asking him to delay the 
 recognition of either legislature until the committee of one hundred, ap- 
 pointed by the president of the before mentioned mass meeting, could 
 present the whole matter to the government at Washington. In spite of 
 a dispatch from attorney-general Williams saying that the visit would be 
 unavailing, forty-five members of the committee proceeded to Washing- 
 ton. In his interview with them the president again declined to inter- 
 fere. After an unavailing effort to have one of the supreme court jus- 
 tices assigned to the circuit court of New Orleans to pass on the ques- 
 tions before it, the committee issued an address to the people of the 
 United States asking for an equitable judgment an the conduct of the 
 parties to the contest. Thus the matter stood at the end of the year. 
 Henry C. Warmouth claimed to be governor in virtue of the non-expira- 
 tion of his term, denying the legality of the legislature which had sus- 
 pended him. Pinchback claimed to be governor as having been presi- 
 dent of the senate when Warmouth was impeached. The " Lynch " or 
 custom-house legislature, was in session passing acts which were signed 
 by Pinchback as governor. The Warmouth legislature on the other 
 hand had adjourned, but proposed to meet in January for a regular ses- 
 sion. Kellogg and McEnery both asserted their claims to be governor 
 for the new term. Various suits were pending in the state and the fed- 
 eral circuit courts, and the contest was to come up in congress early in 
 1873 on the questions of contending claimants for seats. It may be 
 mentioned although it anticipates the action of congress that the electoral 
 vote of Louisiana was thrown out when the count was made in joint 
 convention of the two houses of congress and that a new election was 
 recommended by the committee on privileges and elections. 
 
CHAPTER CXVTT. 
 
 PBESICENT's message. CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. DEBATE ON INCREASE OF 
 
 SALARIES. PASSAGE OF THE APPROPRIATION BILL. SUPPLEMENTARY 
 
 BILL ON THE CURRENCY. DEBATE BY SENATORS THURMAN, SHERMAN, 
 
 BAYARD, MORTON, ETC. 
 
 The third session of the forty-second congress commenced on Decem- 
 ber 2d, 1872, Schuyler Colfax the vice-president in the chair of the sen- 
 ate and the Hon. James G. Blaine in that of the house. The president's 
 message was received and read. It commenced with reference to the 
 happy conclusion of the Geneva arbitration and the president proceeded 
 to recommend an early provision for the distribution of the award, 
 among those entitled to it, by the creation of a board of commissioners 
 to sit on the claims. The country was also congratulated on the decis- 
 ion of the emperor of Germany in favor of the United States as regards 
 the north-western boundary line. With regard to the Cuba insurrection 
 the message said : 
 
 " It is with regret that I have again to announce a continuance of the 
 disturbed condition of the island of Cuba. No advance toward the 
 pacification of the discontented part of the population has been made. 
 While the insurrection has gained no advantages, and exhibits no more 
 of the elements of power or of the prospects of ultimate success than 
 were exhibited a year ago, Spain, on the other hand, has not succeeded 
 in its repression, and the parties stand apparently in the same relative 
 attitude which they have occupied for a long time past. 
 
 " This contest has lasted now for more than four years. Were its 
 scene at a distance from our neighborhood, we might be indifferent to 
 its result, although humanity could not be unmoved by many of its in- 
 cidents wherever they might occur. It is, however, at our door. 
 
 " I cannot doubt that the continued maintenance of slavery in Cuba 
 is among the strongest inducements to the continuance of this strife. A 
 terrible wrong is the natural cause of a terrible evil. The abolition of 
 slavery, and the introduction of other reforms in the administration of 
 government in Cuba, could not fail to advance the restoration of peace 
 and order. It is greatly to be hoped that the present liberal government 
 of Spain will voluntarily adopt this view. 
 
 "The law of emancipation, which was passed more than two years 
 
1456 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 since, tas remained unexecuted in the absence of regulations for its en- 
 forcement. It was but a feeble step towai'd emancipation ; but it was 
 the recognition of right, and was hailed as such, and exhibited Spain in 
 harmony with sentiments of humanity and of justice, and in sympathy 
 with the other powers of the Christian and civilized world. 
 
 " Within the past few weeks the regulations for carrying out the law 
 of emancipation have been announced, giving evidence of the sincerity 
 of intention of the present government to carry into effect the law of 
 1870. I have not failed to urge the consideration of the wisdom, the 
 policy, and the justice of a more efffictive system for the abolition of the 
 great evil which oppresses a race, and continues a bloody and destructive 
 contest close to our border, as well as the expediency and justice of con- 
 ceding reforms of which the propriety is not questioned." Reference 
 was made to the fact that there were many Americans in Cuba who 
 were holders and dealers in slave property, which was to be deprecated. 
 He recommended such legislation as would tend to prevent this disgrace 
 to our nationality. It was a matter of congratulation that pei'fect amity 
 and cordial feeling existed between the United States and different for- 
 eign countries. Brief reference was made to the question of the fish- 
 eries; ratifications of the treaties with the German and Austro -Hungarian 
 empires, and also with Sweden and Norway. The message was unusu- 
 ally short and contained few matters of special import. 
 
 In the senate on the same day Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts in- 
 troduced a bill to regulate the army register and the regimental coloi's of 
 the United States. This bill proposed to erase the memory of the civil 
 war so far as possible, by discontinuing the names of the battles of the 
 late strife in the army register and in the regimental colors of the 
 United States. The bill was ordered to be printed. In the house on 
 the same day a resolution was offered by Mr. Blaine (Rep.) of Maine, 
 that a special committee of five members should be appointed to investi- 
 gate whether any member of the house had been bribed by Oakes Ames 
 for the benefit of the Union Pacific railway by presents of stock in 
 the Credit Mobilier. The resolution was passed and the following ap- 
 pointed on the committee : Luke P. Poland of Vermont, Nathaniel P. 
 Banks of Massachusetts, William M. Merrick of Maryland, William E. 
 Niblack of Indiana, and George W. McCrary of Iowa. Resolutions 
 were also passed at the instance of Mr. Dawes of Massachusetts offering 
 the condolence of congress to the family of Horace Greeley, who had 
 recently died under circumstances of pecuUar sadness. 
 
 In the house on December 9th, the bill supplemental to an act entitled 
 " An act to protect all citizens of the United States in their civil rights 
 and to furnish meiins for their vindication," passed April 9th, 1866, was 
 
SALARIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS. 1457 
 
 read. A motion of Mr. Eldredge to lay it on the table was not agreed 
 to. This bill proxnded that no citizen of the United States should by 
 reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude be excluded from 
 the full enjoyment of all accommodations and privileges furnished by 
 innkeepers; by common carriers whether on land or water; by managers 
 and lessees of theatres ; by trustees, commissioners, superintendents, or 
 other officers of schools and other institutions of learning supported 
 by general taxation ; or by the officers of benevolent institutions incorpo 
 rated by public authority. Private institutions maintained by voluntary 
 contributions were excepted. It was also provided that no citizen pos- 
 sessing the other qualifications prescribed by law should be disqualified 
 as juror by reason of race or color. The bill provided for penalties in 
 case of violation of its provisions. It was referred to the committee on 
 the revision of Laws of the United States. 
 
 In the senate on January 22d, the bill to abolish the franking privi- 
 lege was taken up. This bill proposed to abolish the franking priv- 
 ilege from the first day of July, 1873, and declared that thenceforth all 
 official correspondence of whatever nature, and other mailable matter 
 sent from or addressed to any officer of the government, or person au- 
 thorized to frank matter, should be chargeable with regular rates of post- 
 age. In the case of government departments certain specific stamps 
 were ordered to be used, the amount to be charged to the departments. 
 This was amended by striking out the latter provision and the bill was 
 passed. It was also passed in the house on January 22d with the 
 senate's amendment. 
 
 On February 12th congress in joint convention met to count the elec- 
 toral vote for president and vice-president, giving official sanction to the 
 results. 
 
 In the house on February 24th the appropriation bill being under con- 
 sideration, Mr. Butler (Rep.) of Massachusetts moved to amend the 
 amendment reported from the committee of the whole and to substitute 
 for it the following : 
 
 "That on and after the 4th day of March, a. d. 1873, the president 
 of the United States shall receive for his services during the terra for 
 which he shall have been elected the sum of $50,000 per annum in full 
 for his services, to be paid quarterly at the treasury ; the vice-president 
 of the United States shall also receive for his services during the term 
 for which he shall have been elected the sum of $10,000 per annum in 
 full for his services, to be paid quarterly at the treasury ; and the chief- 
 justice of the supreme court of the United States shall receive the sum 
 of $10,500 per annum, and the justices of the supreme court of the United 
 States shall receive the sum of $10,000 per annum each, to be paid 
 92 
 
1458 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 quarterly at the treasury ; the secretary of state, the secretary of the 
 treasury, the secretary of war, the secretary of the navy, the secretary of 
 the interior, the attorney-general, and the postmaster-general, shall re- 
 ceive $10,000 per annum each for their services; and each assistant 
 secretary of the treasury, state, and interior departments shall receive as 
 annual compensation, to be paid quarterly, $6,500 ; and the speaker of 
 the house of representatives shall receive compensation at the rate of 
 $10,000 per annum, and senators and representatives in congress and 
 delegates from the territories admitted to a seat in congress, including 
 senators, representatives, and delegates in the forty-second congress shall 
 receive compensation at the rate of $7,500 per annum each, and in lieu 
 of mileage there shall be allowed to each senator, representative, and 
 delegate, including those of the forty-second congress, his actual ex- 
 penses from his place of residence to Washington city, at the com- 
 mencement of each session of congress, and return, to be cei'tified in a 
 bill of items, to be filed as a voucher; and the sum of $1,200,000, or so 
 much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated therefor. 
 
 Mr. Butler said that $50,000 was a no larger sum in purchasing power 
 at the present time than half the amount fifty years ago. It had been 
 stamped as an outrage that the present congress should raise their own 
 salary. He would state that every increase of salary on the part of con- 
 gress since the government existed, had always included the two houses 
 in which the increase was made. Mr. Burchard, (Rep.) of Illinois, urged 
 an argument against tlie proposed increase. He did not think that the 
 depreciation of the currency and its smaller purchasing power should 
 have anything to do with the matter. With the appropriation of in- 
 creased millions, congress would find that the treasury would fall short 
 and there would be no surplus to apply to the reduction of the public 
 debt. The c<mstitution itself prohibited the increase of the president's 
 salaiy in the section which stated that his compensation should neither 
 be increased or diminished during the period for which he should be 
 elected. He opposed the amendment on the ground of its raising the 
 eotnpensation of those who needed it the least. He also objected be- 
 cause he thought it utterly impossible to raise the additional money pro- 
 posed. During the last quarter of the fiscal year the treasury had been 
 running behind and the public debt was being increased, yet with this 
 excess of expenditures over receipts, as compared with the last year, of 
 some $27,000,000, it was proposed to increase the salaries of members 
 of congress, while the salaries of those on whose integrity and fidelity 
 the whole revenue service of the country depended were left unchanged. 
 Mr. Butler argued in reply that the amendment proposed by him cut oS 
 the mileage and substituted a just method of paying the acjtual expenses 
 
SALARIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS. 1459 
 
 of tnembers. He reasoned that in raising the salaries to $7,500 a year 
 the expenses of succeeding congresses would be reduced some $300,000. 
 Without going into any exact calculation of the amount saved by the 
 amendment, it only increased the amount provided for by the appropria- 
 tion bill about $1,200,000. Mr. Hawley, (Rep.) of Connecticut, believed 
 that the republican party was digging its own grave in supporting this 
 proposition. The other party had already had its grave dug and the re- 
 publicans wanted to lie side by side with them. He did not think it 
 consistent that the ardent advocates of economy should so soon after the 
 election put five or six thousand dollars in their pockets which they had 
 not dreamed of a few weeks before. Nothing but parliamentary eti- 
 quette restrained him from characterizing this proposition as it deserved. 
 If salaries were to be increased it should take effect after the adjourn- 
 ment of the present congress. Mr. Randall, (Dem.) of Pennsylvania, 
 was in favor of the increase on the ground that it put members of con 
 gress beyond temptation by giving them an adequate salary. He be- 
 lieved he earned the money, and if his constitutents were not willing to 
 pay him what he earned he wished they would find some other repre- 
 sentative. Mr. Whitthorue, (Dem.) of Tennessee, said that in the pres- 
 ent financial condition of the country, it was a duty to decrease public 
 expenditures instead of adding to them. While he favored giving re- 
 lief to those whose pay was inadequate, he could not support such a 
 proposition as this. Mr. Butler said that he would suggest a remedy to 
 those gentlemen opposed to an increase of salary, they could come up 
 and sign a pledge not to take it. He did not believe that a man should 
 come to congress and live in a third story backroom, but that he should 
 receive enough compensation to live reputably as a member of the na- 
 tional legislature, and that could not be done on less than $7,500. He 
 knew that the people of the nation were not half so much troubled about 
 the salai'ies paid, as about what their representatives did. The question 
 recurred on Mr. Butler's amendment, and it was agreed to. Several 
 amendments were also proposed providing for an increase of salary for 
 the minor officials of the house, which were also agreed to. 
 
 In the senate, on March 1st, the appropriation bill was considered 
 with the house amendments. These amendments were disagreed to and 
 a committee of conference appointed in the house of which Mr. Garfield, 
 (Rep.) of Ohio, was chairman. _ The latter, on presenting his report, 
 made the following explanation of its leading points : The amendment 
 known as the Butler amendment had been agreed to by the senate, ex- 
 cept the provision in reference to the salaries of members of congress. 
 The upper house had voted directly on the provision to strike out the 
 latter clause, and refused to do so. The senate conferees were unani- 
 
1460 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 mous in fixing the salary at $7,500 and cutting off all extra allowances 
 except individual traveling expenses to and from Washington once dur- 
 ing the session. He himself had been opposed to the increase from 
 $6,500, as first proposed in the appropriation bill, but had yielded his 
 opinion in deference to that of the other conferees. The increase of 
 salaries would involve additional annual expenditure to the amount of 
 three-quarters of a million ; for the present congress about a million and 
 a quarter. After some sharp debate the report of the conference com- 
 mittee was accepted. In the debate on the conference report in the 
 senate, a resolution by Mr. Wright, of Iowa, to recommit the report 
 without instructions being pending, Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, said 
 the proposition was either right or wrong. If right it was just that the 
 present congress, so soon to expire, should receive back-pay due under 
 its provisions. There was no constitutional objection, and all the pre- 
 cedents favored the congress actually making the increase being included 
 in its benefit. The resolution of recommittal was negatived, and the 
 question being taken on the report of the committee of conference, it 
 was concurred in. 
 
 In the senate on February 3d, the bill supplementary to an act en- 
 titled, "An act to provide a national currency, secured by a pledge of 
 United States bonds, and to provide for the circulation and redemption 
 thereof," approved June 3d, 1864, and to secure an elastic currency, to 
 appreciate national obligations and to reach specie payments without 
 commercial embaj'rassment, was considered. Mr. Thurman of Ohio 
 opened the debate. He said the bill contemplated a resumption of 
 specie payments on the first of January, 1874, because it provided that 
 the United States were to pay coin at that date on legal-tender notes, 
 and that the banks must redeem either in coin or in United States legal 
 tenders. Thus legal-tenders would be made par with specie. He feared 
 it was too radical a measure, and that either a large number of banks 
 would be crushed, or that the government would have to either relax or 
 rescind its action to relieve the stress. If this was not a bill to resume 
 specie-payments at the date fixed, then it was simply a bill to convert 
 greenbacks into interest-bearing bonds. He did not think the country 
 was prepared to convert the $400,000,000 of greenbacks. There would 
 be no end of the public debt, if this process of paying out greenbacks 
 and reconverting them into bonds was to go on from time to time at 
 the pleasure of the secretary of the treasury. Mr. Sherman of Ohio ex- 
 plained that the greenbacks could be paid out for the extinguishment, 
 purchase, and payment of the public debt or for the payment of govern- 
 mental expenses. There was a sufficient revenue of gold and paper 
 money, the currency revenue not being enough to pay public expenses, 
 
DEBATE ON THE CURRENCY. 146] 
 
 while the gold revenue was in excess of the demands upon the treasury. 
 The money received for these bonds would only be used for the purpose 
 of extinguishing the public debt or for meeting the ordinary expenses. 
 To that extent it would relieve the revenues of the government. Mr. 
 Thurman said that within a short time, there had been a reissue, be- 
 cause there had been a tight money market. There was no knowing 
 what pretext might be used, nor was it certain that the revenue would 
 be sufficient to meet expenses, especially if money was as recklessly ap- 
 propriated as some senators favored. 
 
 He supposed that the effect would be, that the secretary of the treas- 
 ury, finding himself unable to pay specie, would convert all the green- 
 backs into interest-bearing bonds. There was no reason for such a step 
 as this. The paper of a national bank was as much a forced loan as a 
 greenback. The consequence of making the currency of the country con- 
 sist of the notes of private institutions called banks, was simply to en- 
 able them to loan their own credit without paying interest on it. 
 Greenbacks, both in the estimate of the people and the law, were the 
 best money, and it was bad financiering — to retire all the greenbacks to 
 make room for just an equivalent amount of the notes o fprivate indi- 
 viduals, on which they drew interest, though they were debts. He could 
 not see any thing of substance in the bill, except two things : one to en- 
 able the holders of greenbacks to convert them into interest-bearing 
 bonds ; and the next was, it enlarged the bank-currency of the country 
 and enabled more national banks to be set up. He did not think it . 
 was very likely to result in returns of specie payments, because a reissue 
 of greenbacks could be made at any time. There was just as much in- 
 flation, too, possible by means of the national banks. The public cry 
 for more money would cause congress to authorize the banks to issue 
 more currency as easy as it would provide for the issuing of more green- 
 backs. He did not believe in this bill as conducing to specie payments. 
 A national bank could redeem either in gold or in greenbacks. Thus 
 congress had made greenbacks better than bank-note currency and pro- 
 vided for maintaining a greenback currency to some extent at least. 
 
 After some debate the question recurred on the amendment of the 
 committee of finance, as amended, to change all after the enacting clause 
 and to insert the new provisions of which we give the substance. On 
 the first day of January 1874 the secretary of the treasury should pay 
 on demand at the office of the assistant treasurer in New York, to any 
 holder of United States notes to the amount of $1000 or any multiple 
 thereof in exchange for such notes an equal amount of gold coin ; or at 
 his option an equal ampunt of coupon or registered notes in denomina- 
 tions of fifty dollars or multiples thereof, redeemable in coin after teu 
 
1462 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 years from their issue and bearing five per cent interest. The secretary 
 also to have the privilege of reissuing canceled notes either to redeem 
 the debt or to meet current expenses ; tlie said bonds to be exempt from 
 taxation, state and national. After the first day of July, 1873, the limit 
 of circulation then prescribed was to be repealed. All banks thereafter 
 organized were to deposit, as security for their circulation, United States 
 bonds. All banking associations after Januarv, 1874, should redeem their 
 notes either in coin or in legal tenders, and should be exempt from the 
 necessity of holding any reserve. Banks without circulation might be 
 organized on the deposit of not less than $10,000 in registered bonds 
 with the treasurer of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Bayard (Dem.) of Delaware said the discussion of this bill dis- 
 closed a vast amount of difference of opinion as to a proper financial 
 policy. He himself regarded it as a step toward the resumption of 
 specie payment. A return to honest money was a crying demand of the 
 times. The experience of the colonial revolution, as well as of the pre- 
 vious twelve years, had shown the departure from the theory of honest 
 money to be a terrible blunder. The experience of inconvertible paper 
 issues had proven them to be a fatal mistake. As Mr. Webster had well 
 said, " speculators cultivated their fields by the sweat of the poor man's 
 brow," He believed that the people of the country groaned under a 
 debt one hundred millions of dollars greater by this system of money de- 
 pending solely on credit. While he approved many things in the bill he 
 objected to others. There was no limitation on the increase of the pub- 
 lic debt, and none on the issues of the national banks. He continued as 
 follows : 
 
 " I cannot doubt that the bulk of currency would be increased just as 
 much as the coin added to it, and not only that, but, as I said, being a 
 money of value it would hold its own with the money of other nations ; 
 and, being money of value, that would cure any result that might come 
 from any apprehended stringency on account of the contraction in the 
 value of commodities. 
 
 " Then this bill contains another provision which I think would reme- 
 dy that entirely ; and that is in section two, the free banking feature of 
 the law. These new banks would have not only the effect of preventing 
 any stringency in currency, because of course their issues would come to 
 be redeemed, but they would have another effect most desirable at the 
 present day, of equalizing the amount of currency between the different 
 sections of the country, which at present is most inequitably and unjustly 
 distributed. The south and west are suffering to-day, as they have been 
 for the last nine years, under a grossly inequitable distribution between 
 them and the New Eno-land states. The free banking feature will have 
 
FINANCIAL MATTERS. 1463 
 
 at least the effect of remedying that injustice and equalizing the distri- 
 bution of currency." 
 
 Mr, Morton, (Rep.) of Indiana, did not think that the bill sustained 
 the theory of its j^rojectors. The bill authorized the secretary to pay in 
 gold or in five per cent bonds, thereby allowing him the option to pay 
 either in coin or in promises. Therefore it did not carry out the obliga- 
 tion of the government created by greenbacks. For #iis reason he did 
 not think this bill likely to produce resumption of specie payments. 
 Again, honest resumption meant redeeming greenbacks in any suras or 
 in places where they might be presented. According to the bill green- 
 backs could be only redeemed in New York, and in multiples of a thou- 
 sand dollars. This gave illegitimate advantages to the brokers and bank- 
 ers of that city. In regard to the section of the bill authorizing payment 
 in five per cent bonds instead of coin, Mr. Morton reasoned as follows, 
 on the assumption that the effect would be to raise greenbacks to par 
 in the course of eleven months : 
 
 " What is the effect of this proposition ? If it has the effect of mak- 
 ing the greenback equal to coin in eleven months, hoarding greenbacks 
 is the most profitable business that any man can engage in in this coun- 
 try for the next eleven months. Legitimate business will not pay twelve 
 per cent in this country. I know some men make more than that, but 
 legitimate business does not pay twelve per cent as a general thing in 
 this country. Therefore, the most profitable thing that any man can do, 
 should this bill pass, in view of the effect intended by it that greenbacks 
 are to be made equal with gold at the end of eleven months, is to hoai-d 
 the greenbacks, because they will be worth twelve per cent more at the 
 end of eleven months than they are now. 
 
 " If greenbacks are hoarded, what is to be the consequence ? The 
 contraction of the money in circulation, all those consequences that or- 
 dinarily result from contraction. We make it the interest of men who 
 have money not to loan it out ; we make it their interest to hold on to 
 it, not to invest it in property, because that money at the end of eleven 
 months is to be worth twelve per cent more than it is now." 
 
 He would not object to free banking when specie payments were ab- 
 solutely restored ; but until that time the effect would be to inflate the 
 currency of the country in the most insidious manner. 
 
 Mr. Schurz, (Rep.) of Missouri, said that the present bill authorized 
 resumption of specie payments, and suspension, according to the will of 
 the secretary of the treasury. Tlie one provision of the bill defeated 
 the other and threatened such increased fluctuation in value as would 
 certainly increase the financial embarrassment of the country. 
 
1464 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Saulsbury, (Dem. rep.) of Delaware, after a brief review of the 
 bill, expressed his most cogent objection in the following language : 
 
 *' Now, let us look and see whether there is any probability that suffi- 
 cient coin will be substituted in place of the greenbacks to render the 
 currency of the country much better than it is at present. There is, I 
 believe, about $350,000,000 of greenbacks now in circulation. Within 
 twelve months, under the operations of this bill, those greenbacks will 
 be presented to the treasury for redemption. Will the secretary of the 
 treasury have a sufficient amount of gold on hand to redeem any large 
 proportion of that amount ? I apprehend at farthest that he could not 
 appropriate exceeding $50,000,000 toward the redemption of the $350,- 
 000,000 of greenbacks, and as a consequence there must be about $300,- 
 000,000 of bonds issued as a substitute for the greenbacks which are 
 canceled or redeemed. There will then be $50,000,000 that will be in 
 gold that will be furnished in lieu of the $350,000,000 of greenbacks 
 which are taken up. The bonds which are issued as a substitute for 
 them will not become a part of the circulating medium. They will be 
 held as investments ; and thus the circulation of the country will be cur- 
 tailed by the amount of bonds which are issued in lieu of the gold." 
 
 The debate was participated in by many senators, but the foregoing 
 expresses the main objections offered. After several amendments had 
 been proposed and objected, the bill was ordered to be laid on the table. 
 
 In the senate, on January Yth, the following resolution was adopted : 
 That the committee on privileges and elections be directed to inquire, 
 and report whether the recent election in the states of Louisiana and 
 Arkansas had been consistent with the laws and constitution of the 
 United States ; and what contests, if any, had arisen, as to the true re- 
 sults of such an election. The committee was empowered to take the 
 testimony, and to provide for the fullest examination of the question. 
 After some debate the resolution was adopted. 
 
 In the house, on January 13th, Mr. Sheldon, (Rep.) of Louisiana, 
 moved a suspension of the rules for debate on the following resolution : 
 That a joint special committee, consisting of three senators and six 
 representatives, should be appointed to inquire into the Louisiana elec- 
 tion, held on November 4th, 18/2, and report the residt to congress; 
 said committee to decide which of the two sets of persons or organiza- 
 tions was the legitimate government of the state. Mr. Sheldon said 
 there had been for one week past two governors, two senates, and two 
 houses of representatives in the state of Louisiana. He believed that 
 the decision of the rightful election of this case inhered in the congress 
 of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Butler, (Rep.) of Massachusetts, believed congress had a duty in 
 
DEBATE ON LOUISIANA ELECTION. 1465 
 
 the matter, but opposed this special resolution. He had no doubt that 
 at the late election the Warmouth government, as it was called, had been 
 fairly elected. The men who claimed to be known as the Pinchback 
 legislature, had organized' themselves on affidavits of supervisors not 
 justified by the legal machinery of the state. Judge Durell, of the 
 United States court, had issued a^ temporary injunction, to, obtain testi- 
 mony, and keep the returns intact. The eilect had been to bring two 
 governments into action, so that Louisiana was in a state of anarchy. 
 The duty of congress was to guarantee a republican government in form 
 in each state. Everybody knew the state of public affairs in Louisiana, 
 and the facts themselves were sufficient basis upon which congress could 
 act. 
 
 Mr. Farnsworth, (Rep.) of Illinois, doubted the propriety of congres- 
 sional action until facts were obtained in an authentic form to warrant it. 
 The uprooting of a state government was no triflitig mattei", and made 
 a most dangerous precedent. Only a most urgent situation could justify 
 the interference of the federal government. Before the ground could 
 be taken that there was no government in Louisiana, the senators and 
 members from that state must be turned out. 
 
 Mr. Kerr, (Dera.) of Indiana, said that the clear solution of the Louis- 
 iana problem was simple. It consisted in the federal government keep- 
 ing its lawless hands off the people of the state, and suffering them to 
 exercise their own constitutional powers in re-establishing order. 
 
 Mr. Poland, (Rep.) of Vermont, said the whole question to be deter- 
 mined was purely a judicial one. It was not a question of interference 
 on the part of congress. Two sets of men claimed to have received a 
 majority of votes in the Louisiana election. One side had resorted to a, 
 judicial tribunal and got a decision in its favor. The president of the 
 United States very properly said to them, " You have got a judicial de- 
 cision in your favor ; it is not for me to inquire whether that decision 
 was right or wrong ; it is the duty of the executive to see that you do 
 not get into civil war and anarchy, and to stand by the decision of the 
 court until some one reverses that decision or decides the other way." 
 After some debate a resolution by Mr. Garfield, of Ohio, was substituted 
 for the one under consideration and passed. This resolution ordered 
 that the message of the president and accompanying documents then on 
 the speaker's table, be refen-ed to the committee on the judiciary, and 
 that said committee should report as early as practicable by bill or other- 
 wise. 
 
1466 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER CXVIII. 
 
 AFFAIRS IN LOUISIANA. CONGRESSIONA.L REPORT. DISCUSSION IN THE 
 
 SENATE. PRESIDENT GRANt's SPECIAL MESSAGE, AND FURTHER DE- 
 BATE. COMMISSION TO DIVIDE THE ALABAMA AWARD, 
 
 Before proceeding further with the discussion in congress growing 
 out of the Louisiana difficulty, it will be necessary to continue our state- 
 ment of the situation of affairs in that unfortunate state, [See chapter 
 CXVL] The Pinchback legislature passed an act early in January the 
 design of which was to suppress riotous and unlawful assemblies. This 
 was speedily followed by another act authorizing the calling out of an 
 armed militia for the purpose. 
 
 On the 3d of Jaimary a mass-meeting assembled to express opposition 
 to the Pinchback government, and supp(>rt that of McEnery. A body 
 selected from this meeting, irrespective of party, called the committee of 
 two hundred, subsequently submitted an address to the people. This 
 report embodied a statement of the events that had transpired in the 
 state of Louisiana, It anticipated the appointment of a congressional 
 committee, which would investigate fairly and impartially the facts of 
 the case. It announced its full conviction of the legality of the 
 McEnery election and protested against the president's support of the 
 opposite faction. As an offset to this, the acting governor Pinchback 
 issued an address reviewing the political situation from the other stand- 
 point. He expressed his determination as the executive of the state to 
 quell all mobs and insurrections, and to prevent the inauguration of any 
 pretended governor, or meeting of any pretended assembly, declaring 
 that the whole force of the state shall be used to support the inaugura- 
 tion of Kellogg, and protect his legislature. On January 7th, the rival 
 bodies were each inaugurated. There was a general closing up of places 
 of business and the entire population assisted in the inauguration of the 
 McEnery legislature. The United States troops under General Emory 
 were stationed to preserve order. No attempt however was made by 
 Pinchback to interfere with the inauguration of the McEnery legislature. 
 
 On January 10th, a number of senators transferred themselves from 
 the Pinchback, or Kellogg faction, as it was subsequently known, to the 
 McEnery body. The seceders issued an address, wherein they pro- 
 tested against the actions of their brother republicans, and affirmed their 
 belief that the organization of the Kellogg legislature was revolutionary 
 
LOUISIANA IMBROGLIO. 1467 
 
 and illegal. A few days later Wm. P. Kellogg was inaugurated gov- 
 ernor at the Mechanic's Institute, and at the same time the oath of office 
 was administered to John McEnery in Lafayette Square, New Orleans. 
 The committee appointed by congress to investigate the condition of 
 affairs in Louisiana made a majority report on the 20th of February, of 
 which the following is a brief digest : Messrs. McKillen and Ray pre- 
 sented credentials as senators-elect, which were signed by McEnery and 
 Kellogg, respectively purporting to have the great seal of the state of 
 Louisiana. Section twenty-seven of the election law in that state re- 
 quired that if any of the returning officers were a candidate for office he 
 should be disqualified to act as returning officer, and some respectable citi- 
 zen elected to fill his place. Under the law that returns should be made 
 to the governor, and a majointy of them shall be returning officers for 
 all elections, an election was held on the 4th of November, 1872. On 
 pretense of malfeasance in office, in August 1871, Boree was suspended 
 by Warmouth, and flerron appointed. Judge Emerson, of the eighth 
 district court, decided he could do this. Boree appealed to the su- 
 preme court, and was dismissed ; biit, at his own request, his impeach- 
 ment was carried over to the next session. In March, 1872, Boree 
 brought a second charge against Herron, and Judge Dibble decided that, 
 as Herron's commission had expired, Boree was entitled to the office. 
 The appeal was affirmed by the supreme court on the 2d of December, 
 1872. Warmouth had appointed Wharton secretary of state in Herron's 
 place — removing Herron because his commission had expired, and he 
 had been a defaulter in a former office. Being apprehensive that the 
 eighth district court would re-instate Boree, governor Warmouth removed 
 Dibble, and put Elmore in his place. Judge Elmore refusing to execute 
 said mandate, in favor of Boree, was fined and imprisoned by the su- 
 preme court. It was admitted that Elmore was elected over Dibble by 
 about nine thousand majority. On the 13th of November the returning 
 board met, and there was a conflict of testimony in regard to filling 
 offices made vacant by the qualification of Wharton, Pinchback and 
 Anderson. Hatch and DaPonte were sworn to be elected, and testimony 
 was given favoring the election of Longstreet and Hawkins. This dif- 
 ference gave birth to two boards, the Warmouth and the Lynch boards. 
 On the 19th of November, Dibble decided in favor of the Lynch board. 
 On the 20th, Warmouth signed an act altering the constitution of the re- 
 turning board, under which he clainied the right of appointing the new 
 board during the vacation of the legislature, and at the same time issued 
 a proclamation convening the legislature on the 9th of December. Only 
 the legislature elected on the 4th of November was authorized to meet 
 under this proclamation. Governor Warmouth rid himself of the two 
 
1468 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 boards, and filled the appointments in the new — the De Feriet board, 
 created by the act of November 20th, On the 16th of November 1872, 
 William P. Kellogg filed his bill against the Warmouth board,and McEnery 
 and others. The De Feriet board, on December 4th, declared McEnery 
 elected governor ; Penn, lieutenant-govei'nor ; Armistead, secretary of 
 state ; Ogden, attorney-general ; Tusher, superintendent of education, and 
 the members of the legislature. Afterwards, on the same day, Judge 
 Durell made an oi'der granting the injunction, as prayed for in the Kel- 
 logg bill, and gave an opinion that materially misstated the allegations of 
 the bill. Public opinion in Louisiana was equally divided between the 
 two governments ; and had congress adjourned without deciding which 
 was the true one there would have been collision between the two 
 parties. The committee therefore recommended the passage of a bill to 
 insure an honest re-election. This bill was lost, and Louisiana was left 
 in a "melancholy condition." On the 15th of February governor 
 McEnery issued a proclamation, forbidding payments of taxes to collect- 
 ors appointed by Kellogg; and he also, on the 27th, issued one enroll- 
 ing the state militia. 
 
 On the 1st of March a mass meeting assembled in New Orleans, which 
 supported the McEnery government, and which asked the withdrawal of 
 federal protection from the Kellogg government or else that the state be 
 placed under martial law pending a new reconstruction by the general 
 government. On the evening of March 6th the citizens attempted to 
 take possession of the police-stations, but they were frustrated by the 
 police, after some bloodshed. On the same day a body of armed police 
 entered the Odd Fellow's hall and arrested the McEnery legislature, then 
 in session there, and imprisoned them in the guard-house. Governor 
 McEnery demanded from Colonel Emory if he approved of such action, 
 and Colonel Emory declined to answer. The Kellogg legislature passed 
 an act for the enforcement of the collection of taxes, and the " people's 
 league " was largely recruited. Governor Kellogg stated that the unpaid 
 state taxes amounted to $2,331,321.60, and urged the citizens to prompt 
 payment. Among the acts passed by the Kellogg government was one 
 " to protect the civil rights of citizens without regard to race or color ;" 
 and another was the creation of the metropolitan police force, to be 
 called the Metropolitan Brigade, with the allowance to perform military 
 duty in any part of the state. Predatory bands of negroes, bent on out- 
 rage, took possession of Grant parish and of the town of Colfax, remain- 
 ing in the latter place from April 1st to April 13th. SheriflE Nash ar- 
 rived with a posse of one hundred and twenty-five whites and summoned 
 the negroes to suiu'ender, which they refused, and consequently paid the 
 penalty with many lives. On the 18th of April General Emory applied 
 
THE LOUISIANA IMBROGLIO CONTINUED. 1469 
 
 to Washington for more explicit directions, and received a dispatch 
 from General McDowell bidding Emory to order troops to Grant parish. 
 Order, however, was restored in Colfax when the troops arrived. 
 
 In St. Mary's parish the appointees of governor Kellogg opened court, 
 but the bar refused to acknowledge them. The court adjourned. There 
 was some difficulty in the parish of St. Martin in i-eference to the col- 
 lection of taxes by the Kellogg tax-collectors, which had to be quelled 
 by a detachment of United States troops. The president of the United 
 States subsequently required the people of Louisiana to cease from op- 
 posing the Kellogg government. In response to a call from the " State 
 Committee of Seventy," an election was held for a convention of the 
 people in New Orleans, on the 24th of November. It devised measures 
 to ameliorate the unhappy condition of the state, etc., and appointed a 
 committee to present their appeal for relief to congress. It then ad- 
 journed. The Kellogg party met for the same purpose. On the ] 3th 
 of December the Louisiana case was argued before the congressional 
 committee on privileges and elections, but no decision was obtained, and 
 the further consideration of it was postponed until after the recess in 
 December. To recur again to the discussion of the question in con- 
 gress : 
 
 In the senate, on January 16th, Mr. Morton, of Indiana, asked the 
 unanimous consent to offer the following resolution and for its imme- 
 diate consideration : 
 
 Hesolved, That the committee on privileges and elections be instructed 
 to inquire and report to the senate whether there is a legal state govern- 
 ment in Louisiana, and how and by whom it is constituted. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, said he was undecided about his vote. Two 
 individuals had been inaugurated as governors of Louisiana, and two 
 bodies claimed the legislature. Which was state government of Louis- 
 iana, who governor, who legislature ? The president recognized one of 
 these governors, and one of the legislatures. However good his recog- 
 nition in the executive department, it was not binding upon congress. 
 Congress was to determine which was proper state government when 
 two governments (so called) claimed to be that of the stete. He did 
 not understand the proceedings in Louisiana. Without a call by the 
 state executive. United States troops were employed there to " preserve 
 peace." It was the state business to " preserve peace," not that of the 
 United States, till demanded by the legislature (in session) or by the 
 executive. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said the senator from Ohio enlarged on 
 what he did not comprehend, and that he criticised the president — the 
 head of the army — in his proceedings. Did he wish him to be blind to 
 
1470 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 his duties till Xew Orleans or Louisiana imbrued itself in the blood of 
 its citizens — then rouse himself to that fact, and wait three weeks to 
 find the true government before acting ? It was his duty to foresee the 
 possibilities of collisions between rival claimants. If a commotion arose 
 in New Orleans between the claimants to the executive or legislative 
 powers, the general in charge was instructed in advance to take this side 
 to be that of the state, and exercise his legal power to keep the people 
 quiet, 
 
 Mr. Thurman said there had been no call on the president, either by 
 tlie executive or the legislature of Louisiana, to interfere by the military 
 power of the army. He denied his right to anticipate trouble in a state 
 without call from jrovernor or legislature. He did not know that a sren- 
 eral of the army had any authority to call on the United States troops 
 to execute decisions of the United States court except expressly given 
 him by act of congress. He said there was a time when the supreme 
 court made a solemn decision on the interpretation of the United States 
 constitution; and there *was a mighty party in the country that disre- 
 garded the decision, and consigned the judge that delivered it to eternal 
 infamy. Therefore it would not do to speak of the New Orleans judge 
 who overthrew the state, and set up a government on an injunction bill. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds said the United States army, under the president's com 
 mand, had not interfered, as the senator from Ohio seemed to imply. 
 What would become of those serving in the army if the different states 
 refused to have them in their midst ? 
 
 Mr. Thurraan Avished to know if the army did not take possession of 
 the Mechanics' Institute before any recognition of any government was 
 made by the president ? 
 
 Mr. Edmunds said it might be ; but he would suggest to the senator 
 from Ohio, that the duty of the president to see to the faithful execution 
 of the United States laws, and the carrying out of the mandates of the 
 United States courts were two different things. What had the president 
 done in the way of interference, armed and forcible, with Louisiana 
 affairs ? Nothing, unless it be a crime to have a part of the army in 
 New Orleans or to order his officers, under act of 1792, so that, if a 
 dispute arose he could recognize one set of men as the true state govern- 
 ment. Turn to the other thing, of which the senator from Ohio speaks, 
 and you have the mandate of a court. The United States marshal is 
 commanded to execute a particular mandate. In the fugitive slave law 
 congress provided a commissioner's warrant to be issued to the marshal to 
 seize a negro, (fugitive from labor) and bring him before commissioner, 
 and on commissioner's decision, carry him to where his labor was due. 
 The president was called on (by marshal) to execute such a mandate. 
 
THE LOUISIANA IMBRobLIO CONTINUED. 1471 
 
 The president took the opinion of a democratic attorney-general which 
 is found in the sixth volume of the opinions of the attorneys-general. 
 
 Mr. Thurman denied the proposition made by the senator from Ver- 
 mont, that the army might be employed as a posse comitatus in the 
 execution of such a process. He denied that any law of congress au- 
 thorized such proposition. What would have been said if, during the 
 war, as United States troops were marching through Ohio to defend 
 Cincinnati from confederate troops, the marshal of Columbus had have 
 summoned three thousand of those men to execute some little process of 
 the United States district court, and they had to obey ? This right to 
 summon the army can only be exercised where there is a statute confer- 
 ring the right. 
 
 Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, asked if it was not the one thing to say 
 the United States marshal can detach from a marching column three 
 thousand troops to enforce civil process, and another to hold the presi- 
 dent may say to a marshal : " Use a portion of the army if you need 
 them as a posse.'''' 
 
 Mr. Thurman doubted if that could be done without an act of con- 
 gress. He said the troops were used without direction from the general 
 of the anny, or from the president. But under an order of the judge 
 of a district court, the state-house Avas taken by United States troops, 
 and no one allowed to enter, except by leave of troops in possession. 
 He said he was ignorant of any statute of congress that authorized this. 
 
 In further continuation of the debate, Mr. Thurman denied that any 
 general act could be found authorizing the navy or army of the United 
 States to be summoned at the beck of a sheriff or marshal. Only in 
 some of the enforcement acts was it so provided. He regarded this 
 whole debate as premature. It was one of the most painful circum- 
 stances connected with the Louisiana imbroglio that the real facts of the 
 case were so much in the dark. One thing, however, he did know that 
 the rights of a state, and the preservation of the government, were not 
 worth the ])en with which the constitution was written. If one single 
 little judge of a district court could overturn or set up a state govern- 
 ment at his option no sound lawyer or sensible man could tolerate any 
 such proposition. 
 
 Mr. Carpenter, (Rep.) of .Wisconsin, denied that a federal court had 
 set up or overturnetl any governmeut. It was simply a question whether 
 A. or B. had been elected governor of the state, whether a certain set of 
 persons had been elected the legislature of the state. He then quoted 
 an exact precedent of a contest for governor of Wisconsin. In regard 
 to the jurisdiction of Judge Durell's court, Mr. Carpenter made the 
 following argument : 
 
1472 THE AMERICAN STATESMAlf. 
 
 " Under the fifteenth amendment, for instance, which provides that 
 no state shall abridge or deny the right of citizens of the United States 
 to vote on account of race, color, or previons condition of servitude, and 
 that the congress of the United States shall have power by appropriate 
 legislation to enforce the provisions of that article, it is manifest that the 
 right to vote means the right to have the vote canvassed and counted, 
 and effectual for the purpose for which votes are cast. Then, in execu- 
 tion of that provision of the constitution which says that congress shall 
 legislate to carry it into effect, congress has passed an act saying that no 
 man shall be deprived of an office, with certain specified exceptions, in 
 consequence of the state canvassers or state officers having refused to re- 
 ceive and canvass a vote offered by a person in the condition mentioned 
 in the amendment to the constitution, and that the party claiming to be 
 elected may have an appropriate action in the circuit court of the United 
 States to obtain the office. What that appropriate action is to be, 
 whether it shall be a suit in equity for an injunction to restrain a canvass 
 which would put the wrong man in, or whether he must wait until his 
 rival, who was not elected, has been installed in office, and then bring a 
 quo warranto against him, is a fair question for judicial determination. 
 It does not go to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject. The 
 question is merely what is the appropriate form of action. You might 
 as well say, when a court had taken possession of property, for instance, 
 in an action of replevin, because the action of replevin could not be 
 maintained and some other form of action must, the court had no juris- 
 diction over the subject-matter. That cannot be maintained." 
 
 A hot debate followed in which Messrs. Thurman and Carpenter were 
 the principal participants. 
 
 As to the exact construction of the section of the constitution, author 
 izing the calling out of the military power of the United States, and tho 
 circumstances under which such action is justified, Mr. Thurman in 
 sisted that the Louisiana case did not fall within the provision, which 
 made it lawful for the president to call out the militia of any state on 
 application of the legislature or governor. In case of an insurrection, 
 if it could be said there was any insurrection against the state govern- 
 ment at alJ, the militia could only be called out at the request of the 
 legislature or governor. He did not understand this to occur. The case 
 in which the president was authorized to use the army was identical 
 with that in which he was empowered to call forth the militia. 
 
 Mr. Thurman summed up the main points of his argument as follows : 
 If there were two governments in Louisiana, and one or both of them had 
 called on president Grant, under the act of 1795, representing that there 
 was insurrection in the state, or domestic violence that could not be put 
 
THE LOUISIANA IMBROGLIO CONTINUED. 1473 
 
 down by state authority, in the absence of any decision by congress as 
 to which one of the two was lawful, the president would have been 
 bound to decide that question by his own opinion. He was no more 
 bound by Durell's opinion than the president of France or the queen of 
 England would be. The idea that this great power invested in the presi- 
 dent, in the absence of a decision by congress, of determining which the 
 lawful government in a state was, could be taken out of his hands on 
 the ground that he should execute some decree of an inferior court, was 
 monstrous. On the contrary, his decision would be binding even on 
 the supreme court of the United States. The real fact was, and the 
 only fact to be contemplated by the president, that there were two legis- 
 latures and two governors claiming to be legally elected. The president 
 was bound to decide, but he was not bound by the decision of any judge, 
 much less by a decision in direct violation of the act of congress under 
 which that judge professed to act. The highest authority to decide 
 the question was the congress of the United States ; after congress, the 
 president. The question of Mr. Morton's resolution being called, it was 
 agreed to. 
 
 On February 25th a message from president Grant, relative to affairs 
 in Louisiana, was sent to both houses of congress. This message in- 
 vited the attention of congress to the Louisiana case. He briefly re- 
 cited the condition of affairs in that state, and urged such action on the 
 part of congress as would remove the current difficulties by legislation. 
 He stated that he had held it his duty to recognize those persons as 
 elected who held their credentials from what appeared to be the legal 
 returning board. Recent investigations had developed so many frauds 
 and forgeries as to make it doubtful as to what candidates had received 
 the majority of the votes actually cast. Until some further decision by 
 congress, he should continue to recognize the government heretofore ac- 
 knowledged by him. 
 
 On February 27th the senate, as in committee of the whole, proceeded 
 to consider a bill to establish a government in Louisiana republican in 
 form. This bill declared that the election held on November 4th, 1872, 
 was null and void ; further that the persons previously holding state of- 
 fices should continue in office until their successors were chosen. It 
 also ordered a new election to be held on the second Tuesday in May, 
 1873. The bill embodied a variety of safeguards and provisions,, by 
 which fraud and forgery were sought to be obliterated. 
 
 Mr. Morton did not think it was necessary for congress to pass a bill 
 which would overturn an existing government which had been recog- 
 nized by the highest tribunals in the state. This would be disastrous, a 
 fatal precedent, which in time might destroy all state governments. 
 93 
 
1474 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The only thing for congress to do, was to support the government al- 
 ready recognized by the courts. Unprincipled factionists would then be 
 powerless, and the Kellogg government would go on smoothly for the 
 next three years, until a new election. 
 
 Mr. Thurman advanced a series of propositions. First, there had been 
 no legal canvass of votes cast at the last election in Louisiana. Next, 
 McEnery had a majority of votes cast for governor according to returns. 
 Thirdly, the Kellogg government was a sheer usurpation. In the fourth 
 place, the president had recognized the Kellogg government, with which 
 decision congress was not bound to concur. In the next place, it was 
 the duty of congress to recognize the true government, if there was such 
 a government. Lastly, as the determination of the question belonged to 
 the political department of the federal government, the decision of judge 
 Dnrell had no bmding effect whatsoever. These propositions were un- 
 deniable. Nobody disputed that McEnery had a majority of the votes 
 according to the legal returns. That made it the duty of the govern- 
 ment to recognize him as the governor of Louisiana. In controversion 
 of this it had been argued that the recognition of the Lynch returning 
 board, indorsing Kellogg and his faction, by the supreme court of Louis- 
 iana, made that board the legal one. He denied the proposition. He 
 denied that the congress of the United States, which had the sole deter- 
 mining power, could be bound by the decision of the supreme court of 
 any state. He cited the case of Lather vs. Borden, which had already 
 been refen*ed to by senator Morton, as sustaining his position. In that 
 case it was laid down that the determination of the question, which is 
 the legal governor and legislature of the state, belongs to the political 
 department of the government, and that the judicial department is bound 
 by its decision. The facts in Louisiana were these : A body claiming 
 to be the legislature had been established by bayonets, under the order, 
 ;admitted to be void and of no authority, of a district judge of the 
 United States. Under this illegal order, and by the employment of 
 United States troops, a particular body of men were inaugurated as the 
 legislature. Now it was said by the administration party that this legis- 
 lature having its origin in the usurpation of a judge and employment of 
 a military force, must continue to be recognized because the supreme 
 court of Louisiana had seen fit to indorse it. He revolted from the as- 
 sumption that the United States senate could recognize such a body as 
 a legitimate legislature. The true solution of the matter was to recog- 
 nize McEnery as the governor of the state. Let congi'ess recognize this 
 man, who had the majoiity according to the legal returns, and then the 
 president could recognize him, and all would go well. In further dis- 
 cussion by Messrs. Logan, Morton, and Trumbull, it was claimed that 
 
THE LOUISIANA IMBROGLIO CONCLUDED. 14*75 
 
 Mr. Thurman's assumption of the legitimacy of the McEnery returns 
 was not justified by facts ; that many of them were clear and undeni- 
 able forgeries. Mr. Trumbull, however, took the ground that these 
 forgeries had not been proven. 
 
 Mr. Morton, (Rep.) of Indiana, denied that congress had the right to 
 determine the question of an election arising exclusively under the laws 
 of the state. The authority of the state tribunals were alone competent 
 in the matter. If congress could go behind the fiuding of the returning 
 board acknowledged by the state, the federal government would hold 
 every organization in its grip. This doctrine was a most dangerous one, 
 for the constitution of the United States had guaranteed to every state 
 the right to determine all questions arising under the election laws by its 
 own tribunals. He recoiled from the precedent threatened to be estab- 
 lished, that congress could be made the returning board for a legislatxire. 
 The Lynch board, which had returned Kellogg and his legislature, had 
 been affirmed solemnly by the highest state tribunal. It was now pro- 
 posed to overturn that government, and either have a new election in 
 the following month of May, or to adopt the McEnery government. 
 McEnery had been run as the white man's candidate, and voted for ex- 
 clusively by the white man, when it was known that the colored voters 
 were the majority of the state. The proposition to induct McEnery 
 was to place a minority candidate as governor of Louisiana. He did not 
 believe congress would commit this wrong. Mr. Edmunds agreed with 
 the senator from Indiana that the power of congress to determine the 
 state as state government was very doubtful. He did not, however, 
 agree with him that it was wise to determine on present evidence as to 
 exactly what their course should be. If the election had been according 
 to law, then somebody must have been elected governor. Congress 
 could not act until there was more conclusive testimony as to who that 
 somebody was. 
 
 Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said : " The proof shows that as to the 
 McEnery government the election was so managed as to defeat the will 
 of the majority and prevent a fair election, and in the other case that 
 the actual majority of the votes returned according to law were not in 
 favor of the government set up by Kellogg. Those two facts, it seems 
 to me, are reasonably established. 
 
 " Now, what shall we do ? Shall wc set the example for all time to 
 come of allowing a government to be established permanently that was 
 not elected by the majority of those who voted ? Shall we on the other 
 hand allow a government to be perpetuated that was organized, en- 
 gineered, conceived, and founded in fraud ? Why, sir, to establish 
 either of these two propositions is to subvert the .republican principle. 
 
1476 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Therefore, I am disposed to acquiesce in the decision of the committee 
 that we ought to set them both aside, under the powers given to us by 
 the constitution of the United States to guarantee to the state of Louis- 
 iana a republican form of government." 
 
 Mr. Stewart, (Rep.) of Nevada, after a brief review of the question, 
 thought that the ordering of a new election was a less arbitrary, and 
 more satisfactory course than would be the acknowledgment of either 
 the McEnery or Kellogg governments. 
 
 Mr. Trumbull said : " The statement that the election in Louisiana was 
 an organized fraud is without a basis to rest upon. There was a board 
 of canvassers appointed under a law approved the 20th of November, 
 1872. That law required the canvassers to be of different political par- 
 ties. It was made up of Mr. Archibald Mitchell and F. R. Southmayd, 
 democrats ; B. R. Forman, a Reformer ; and S. M. Todd and O. F. 
 Hunsacker, Republicans. Mr. Thomas wa;^ originally a member of the 
 board, ' and he with the rest of us canvassed the vote for the state 
 officers and legislature, when he went home and resigned his place, and 
 Mr. Southmayd was chosen and qualified to fill it.' Mr. Forman, as 
 candid and fair a man as you will find anywhere, was before the commit- 
 tee and testified in regard to the canvass. The senator from Indiana 
 has said, and I have no doubt it has been taken as if it were true, that 
 there had been no canvass of the votes, that it was only a couple of 
 clerks without any authority, who counted them. That is not so. The 
 majority of the committee say they were canvassed under color of law. 
 In my judgment they were legally canvassed. Four parishes were left 
 out of the canvass, and the number of votes in those parishes, republican 
 and democratic, taking the election of 1870, is only about eight thousand, 
 and the republican majority in those parishes was less than half that. 
 
 " Mr. Packard is the United States marshal in the state of Louisiana ; 
 he is the chairman of the republican state executive committee ; a very 
 active politician, as he admitted. He was before the committee, and 
 testified that in the larger portion of the state the election was as fair as 
 elections held in any of the states usually are. Then he was asked as to 
 how many parishes there w'ere where he believed there were gross frauds. 
 He stated seven, and that there had been reports of unfairness in ten or 
 fifteen more. Now let me say to my friend from Ohio, who starts out 
 with the assumption that this election was all a fraud, that this Mr. 
 Packard (and this is shown by his testimony) had more than six hundred 
 special deputies in the city of New Orleans supervising the election on 
 the day it occurred. He had from two to four in every parish in the 
 state. Some of his deputies served for seventy days, supervising the 
 registration and the election. 
 
ALABAMA CLAIMS COMMISSION. 1477 
 
 " Let me state another fact. The official returns show that the vote 
 at the last election was twenty thousand larger than ever before polled 
 in the state. This is official. And yet the declaration is constantly 
 made here that the whole thing was an organized fraud. Such declara- 
 tions may be made, but the testimony does not warrant them. The 
 senator from Ohio said it was agreed by all the committee except myself 
 that the election was an organized fraud. It is not so. The senator 
 from Georgia has never agreed to that statement." 
 
 The bill after some brief further debate was put to vote and lost — 29 
 to 16, 29 being absent. A subsequent motion to reconsider the vote 
 was also laid on the table by a small majority. 
 
 In the senate, on February 4th, the bill was considered to create a 
 commission to adjust the compensation of the several claimants for dam- 
 ages and depredations by cruisers, to be discharged out of the indemnity 
 fund awarded by the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva. Mr. Edmunds, 
 of Vermont, on the part of the committee, made a brief statement of 
 the grounds upon which the bill rested. In furtherance of this he gave 
 a condensed review of the critical points of history giving rise to the 
 Alabama claims. The destruction of American commerce during the 
 late war arose under a status of acknowledged belligerency ; hence it 
 was a lawful destruction. That is, if the confederates had been success- 
 ful no citizen of the United States, whose property might be destroyed 
 under the acts of belligerent rights, would have ground to recover dam- 
 ages. So then the destruction of American ships was accomplished by 
 the exercise of the lawful forces of the war in the sense recognized by 
 international law. The injury committed by the confederates through 
 the assistance of the queen of England's subjects, was a national injury 
 in respect to which neither citizen nor any person for him was entitled 
 to any redress, 
 
 England did not even issue orders for reprisal or capture ; she simply 
 suffered, through sjmipathy, her subjects to furnish aid to belligerents. 
 The relation between the government of Great Britain and citijzens of 
 the United States, whose property was destroyed by a confederate cruiser, 
 is not such as law can recognize as creating a responsibility on the part 
 of her majesty's government. The cause of the complaint of the United 
 States wtis that her majesty's government enabled belligerents to exercise 
 greater destructive powers than otherwise would have been possible. So 
 it happened that claim lists were made out showing who had lost ships 
 and cargoes — who had paid such and such insurance policies, and what 
 expenses were incurred to fit out cruisers to pursue confederate ships. 
 The treaty looked carefully and faithfully to the national injury. On the 
 8th of May, 1871, a treaty was drawn up which widely differed from 
 
1478 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 all former treaties in this respect, that a sum provided by one govern- 
 ment should be paid to the other ; not for the benefit of the citizens, but 
 simply handed over from one to the other. The tribunal at Geneva 
 awarded to the natiO'Bi, not to individuals, a sum of money without any 
 limitation in regard to the use of it. Her majesty's government was 
 only liable for their acts, and not for illegal destruction of private prop- 
 erty of citizens of the United States. Other claims made by the treaty 
 for prospective profits and a variety of things, went to show the sum de- 
 manded exceeded the right figure. There was no other law which coh- 
 strained us in any degree in respect to this money than that which we 
 considered proper. The committee on the judiciary, in reporting the 
 bill, concluded it would only be just to provide the real sufferers of these 
 confederate cruisers with what they had lost — a provision being intro- 
 duced in the bill excluding all insurance companies who had made profits 
 out of their war risks. If after this, there shall be a sum of money left 
 over, it will be a question for the United States whether to make good 
 the losses of citizens whose vessels were destroyed, but in respect of 
 which it was not thought her majesty's government was at fault. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, (Dem.) of Ohio, moved that the claims which the bill 
 proposed to reject were valid, and he opposed the exclusion of the same. 
 He then went on to prove that the present treaty could not be compared 
 with former treaties, as they were foreign to it. Under that general 
 phraseology, " Alabama claims," it was intended to assert public claims 
 or claims of the citizens of the United States. In presenting our claims 
 to the Geneva tribunal, we claimed not only claims of citizens but im- 
 mense public claims, and England refused point blank to consider the 
 case until these claims were withdrawn, which was done. England de- 
 cided in regard to the public claims of the United States, that she was 
 not liable to the United States and not bound for indemnity. The tribu- 
 nal allowed claims of citizens of the United States who had suffered loss 
 from these confederate cruisers. Great Britain, having determined she 
 was liable in respect to three vessels, Alabama, Florida, and Shenandoah, 
 and their tenders, saw fit to award to the United States a sum in gross. 
 Mr. Thurman further said this sum should, in all justice, be given to the 
 men who were legal holders and owners of those claims. The bill was 
 passed in the senate by the following vote: 30 to 25 — 18 being absent. 
 
CHAPTER CXIX. 
 
 THE CREDIT MOBILIER QUESTION IN THE HOUSE. RESOLUTIONS FOR THE 
 
 EXPULSION OF OAKES AMES AND JAMES BROOKS. MR. POLANd's IN- 
 DICTMENT AND OAKES AMEs' DEFENSE. THE FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 1873. 
 
 ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT. REMEDIES TAKEN BY NEW YORK 
 
 BANKS. THE " VIRGINIUS " DIFFICULTY. SUPREME COURT DECISION 
 
 ON THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE CASES. 
 
 Among the questions which especially interested the nation during 
 this session of congress was the investigation of Oakes Ames, representa- 
 tive from Massachusetts, and James Brooks, representative from New 
 York, in relation to the Credit Mobilier. In the house, December 2d, 
 1872, speaker Blaine, of Maine, vacated his chair to offer resolutions 
 asking for an investigation. The question was referred to the committee 
 on the judiciary. The committee subsequently reported, and on the 
 25th of February the report and resolutions were considered. The ma- 
 jority report was substantially as follows : 
 
 It was apparent that the resolution committing the testimony taken 
 by the special committee, of which Mr. Poland was chairman, to the 
 committee on the judiciary, involved most important questions of law 
 and fact. There could not be a more delicate duty devolved on the 
 house of representatives than its power to present articles of impeach- 
 ment against civil officers of the government. The fact that one was ac- 
 cused, who had so far possessed the confidence of the citizens, or the ex- 
 ecutive, that the interest of the government was confided to him, brought 
 before the house derelictions of duty which, if found, involved most se- 
 rious consequences to the individual as well as to the country. Where- 
 fore the committee had met to give this subject full deliberation. The 
 first question presented was the conduct of what civil officers of the 
 United State§ were brought into question by this testimony ? The com- 
 mittee observed that a member of the house of representatives was not 
 an officer of the "United States to whom the remedy of impeachment 
 could be applied. This was some time since decided in Blount's case by 
 the senate, when an attempt was made to impeach him for an alleged of- 
 fense. The committee had found but two civil officers liable to impeach- 
 ment, one vice-president of the United States, and the other, Mr. Brooks, 
 late government-director of the Union Pacific railroad. The first was 
 
1480 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 yet in office, and tlie other had ceased to be an officer. The case of Mr. 
 Brooks was not before the committee, he being a member of the house ; 
 but if there were any doubt on this subject the committee should re- 
 solve it by asking instruction of the house on the point. 
 
 The fact thau Mr. Brooks' conduct in this regard was, at the time of 
 the passage of the resolution, and is now, before the house on a report of 
 another committee recommending his expulsion from the house, was 
 sufficient reason for the exception made in his case, to apply the prece- 
 dents and principles of law which regulated the presentation and trti'^'i- 
 of impeachment. The committee, in the vice-president's case, found it 
 convenient to assume that the evidence proved he received the profits of a 
 corporation known as the Credit Mobilier while being a member of con- 
 gress. From the evidence, it could be claimed that in the winter of 
 1867-68 he became owner by purchase at par, of certain stock in the 
 Credit Mobilier company from Oakes Ames, when the stock was known 
 to both to be worth much more than par ; that he received the profits 
 while Ames held the stock for him, although the beneficial interest in 
 the stock remained in Mr. Colfax ; that during the congressional sessions 
 of 1867-68 and 1868-69, while holding such interest in the stock, he 
 presided in the house both as a member and the speaker of the same. 
 During which session certain matters of legislation in which he was in- 
 volved were attempted to be affected advantageously or injuriously by 
 legislative action. The Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific railroad 
 had become so notorious that the committee deemed it unnecessary to 
 go into the details of its history. It was however considered convenient 
 to have no record, if this report should be drawn into precedent, that 
 the Credit Mobilier was a state corporation organized by the stockholders 
 of the Union Pacific road to receive from themselves the contract of 
 building that road which had been obtained by legislative grant and en- 
 dowments of lands and bonds of the United States to be held in trust 
 only for the construction and equipment of the road. Large amounts of 
 these shares of the stockholders, through the intervention of the Credit 
 Mobilier divided among themselves, in fact diverted the large sums be- 
 longing to the United States, which were entrusted to them, for a spe- 
 cific use, in violation of the trust. Drawing such inference as a jury might 
 from the evidences, if unexplained, it could be claimed that the stock 
 was sold to Mr. Colfax to influence him in favor of the Union Pacific 
 road, according to which he voted and incidentally in his own favor, he 
 being stockholder in both companies. The committees put aside, for 
 the purposes of this report, anything which might be presented by the 
 accused to extenuate the supposed guilt of the transaction, because they 
 desired in examining the question, to assume the facts against the ac- 
 
CREDIT MOBILIER IN THE HOUSE. 1481 
 
 cused as broadly as the evidence would justify. After citing a great 
 number of precedents both in English and American history, it was 
 stated to be the opinion of the committee that the impeaching power 
 bestowed on the two houses by the constitution, and a power of expul- • 
 sion were remedial only, and not punitive so as to extend to all times 
 and all crimes, and were not to be used in any constitutional sense or 
 right for punishing a man for a crime committed before he became a 
 member of the house, or in case of a civil officer as a just call for impeach- 
 .. ' t. The committee therefore ^ame to the opinion that so far as to 
 receiving and_ holding, an interest in the Credit Mobilier stock there was 
 nothing to warrant impeachment as in the case of the vice-president. 
 The majority report was signed by seven members. Brief dissenting 
 reports were offered by Messrs. Clarkson N. Potter, and M. Goodrich. 
 The house accepted this report so far as action in the case of vice-presi- 
 dent Colfax was involved ; but resolutions were offered, reported from 
 the select committee of which Mr. Poland of Vermont was chairman. 
 These resolutions cited the facts that Mr. Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts, 
 had been guilty of seeking to bribe members of the house ; and that 
 Mr. James Brooks, of New York, had been guilty of accepting such a 
 bribe. It was therefore resolved that Messrs. Oakes Ames and James 
 Brooks should be expelled from their seats as members of the house. 
 Mr. Poland commented at length on these resolutions. He said that 
 after taking all the testimony at full length, the special committee had 
 come to the conclusion that the two members mentioned were guilty and 
 deserved expulsion. In regard to other gentlemen connected with the 
 matter, the testimony was insufficient to warrant action. Mr. Ames 
 himself while a member of congress had conceded that he had sold to 
 various members of congress shares of stock in the Credit Mobilier, 
 although he denied that this stock was sold at a merely nominal value. 
 The testimony went to show that he could have obtained far more than 
 the contract prices agreed on. Mr. Ames practically made a gift of the 
 value of the stock above what was paid, and it was clear that he did this 
 to influence members of congress. Mr. Poland discussed the question 
 whether this could be called bribery in law, and concluded that it came 
 clearly within the statute ; whether the parties receiving the money did 
 so in perfect innocence or not, the crime was the same in the case of Mr. 
 Ames. He believed, as spokesman of the committee, that in the most 
 charitable view of Mr. Ames' conduct, he should not be tolerated as a 
 member of the house. In relation to Mi-. Brooks he said that that gentle- 
 man had received the stock corruptly with a knowledge that he was re- 
 ceiving it because he was a member of congress, and a government direc- 
 tor ; that it was given him to placate his official action. He did not 
 
1482 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 however receive it from Mr. Ames. Mr, Brooks, a leading man in con- 
 gress, a leading man of his party, had also been a leading friend of the 
 Pacific railroad. And after the connection between it and this com- 
 pany, the Credit Mobilier of America was established. Mr. Brooks was 
 the friend and associate of Dr. Durant, who was at that time a lead- 
 ing man in the enterprise, and was endeavoring to place stock in the 
 Credit Mobilier company, taken for the purpose of urging and carrying 
 on the work of the Union Pacific railroad. Mr. Brooks was employed, 
 as he himself testified before the committee, as an agent of Dr. Durant 
 to go about among the capitalists of New York and urge upon thera to 
 become stockholders in the Credit Mobilier company, and he did so. 
 On the 1st of October Mr. Brooks was appointed government director of 
 the Union Pacific railroad. Mr. Brooks must have been so cognizant 
 of the Union Pacific road, and of the Credit Mobilier organization as to 
 know the reasons why the stocks began to go up so rapidly in value. 
 There had been previous negotiations as to taking stock at a low figure ; 
 but he then declined. But when the extraordinary rise in value took 
 place, he then insisted on his right to have two hundred shares at par. 
 This stock by Dr. Durant's testimony was only to be obtained for Mr. 
 Brooks with the greatest difficulty. After a long negotiation the matter 
 was compromised by giving Mr. Brooks one hundred shares of stock at 
 par. His claim on the other hundred shares was bought off by giving 
 him $5,000 of Union Pacific bonds, and $20,000 worth of Union Pacific 
 stock. The son-in-law of Mr, Brooks, Mr. Chas. Nielson, made his ap- 
 pearance here as the vehicle of transfer. Mr. Brooks seemed to have 
 said: I am a government director and the law forbids government di- 
 rectors from being stockholders in the Union Pacific company, and 
 propriety would make it dangerous for him to be known as a stock- 
 holder in the Credit Mobilier. Therefore he would transfer the stock to 
 Mr. Charles H. Nielson, his son-in-law. Mr. Nielson therefore walked 
 up to the office and received his certificates of transfer. It was conclu- 
 sive from all the testimony of the parties concerned, that Dr. Durant 
 only yielded to the demands of Mr. Brooks on the grounds that Mr. 
 Brooks held such a position that it would not do to refuse what he 
 asked. In brief the whole train of circumstances traveled to the irre- 
 sistible conclusion that Mr. Brooks wrenched important pecuniary con- 
 cessions from the directors of the Union Pacific railroad, and the Credit 
 Mobilier, because they cared not to offend against his official power. It 
 was also clear that Mr. Brooks knew this was so. In regard to the gov- 
 ernment directorship, Mr. Poland, on the- part of the committee, argued 
 that if Mr. Brooks was guilty, as a government director of a corporation, 
 of corruption in oflSce, it was a good cause for his expulsion from the 
 
DEFENSE OF MESSRS. AMES AND BROOKS. 1483 
 
 house. All the testimony proved that the contract for the sale of shares 
 in the Credit Mobilier was entered into after he became a government 
 director. 
 
 Mr. Ames, of Massachusetts, sent his answer in writing to the clerk's 
 desk to he- read. In this he gave a sketch of the history of the con- 
 struction of the Union Pacific railroad. Mr, Ames recited the enor- 
 mous value that the railroad had been in the development of the country 
 as a commei'cial artery between the Atlantic and the Pacific. He 
 claimed that so far as he himself was pecuniarily concerned it would have 
 been better if he had never heard of the Union Pacific railroad. He 
 argued that the connection of the Credit Mobilier had not been alone 
 necessary to the completion of the road, but to the ability of the rail- 
 road company to meet its obligations to the company. Without enter- 
 ing at length into Mr. Oakes Ames' statement, we can best indicate its 
 general character by quoting the final paragraph : 
 
 ■" These, then, are my oflEenses: that I have risked reputation, fortune, 
 every thing, in an enterprise of incalculable benefit to the government, 
 from which the capital of the world shrank ; that I have sought to 
 strengthen the work, thus rashly undertaken, by invoking the charitable 
 judgment of the public upon its obstacles and embarrassments ; that I 
 have had friends, some of them in official life, with whom I have been 
 willing to share advantageous opportunities of investment ; that I have 
 kept to the truth through good and evil report, denying nothing, con- 
 cealing nothing, reserving nothing. Who will say that I alone am to be 
 offered up a sacrifice to appease a public clamor or expiate the sins of 
 others? Not until such an offering is made will I believe it possible. 
 But if this body feh all so order that it can best be purified by the choice 
 of a single victim, I shall accept its mandate, appealing with unfaltering 
 confidence to the impartial verdict of history for that vindication which 
 it is proposed to deny me here." 
 
 Although Mr. Brooks made no remark during this debate, he had de- 
 fended himself on a previous occasion from the same charges. In this 
 speech, after reciting in full detail his connection with the Union Pacific 
 railroad, and the Credit Mobilier, he stated that the interest in the 
 Credit Mobilier stock with which he was credited was actually and hon- 
 estly owned by Mr. Nielson, the latter having paid for it out of his own 
 pocket. Mr. Brooks had then denied that any of the circumstances 
 were such as to stain his honor or honesty either as a man or a member 
 of congress, and challenged the fullest investigation. He had asked that 
 his life be searched from beginning to end, and if any thing could be 
 found in him corrupt or rotten that he should be punished to the fullest 
 extent. On the resolution to expel Messrs. Oakes Ames and James 
 
1484 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 Brooks being further discussed, a substitute was offered by Mr. Sargent, 
 (Rep.) of California. This proposed that instead of expulsion the abso- 
 lute condemnation of the house should be valid. The substitute was 
 agreed to, and the condemnation of the house placed on the record. 
 
 This session of congress closed on the 4th of March, at noon. Among 
 the numerous acts passed was one to abolish the grades of admiral, and 
 vice-admiral in the United States navy. By another the franking privi- 
 lege was abolished, and by another the pay of certain officers and mem- 
 bers of congress was fixed, including the president, vice-president, the 
 members of the supreme court, and the cabinet. The principal points in 
 the debate of the last mentioned bill were given in a previous chapter. 
 
 During the first three quarters of the year 1873 the revenues of the 
 government were fully maintained, and the reduction of the debt went 
 steadily on. But during the month of September a most extraordinary 
 panic occurred. It overthrew thousands of commercial establishments, 
 the stock exchange, banking houses, trust companies, and manufactories. 
 The entire banking system of the country was paralyzed, and the effects 
 of the disturbance on the national revenue immediate. Instead of a 
 liquidation of the public debt annually, the treasury department could 
 not prevent its increase in the same proportion. The action of the trea- 
 sury department during the financial trouble may be succinctly stated as 
 follows : 
 
 As a result of the crisis there had been a rapid calling in of demand 
 loans, and of a general run on banks for the withdrawal of deposits. 
 The confidence in United States, and even in national bank notes, 
 caused them to be hoarded as coin had been in previous times of finan- 
 cial distress. As a consequence of the scarcity of circulating currency 
 resulting from this hoarding on the part of the people, the banks found 
 themselves unable to meet the demands made on them. Great pressure 
 was then brought to bear on the treasury department to afford relief by 
 the issue of United States notes. The first application came from a 
 number of gentlemen in New York, urging that the only adequate relief 
 was in placing, in the banks of that city, twenty million dollars in United 
 States notes, the loan to be issued on a pledge of clearing house certifi- 
 cates secured by ample collaterals, all the banks becoming jointly and 
 severally responsible. Again, as exchange on Europe had become almost 
 unsalable in the market, application was made to the secretary to use 
 the ro//ney in the treasury. Both these propositions were declined by 
 the tf^asury department as not being within its legal power. It was 
 however decided, in pursuance of a policy to allay the panic and to pre- 
 vent further disaster, to adopt the only practicable course which seemed 
 to be open, viz. : the purchase of bonds for the sinking fund to such an 
 
THE PANIC OF 18*73. 1485 
 
 extent as the condition of the treasury would allow, and the consequen- 
 tial release of a considerable amount of currency. Offers of bonds in- 
 creased to such an extent that the treasury was obliged to cease purchas- 
 ing after about the amount of thirteen millions had been bought. This 
 relief did much to strengthen the banks, and checked the general alarm 
 to some extent, but the loss of confidence, both in stock corporations 
 and in private firms, could not be arrested by any amount of currency 
 added to the circulation. Although a sketch of the great panic of the 
 year of 1873 does not properly come within a history of politics, its 
 bearing on the financial questions which entered so largely in the politi- 
 cal discussions of the times, was indirectly very great, and merits some- 
 thing more than mere passing allusion. The prominent features of the 
 panic were an immense decline in the value of securities, especially rail- 
 road and miscellaneous stocks ; an entire lack of confidence in every thing 
 except United States bonds, causing thereby a large amount of currency 
 to be locked up and a stoppage in foreign exchange. The chief reme- 
 dies used in New York to prevent the spread of the panic were these : 
 
 1. An immediate meeting of bank managers, at which it was resolved 
 to issue $10,000,000 in loan certificates, and still later a further amount 
 of $10,000,000, with authorization ' for further issues if needed. 2. A 
 general movement on the part of the banks to make large payments of 
 cheques only certified as good through the clearing-house. 3. Purchases 
 of bonds by the treasury amounting to about $13,500,000, thereby re- 
 leasing an equal amount of legal tenders. 4. The advantage taken by 
 the savings banks of the thirty days' notice of withdrawals by the de- 
 positors. 5. The close of the Stock Exchange from the 20th to the 
 30th of September. The action of the banks in issuing loan certificates 
 enabled them to " pool " their greenbacks, and tended to strengthen 
 those institutions which were weak. A similar course was followed by 
 banks in all the leading cities. The treasury however remained stiff in 
 its refusal to trench on its $44,000,000 reserve. The immediate cause 
 of the crisis was generally believed to be the overloading of the money 
 market with debt. The cost of railroad construction of the five previous 
 years had reached $1,700,000,000, and debts based on every species of 
 property, state, city, town, manufacturing and mining corporations, had 
 accumulated to an enormous aggregate. When the sale of such securi 
 ties failed abroad from the immense amounts offered so recklessly, the 
 bonds were put on the home market, and their negotiation soon became 
 almost impossible. The bankers could not carry their heavy loads, nor 
 respond to the demands of their creditors. The condition of the public 
 mind being ripe in its distrust, the panic, when once commenced, spread 
 like file in the stubble. 
 
1486 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The bill, which was introduced in the United States senate on Feb. 3d, 
 1873, the discussion of whose provisions will be found in a pre\dous 
 chapter, was believed by its projectors to be adapted to secure a more 
 elastic currency, and to prevent the occurrence of such panics as dis- 
 tressed the country during the year. That it did not meet the approval 
 of a majority of the senate is evidenced by the fact that it was laid on 
 the table indefinitely. 
 
 The views of the secretary of the treasury, in regard to the expansion 
 and contraction of the currency — a subject which excited more than 
 usual discussion on account of the panic — are given as follows : 
 
 " There is a prevailing sentiment that more elasticity should be given 
 to the volume of the currency, so that the amount in circulation might 
 increase and diminish according to the necessities of the business of the 
 country. But the difference of opinion on this subject is so great, and 
 the real difficulties attending its solution are so numerous, that, without 
 discussing any of the multitude of plans which have been presented to 
 the public through the press and otherwise, I eai-nestly commend to 
 the wisdom of congress a careful and thorough consideration of this im- 
 portant subject, rendered more obviously important by the present em- 
 barrassed condition of large business interests which have suffered by the 
 recent financial crisis ; and that, in such inquiry, avoiding further infla- 
 tion of the issue of irredeemable legal-tender notes, the most desirable of 
 all financial results to be attained, namely, a permanent return to the 
 sound basis of specie payments, and a gold standai'd to which all our 
 paper issues shall be made of equal value, shall be the aim. 
 
 " To allow national banks to use part of their reserves at seasons of 
 the greatest pressure, under proper restrictions and regulations, would 
 afford some flexibility. "j. "u-;!!) 
 
 " Rigid statute laws applied to all banks, at all seasons, and in all places 
 alike, often prove an embarrassment and injury when they conflict with 
 economic principles and the laws of trade and business, which are strong- 
 er than legislative enactments, and cannot be overthrown thereby. As- 
 sociated banks at the several redemption cities named in the banking 
 law, which are the great controlling centres of business, might do much 
 to give steadiness and safety, if they were authorized, through properly- 
 constituted boards or committees of their own officers, to exercise a large 
 discretion in the use of their reserves, in the rate of interest to be 
 charged at different seasons and under different circumstances, and in 
 other matters, within limits prescribed by law. 
 
 " Should it be deemed necessary or expedient to temporarily enlarge 
 the paper-money circulation in cases of great emergency, provision may 
 be made to permit the national banks, unJer certain circumstances, to a 
 
THE CASE OF THE VIRGINItJS. 1487 
 
 limited extent, to increase their note circulation by a pledge of 'tJiiited 
 States bonds, bearing no interest while so pledged, or subjecting the 
 banks to special taxation upon the circulating notes obtained thereon, or 
 upon such other terms that it would be for their interest to recall the 
 notes and redeem the bonds at the earliest possible day after the pressure 
 and their necessities should have ceased. 
 
 " But any large augmentation of the issue of United States legal-tender 
 notes in time of peace would not only be a departure from that " declara- 
 tion of public policy and pledge of the public faith to the national cred- 
 itors," made in the act of June 30, 1864, that the total amount of such 
 notes shall never exceed four hundred million dollars, as well as from 
 that more solemn pledge contained in the first act of the forty-first con- 
 gress, " to make provisions at the earliest practicable period for the re- 
 demption of United States notes in coin," but would postpone the day 
 of specie payments and render it more difiScult to attain in the distant 
 future, unsettle confidence in our national finances and be a serious det- 
 riment to public credit at home and abroad." 
 
 The country was profoundly agitated during the latter half of the year 
 1873, and war was nearly precipitated between the United States and Spain 
 by the " Virginius " difficulty. The atrocity of the circumstances, and 
 the wanton and reckless disregard, on the part of the highest Spanish 
 officials, of the clearest provisions of international law, were such as nat- 
 urally to stir the highest indignation on the part of the United States, a 
 feeling which was shared in part by England. The circumstances of the 
 capture of the " Virginius," and the subsequent execution of her pas- 
 sengers and her crew, may be briefly recited as follows : 
 
 The " Virginius " was a steamer of American registry and carrying 
 the American flag, which had cleared from the port of New York in the 
 year 1871. There can be no doubt that during the two years which fol- 
 lowed the vessel had made several successful landings on the coast of Cuba, 
 in the interest of the revolutionary cause, and had become an object of 
 notorious suspicion to the Spanish authorities. On the 31st of October, 
 1873, the vessel was overhauled and captured by the Spanish man-of-war 
 " Tornado." Among her passengers, as also disguised among her crew, 
 were found a number of well-known Cuban patriots ; arms and ammuni- 
 tion were also discovered to constitute a leading feature of the vessel's 
 freight. Although the Virginius was captured outside of the maritime 
 jurisdiction of Spain, she and her crew were carried into Santiago di 
 Cuba. At this military post the Spanish forces were commanded by 
 Brigadier Biirriel, whose name has since become infamous through con- 
 nection with the butchery which shortly followed. A tribunal was im- 
 mediately organized, and on the morning of November 4th four of the 
 
1488 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 principal Cuban captives, including General Cornelius Ryan, commander 
 of the expedition, were condemned and sliot. In spite of the earnest 
 protest of the American consul-general, as also the several foreign con- 
 suls at Santiago di Cuba, this legal murder was continued again on the 
 7th and the 8th instants, by the shooting of captain Yrj and thirty-six 
 of the crew of the steamer, as also of twelve more of the Cuban volun- 
 teers captured on the vessel. The Spanish authorities and press ex- 
 ulted in the massacre as if it were a great victory gained in the field, 
 and every indication appeared to show that this barbarity was thoroughly 
 approved by the colonial authorities, althouglf it was stated that the Cas- 
 tellar government in Spain had peremptorily ordered a stay in the pro- 
 ceedings. The disregard of the Madrid cabinet, thus shown by the Cu- 
 ban-Spanish authorities, was another proof of the practical independence 
 of the latter in dealing with important questions. The excitement, fer- 
 mented by the Virginius massacre, displayed itself among all ranks, from 
 the president down to the humblest citizen. The public press and mass- 
 meetings throughout the country, clamored for the president to vindicate 
 the name and authority of the United States under this heinous insult. 
 The president immediately issued orders to the naval department to for- 
 ward preparations with the utmost speed to place the American navy on 
 a war footing. The opinion for some time seemed to be decided that 
 the result would be, if not to precipitate war, at least to compel a recog- 
 nition of belligerency to be conceded to the insurgents, as a de facto po- 
 litical organization. So high ran the feeling throughout the country that 
 there would have been no more difficulty in raising and equipping an 
 army of volunteers than occurred after the firing on Fort Sumter. The 
 peculiar conservatism, however, of the secretary of state, Mr. Fish, which 
 was believed by many to be more consistent with his long friendship 
 with Spain than his regard for the honor of the United States, tended 
 to hold the government somewhat in check. The policy of delay was 
 inaugurated, though a fleet was concentrated at Key West ready for im- 
 mediate action. After an extended correspondence between Washing 
 ton, Havana, and Madrid, continuing about two months, it was arranged 
 in a conference between the secretary of state and the Spanish envoy, 
 Rear-Admiral Polo, that the United States should content her insulted 
 dignity with the following concession on the part of Spain : The latter 
 country stipulated to restore the vessel and the survivors of her passen- 
 gers and crew, and on the 25th of December to salute the flag of the 
 United States ; unless, in the meanwhile, Spain could prove that the Vir- 
 ginius carried the American flag illegally. Accordingly, on the 25th of 
 December, the Virginius was handed over by the Spanish authorities to 
 the American officer representing the admiral of the station,, though the 
 
THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES. 1489 
 
 salute "was not given. To this lame and impotent conclusion came a 
 complication, which threatened at one time to bring about war between 
 the two countries, and to make Cuban independence an ac<;omplished 
 fact. The prevalent feeling throughout the United States was one of 
 mortification and disgust, and the boldly expressed paeans of the Spanish 
 press, at what was called a rebuke to American bluster, and a humilia- 
 tion of American diplomacy, showed tkat the outcome of the affair was 
 looked on as a Spanish victory. The fact that general Burriel, the cen- 
 ter-figure in the political butchery at Santiago di Cuba, though removed 
 from command temporarily and ordered back to Spain, was shortly after- 
 ward promoted and covered with honors, was a pregnant and eloquent 
 proof of Spanish sentiment. 
 
 Before closing this chapter it will not be proper to omit altogether 
 reference to the supreme court decision on the so called " Slaughter 
 House Cases," arising under the laws of Louisiana. The importance of 
 the decision arises from the appeal, made by one of the parties in the 
 cases, for protection from hostile legislation by Louisiana, to the au- 
 thority of the federal government under the 13th and 14th amendments 
 to the constitution. The above mentioned cases grew out of an act of 
 the legislature of Louisiana, entitled " an act to protect the health of the 
 city of New Orleans, to locate the stock-lands and slaughter-houses, and 
 to incorporate * The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaugliter- 
 House Company,' passed in 1869." This act conferred on the corpora- 
 tion named the exclusive privilege of carrying on the live-stock and 
 slaughter-house business in the city of New Orleans and adjoining par- 
 ishes, embracing one thousand square miles. The New Orleans butchers 
 organized to test the validity of the act. After being beaten in the state 
 courts they brought it to the supreme court of the United States, where 
 it was three times argued. The most important objection offered by the 
 counsel of the association premised that it violated the constitution of 
 the United States in these several particulars : That it created an invol- 
 untary servitude forbidden by the thirteenth amendment ; that it abridged 
 the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States ; that 
 it denied to the plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws ; and that it 
 deprived them of their property without due process of law, contrary to 
 the provision of the first section of the fourteenth amendment. The 
 court was, therefore, called upon to give construction to these amend- 
 ments to the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court in an exhaustive 
 examination of the amendments and the principles involved. He 
 reached the conclusion that the term servitude in the thirteenth amend- 
 ment meant a personal servitude. The obvious purpose having been to 
 •94 
 
1490 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 forbid all shades and conditions of African slavery. As to the four- 
 teenth amendment it was construed as establishing a distinction between 
 a citizen of the United States, and a citizen of a state ; that not only- 
 may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of 
 a state, but to convert the former into the latter, the important element 
 of residence within a state is essential, or in other words " that there is 
 a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which 
 are distinct from each other and which depend upon different character- 
 istics, or circumstances, in the individual." It follows logically that the 
 provision of the fourteenth amendment that " no state shall make or 
 enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi- 
 zens of the United States," places them under the protection of the 
 federal constitution, while the citizens of the state have no additional 
 protection by this paragraph of the amendment. Having reached this 
 conclusion, the court proceeded to define the privileges and immunities 
 of citizens of a state, which may be briefly summed up as follow : " Pro- 
 tection by the government with the right to acquire and possess prop- 
 erty, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to such re- 
 straints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the 
 whole." 
 
 As to the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United 
 States the court decided that it might hold itself excused from defining 
 such privileges and immunities, as no state could abridge, until some 
 case involving those privileges should malce it necessary to do so. Lest 
 it should be said no such privileges existed if those are excluded which 
 we considered, we venture to suggest some. One of these is well de- 
 scribed in the case of Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall, 36. It is said to 
 be the right of the citizen of " this great country, to come to the seat of 
 government to assert any claim he may have on that government, and 
 that he has access to its seaports, to the sub-treasuries, land-offices, and 
 courts of justice in the several states." It is the privilege of a citizen of 
 the United States to demand the protection of the federal government 
 over his life, liberty and property, wherever he may be. To petition for 
 redress of grievances, and the privilege of habeas corpus were also rights 
 of the citizen. The right to use the navigable waters of the United 
 States, rights secured to the citizen by treaties with foreign nations de- 
 pend on the citizenship of the United States, and not the citizenship of 
 a state. A citizen of the United States can become a citizen of any 
 state by a hona-fide residence therein, with the same rights as other 
 citizens of that state. To these may be added the rights secured by the 
 thirteenth and fourteenth articles of amendment. 
 
 The " other clause " reads : " Nor shall any state deprive any person 
 
^ THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE CASES. 1491 
 
 of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any 
 person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws." Without 
 any elaborate discussion, the court held that the act of the Louisiana 
 legislature in question was not a deprivation of property, nor a denial of 
 the equal protection of the laws, within the meaning of the language of 
 the amendment. As to the general scope and purpose of these amend- 
 ments, the court said : " The language of these amendments flowed 
 towards one purpose, that of liberating negroes from slavery, but only in 
 the fifteenth was mentioned his color and his slavery. Slavery of all 
 kinds was forbidden now and hereafter, although negro slavery alone 
 was in the mind of congress when the thirteenth article was proposed. 
 
 We have thus referred to this important decision of the supreme 
 court, because it was to be largely quoted as authority by both parties in 
 discussing the great questions of constitutional law and policy. It may 
 be said that few judicial decisions had touched more vitally some of the 
 most intricate problems of the times. 
 
 CHAPTER CXX. 
 
 FIRST SESSION OF THE FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 
 
 FINANCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS. PASSAGE OF BILL TO REPEAL INCREASE 
 
 OF SALARIES. DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF SPECIE RESUMPTION,- — 
 
 SENATOR Sherman's speech on the financial situation. — bill to 
 
 INCREASE BANK CIRCULATION PASSED IN CONGRESS, BUT RETURNED BY 
 THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 The first session of the forty-third congress commenced on December 
 1st, 1873. The vice-president, Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, pre- 
 sided in the senate, and James G. Blaine was elected speaker of the 
 house. President Grant's message was received and read. The presi- 
 dent alluded to the great financial crisis which had just distracted the 
 business relations of the country, and congratulated the nation on the 
 probability of a satisfactory adjustment of the Virginius difficulty, which 
 had recently threatened to precipitate war between the United States 
 and Spain. In accordance with the joint resolution of congress, the 
 president had appointed a number of scientific men as commissioners 
 to attend the exposition at Vienna. The money awarded to the United 
 
1492 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 States by the Geneva tribunal had been promptly paid, and had been at 
 once used to redeem, so far as might be, the public debt. The amount 
 .so redeemed had been invested in a five per cent registered bond, for 
 $15,500,000, which was held subject to the disposition of congress. 
 The president renewed his recommendation for the establishment of a 
 commission to audit the amount of direct losses growing out of the de- 
 struction of vessels and their cargoes under the Alabama claims. The 
 message gave the results of the commission for marking the northern 
 boundary of the United States, and of the mixed commission to consider 
 claims against the United States by British subjects, the award under 
 which was $1,029,819 in gold. Treaties had been entered into with 
 Denmark, Mexico, the Orange free state, and Equador. The president 
 invited the earnest attention of congress to the existing laws respecting 
 expatriation, and the elections of nationality by individuals. He thought 
 it desirable that an exact definition should be made of the method by 
 which expatriation could be accomplished ; the regulation by law of the 
 condition of American women marrying foreigners, and a settlement of 
 the status of children born in a foreign country of American parentage. 
 The president briefly reviewed the Virginius difiiculty, and concluded 
 his discussion on the subject as follows : 
 
 " The embargoing of American estates in Cuba ; cruelty to American 
 citizens detected in no act of hostility to the Spanish government ; the 
 murdering of prisoners taken with arms in their hands ; and finally the 
 capture on the high seas of a vessel sailing under the American flag and 
 bearing a United States registry, have cumulated in an outburst of in- 
 dignation that had seemed for a time to threaten war. Pending nego- 
 tiations between the United States and the government of Spain, on the 
 subject of this capture, I have authorized the secretary of the navy to 
 put our navy on a war footing, to the extent, at least, of the annual ap- 
 propriation for that branch of the service, trusting to congress and to the 
 public opinion of the American people to justify my actions." 
 
 The message recommended an amendment of the constitution in rela- 
 tion to extra sessions of congress ; that legislation during the continu- 
 ance of these should be confined to such subjects as should be brouglit 
 before them by the executive in writing. The receipts of the govern- 
 ment from all sources during the last fiscal year were $333,738,204, and 
 the expenditures $290,345,245, showing an excess of receipts $43,392,- 
 959. The revenues had materially fallen off for the first five months of 
 the then fiscal year, owing to the panic which had prevailed. In the 
 president's judgment, however individuals had suffered, one long step 
 toward specie payment had been taken, and the lesson had been strongly 
 impressed on the country that on a specie payment alone could perma- 
 
THE PRESIDENT ON THE FINANCES. 1493 
 
 nent prosperity be reached. On the subject of specie payments and 
 elastic currency the president expressed his views as follows : 
 
 *' To increase our exports, sufficient currency is required to keep all the 
 industries of the country employed. Without this, national as well as 
 individual bankruptcy must ensue. Undue inflation, on the other hand, 
 ■while it might give temporary relief, would only lead to inflation of 
 prices, the impossibility of competing in our own markets for the pro- 
 ducts of home skill and labor, and repeated renewals of present expe- 
 riences. Elasticity to our circulating medium, therefore, and just enough 
 of it to transact the legitimate business of the country, and to keep all 
 industries employed, is what is most to be desired. The exact medium 
 is specie, the recognized medium of exchange the world over. That ob- 
 tained, we shall have a currency of an exact degree of elasticity. If 
 there be too much of it for the legimate purposes of trade and com- 
 merce, it will flow out of the country. If too little, the reverse will re- 
 sult. To hold -what we have and to appreciate our currency to that 
 standard, is the problem deserving of the most serious consideration of 
 congress. 
 
 " The experience of the present panic has proved that the currency of 
 the country, based as it is upon the credit of the country, is the best 
 that has ever been devised. Usually in times of such trials, currency 
 has become worthless, or so much depreciated in value as to inflate the 
 values of all the necessaries of life as compared with the currency. 
 Every one holding nt has been anxious to dispose of it on any terms. 
 Now we witness the reverse. Holders of currency hoard it as they did 
 gold in former experiences of a like nature. 
 
 " It is patent to the most casual observer that much more currency, or 
 money, is required to transact the legitimate trade of the country during 
 the fall and winter months, when the vast crops are being removed, than 
 during the balance of the year. With our present system the amount in 
 the country remains the same throughout the entire year, resulting in an 
 accumulation of all the surplus capital of the country in a few centres 
 when not employed in the moving of crops, tempted there bj- the offer 
 of interest on call loans. Interest being paid, this surplus capital must 
 earn this interest paid with a profit. Being subject to " call," it cannot 
 be loaned, only in part at best, to the merchant or manufacturer for a 
 fixed term. Hence, no matter how much currency there might be in 
 the country, it would be absorbed, prices keeping pace with the volume, 
 and panics, stringency, and disasters, would ever be recurring with the 
 autumn. Elasticity in our monetary system, therefore, is the object to 
 be attained first, and next to that, as far as possible, a prevention of the 
 use of other people's money in stock and other species of speculation. 
 
1494 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 To prevent the latter it seems to me that one great step would be taken 
 by prohibiting the national banks from paying interest on deposits, by 
 requiring them to hold their reserves in their own vaults, and by forcing 
 them into resumption, though it would only be in legal-tender notes. 
 For this purpose I would suggest the establishment of clearing-houses for 
 your consideration. 
 
 " To secure the former many plans have been suggested, most, if not 
 all, of which look to me more like inflation on the one hand, or compel- 
 ling the government, on the other, to pay interest, without correspond- 
 ing benefits, upon the surplus funds of the country during the seasons 
 when otherwise unemployed. 
 
 " I submit for your consideration whether this difficulty might not be 
 overcome by authorizing the secretary of the treasury to issue, at any 
 time, to national banks of issue, any amount of their own notes below a 
 fixed percentage of their issue, say forty per cent, upon the banks depos- 
 iting with the treasurer of the United States an amount of government 
 bonds equal to the amount of notes demanded, the banks to forfeit to 
 the government, say four per cent, of the interest accruing on the bonds 
 so pledged during the time they remain with the treasurer, as security 
 for the increased circulation, the bonds so pledged to be redeemable by 
 the banks at their pleasure, either in whole or in part, by returning their 
 own bills for cancellation to an amount equal to the face of the bonds 
 withdrawn. I would further suggest for your consideration the pro- 
 priety of authorizing national banks to diminish their standing issue at 
 pleasure by returning for cancellation their own bills and withdrawing so 
 many United States bonds as are pledged for the bills returned. 
 
 " In view of the great actual contraction that has taken place in the cur- 
 rency, and the comparative contraction continuously going on, due to the 
 increase of population, increase of manufactories, and all the industries, 
 I do not believe there is too much of it now for the dullest period of the 
 year. Indeed, if clearing-houses should be established, thus forcing re- 
 demption, it is a question for your consideration whether banking should 
 not be made free, retaining all the safeguards now required to secure 
 bill-holders. In any modification of the present laws regulating national 
 banks, as a further step toward preparing for resumption of specie pay- 
 ments I invite your attention to a consideratioii of the propriety of ex- 
 acting from them the retention, as a part of their reserve, either the 
 whole or a part of the gold interest accruing upon the bonds pledged as 
 security for their issue. I have not reflected enough on the bearing this 
 might have in producing a scarcity of coin Avith which to pay duties ou 
 imports to give it my positive recommendation. But your attention is 
 invited to the subject. 
 
FINANCIAL MATTERS. 1495 
 
 " During the last four years the currency has been contracted, directly, 
 by the withdrawal of three per cent certificates, compound-interest 
 notes, and "seven-thirty" bonds outstanding on the 4th of March, 1869, 
 all of which took the place of legal tenders in the bank reserves to the 
 extent of $63,000,000. 
 
 *' During the same period there has been a much larger comparative 
 contraction of the currency. The population of the country has largely 
 increased. More than twenty-five thousand miles of railroad have been 
 built, requiring the active use of capital to operate them. Millions of 
 acres of land have been opened to cultivation, requiring capital to move 
 the products. Manufactories have multiplied beyond all precedent in the 
 same period of time, requiring capital weekly for the payment of wages 
 and for the purchase of material ; and probably the largest of all com- 
 parative contraction arises from the organizing of free labor in the south. 
 Now every laborer there receives his wages, and for want of savings- 
 banks, the greater part of such wages is carried in the pocket or hoarded 
 until required for use." 
 
 The subjects of encouraging American ship building and of " cheap 
 transportation " were briefly considered, and urged on the early action of 
 congress. 
 
 On the first day of the session Mr. Sumner, (Eep.) of Massachusetts 
 submitted resolutions in the senate recommending international arbitra- 
 tion as a substitute for war in the settlement of differences between states 
 and nations ; and urging on foreign nations the adoption of this chris- 
 tian-like and civilized method of adjudicating disputes. Mr. Ferry, (Rep.) 
 of Michigan, also offered resolutions instructing the committee on finance 
 to consider the expediency of reporting a bill on a system of banking 
 and currency, which should embody the following substantial features : 
 
 1. Banking to be open and free to all individuals and associations 
 without limitation of capital. 
 
 2. The maximum currency circulation to be $800,000,000 exclusive 
 of fractional, and to be issued and authenticated solely by the govern- 
 ment, of uniform character, with " United States Currency " imprinted 
 on its face, made lawful money and a legal tender for all public and pri- 
 vate dues except duties on imports and interest on the public debt, and 
 convertible on demand into government bonds bearing interest at 3.65 
 per cent per annum in currency. 
 
 3. The government to issue bonds stamped " currency bonds," of de- 
 nominations of $100 and multiples bearing interest at the rate of 3.65 
 per cent per annum, convertible into currency on demand, and to be ex- 
 empt from taxation by federal, state, municipal, and local authority, 
 
 4. Substitution of the United States currency for national currency 
 
1496 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to be done at the convenience of the government, without diminishing 
 the vokime of current circulation, and the bonds held for the security of 
 the national currency to be adjusted with the banks by purchase or sur- 
 render ; substitution of United States currency for other existing forms, 
 bringing about uniformity of currency, to likewise be done without les- 
 sening the current circulation, 
 
 5. For immediate relief to existing monetary stringency the forty-four 
 millions treasury reserve to be issued without delay in the purchase of 
 government bonds bearing the higher rates of interest, and as fast as 
 practicable additional purchases of like bonds to be made with United 
 States currency, until the maximum circulation be reached. 
 
 6. Preparatory to withdrawal of the fractional currency the secretary 
 of the treasury is required to make public designation of a period after 
 which to begin the redemption in silver of denominations of twenty-five 
 cents, and under, also a second period designated at which to commence 
 like redemption of the remaining fractional currency then in circulation, 
 and all when so redeemed to be destroyed ; and that the committee re- 
 port at as early a day as practicable by bill or otherwise. 
 
 These resolutions were referred respectively to the proper committees. 
 
 In the house, on December 8th, the special committee on increased 
 salaries reported a bill to repeal the increase provided for in the bill of 
 March 3d, 1873, and to restore the former rates. The increase of sala- 
 ries had provoked much and bitter discussion throughout the country 
 during the recess of congress. The whole question had been artfully 
 mystified by writers on the public press and by political managers of 
 both parties. The epithet of the " salary grab " had been fixed on the 
 measure, and all those who voted for it had been branded with an op- 
 probrium little less than that which would be openly fixed on thievery. 
 However honest the motives of the movers of the bill had been, how- 
 ever just and needful the increase of salary to high public officials, the 
 occasion was too favorable for the chief deraagoguery of the country 
 not to be i.tilized to the utmost. Public opinion was worked up to such 
 a rabid pitch that great pressure was brought to bear on the forty-third 
 congress to repeal the action of its predecessor. A few in both houses 
 were sturdy enough to stand faithful to their conviction though the ma- 
 jority yielded to the public clamor, which opinion, at the present time, 
 has learned to believe to have been both intemperate and senseless. The 
 popular feeling, at this time, is all the more worthy of comment, as it 
 was clearly recognized that the constitution granted to each congress the 
 right to fix its own compensation. Up to the time of which we speak 
 five congresses had increased the salaries, and each time dated the in- 
 crease back to the time of the beoinninof of congress. The harshness of 
 
THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. 149Y 
 
 the public verdict was very yveW characterized by Mr. Wilson, (Rep.) of 
 Indiana, in the following language : 
 
 " The action of the forty-second congress, in passing the act by which 
 the salaries of senators and representatives were increased, which it is 
 now proposed to repeal, and especially that feature of it whereby the in- 
 creased pay was made to date from the beginning of the congress, has 
 met with the fiercest denunciation. Not only those who voted for it, 
 but those who voted against it, yet received its benefits, have been stig- 
 matized as thieves and robbers. 
 
 " It matters not how many years of faithful service had been devoted 
 to the country, nor how exalted a character for integrity had been builded 
 up ; this one act has been deemed an unpardonable sin, and treated as 
 an unmitigated criminality. While indulging in this wholesale denun- 
 ciation, no one stopped to consider the circumstances under wliich any 
 member happened to be placed, and which to him, and to any reasonable 
 man, might seem to make it his duty to vote for the measure." 
 
 After an elaborate discussion, both in the senate and the house, ex- 
 tending over more than a month, which it is not necessary to revic^w, as 
 the principal questions involved were considered in the original debate, 
 a bill passed both branches of congress, restoring the former status, not 
 only of the members of the house and of the senate, but of all other em- 
 ployees of the government, with the exception of the president and the 
 judges of the supreme court. 
 
 In the senate, on December 16th, resolutions were offered by Mr. 
 Sherman, (Rep.) of Ohio, directing the committee on finance to report, 
 as early as practicable, such measures as would secure an early return to 
 specie payments by some definite action on the part of congress, so ad- 
 justed as to meet the changing needs of commerce and trade. The mi- 
 nority of the committee, through Mr. Bayard, (Dem.) of Delaware, re- 
 ported a resolution simply instructing the committee on finance to report 
 to the senate measures to effect, at an early date, return to specie pay- 
 ments. Mr. Pratt, (Rep.) of Indiana, explained the difference between 
 the two resolutions. The one contemplated legislation in regard to cur- 
 rency and the changing requirements of commerce, while the other 
 looked solely to measures for the redemption of currency in coin. It 
 was now nearly five years since congress, in the act of March 16th, 1869, 
 had pledged the faith of the United States to the earliest practicable re- 
 demption of United States notes in coin. In spite of the general and 
 increased prosperity of the nation, that period had not yet come. On 
 the face of every greenback was the promise to pay the bearer so much 
 money in gold or silver, and on the face of every bank note the promise 
 to pay either in specie or greenbacks. The interpretation of the supreme 
 
1498 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 court expressly affirmed the national obligation thus expressed on the 
 United States notes. This was the strictly legal view of the greenback. 
 When the act of congress passed creating this money and making it a 
 legal tender, its constitutionality was questioned, and it was regarded 
 simply as a war measure justified by necessity. Among the powers of 
 congress enumerated in the constitution is that " to coin money, regu- 
 late the value thereof and of foreign coin." The states were prohibited 
 from coining money, issuing bills of credit, and from making anything 
 but specie a legal tender. The objectors argued that the constitution 
 clearly conferred on congress nothing but the power of coining metallic 
 money ; on the other hand it was urged that, as states were prohibited 
 from legalizing anything but gold and silver coin, the implication was 
 that congress might do what the states could not, that is, make some- 
 thing else than coin a legal tender. Whichever view was constitution- 
 ally right, it was then too late to question the constitutionality of the 
 " greenback " legislation. The law, as originally passed, provided that 
 the interest on the bonds which had a long time to run, should be paid 
 semi-annually in coin, and those holding greenbacks were allowed to fund 
 them in these bonds so as to compensate them for any possible damage. 
 The gratifying result of governmental good-faith, in respect to the afore- 
 said bonds, was that they commanded a premium in gold. Congress, in an 
 evil hour, passed the act of March 3d, 1863, which repealed the authority 
 given to holders of greenbacks to exchange them for the gold interest- 
 bearing bonds. The result had been from that tune of the discount on 
 the value of greenbacks. As the matter then stood there was $356,- 
 000,0.00 of this legal issue afloat, without empowering holders to get the 
 promised coin or to exchange for bonds; in other words, the United 
 States notes were simply engraved falsehoods, which were likely to re- 
 main until congr^s took measures to wipe out the dishonor. It would 
 require $400,000,000 of coin to redeem the greenbacks ; $354,000,000 
 more to redeem the bank note circulation. It would not only be neces- 
 sary to borrow this amount of gold, but enough more coin to maintain 
 the resumption. The senator then went on to review the facts relating 
 to the supply of coin, showing that the constant drain of the precious 
 metals abroad, the balance of trade against the United States, the large 
 payments of specie as interest on the public debt, and the enormous ex- 
 travagance of Americans abroad, made it impracticable for the country 
 to supply or borrow the amount of coin necessary for early resumption. 
 He gave statistics to show, that measuring the amount of currency by 
 the wealth and population of the country, the percentage was largely in 
 excess of the circulating medium of the country in 1860 and in 1862. 
 Mr. Fenton, (Rep.) of New York, said that for a resumption by the gov- 
 
DEBATE ON RESUMPTION. 1499 
 
 ernment there must be a reduction of paper, so that currency and specie 
 should bear a recognized relation to each: other. 
 
 Mr. Morton, (Rep.) of Indiana, did not believe that the time had come 
 to adopt definite measures to redeem legal tenders in coin. The time 
 should be put off so as not to increase the present embarrassment or in- 
 tensify the effects of the panic. Senators had recently declared (Messrs. 
 Sumner, of Massachusetts, and Howe, of Wisconsin,) that every day 
 congress had failed to redeem the legal tender notes, the faith of the 
 public was broken. He protested against this. It was always perfectly 
 well understood that the promise to redeem was to be broken for an in- 
 definite time, and that government was not bound to resume until it was 
 practicable to do so. To resume at the present time would only insure 
 a further shrinkage of values, and increase the burden of the country by 
 diminishing the prices of property and laboi*. The panic was not caused 
 by the depreciation of the currency. It was a well-known fact that such 
 fiftancial disasters were just as common in countries where currency was 
 on a gold basis. A panic in finance was like a panic in the army. It 
 was generally caused by some sudden event that confused the minds of 
 men and destroyed confidence. The panic had made money scarce be- 
 cause distrust on the part of the public caused paper money to be hoarded 
 just as gold and silver were hoarded in other times. This fact itself 
 showed the popular confidence in paper currency. He would ask what 
 was the real remedy for a panic ? He did not believe it would be found 
 in the resumption of specie payments. He proceeded to lay down as a 
 general proposition, soundly sustained by the history of trade, that the 
 true relief for a panic had always been, not resumption, not contraction, 
 but by making small additions to the currency at the time. Senator 
 Morton then indorsed the action of the treasury department, which had 
 authorized the purchase of bonds to the amount of the currency balance 
 of about $44,000,000. This action had circumscribed the effects of the 
 panic at once. The panic had no connection with anything in the gov- 
 ernment finance or the currency. It was like the explosion of a steam- 
 boat boiler or a railway collision. He was only sorry that when the 
 panic commenced the government had not seen its way clear to put into 
 circulation at once the whole $44,000,000 in reserve, 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen, (Rep.) of New Jersey, said that the embarkation 
 on any plan to render legal tenders convertible into gold demanded the 
 most cautious study and preparation. He had a measure tp suggest for 
 the consideration of the committee on finance. His plan was as follows : 
 
 " The secretary of the treasuiy should be authorized to issue bonds of 
 the United States, bearing six per cent interest, payable in United States 
 specie -paying notes, or in gold ; and these bonds should be issued ih ex- 
 
1500 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 change, at not less than par, for gold, from time to time, as the oppor- 
 tunity occurred, or be issued and sold, and the proceeds used from time 
 to time in the purchase of gold, such gold to be held in the treasury 
 until enough was accumulated wherewith to commence the redemption 
 of the outstanding United States notes in specie. 
 
 " That there be no unnecessary issue of these bonds in obtaining the . 
 requisite amount of gold wherewith to commence the redemption, and 
 that a sufficient supply of gold may be continuously in the treasury, the 
 secretary should have the right to reissue the redeemed treasury notes in 
 exchange for coin at par, and for no other purpose, the aggregate amount 
 of such notes which may be outstanding and those which may have been 
 redeemed and held at no time to exceed the amount that shall have been 
 lawfully issued at the date of the passage of the proposed act. 
 
 " And to put it beyond question that when the redemption is com- 
 menced it will not be discontinued, the secretary should be authorized, 
 in the event of the supply of gold being unequal to the redemption, and 
 in that event only, to redeem the said notes in sums of $1,000 with such 
 of the six per cent bonds as have not been issued." 
 
 After considering the objections to his plan, the senator said that with 
 such powers and resources resumption could not be defeated, when the 
 secretary should say the opportune time for resumption had begun ; that.' 
 time he would select in view of the accumulation of gold he had made;^ 
 in view of the condition of the money market, in view of the permanent *^ 
 approximation the United States currency had made to gold. The pas- 
 sage of this act, rendering resumption at some time certain, would make 
 a much less gold reserve in the treasury necessary than would otherwise 
 exist. 
 
 Mr. Schurz, (Rep.) of Missouri, announced himself as utterly opposed 
 to inflation under whatever mask it might be proposed. The country 
 Avas cursed with all sorts of schemes for making irredeemable money 
 perpetual. He considered those gentlemen on the floor of the senate, 
 who advocated increase of the currency under any conditions, to be in- 
 flationists. The relief sought by an inflation of the currency was a mere 
 delusion. The ridiculously absurd notion that printing and issuing 
 more government promises to pay would increase the wealth of the 
 country, would be a ludicrous form of superstition, were it not so serious ^ 
 and sad, AH' admitted that specie payment was the ultimate goal to be 
 desired. The only question was that of method and opportunity. As 
 for the difficulty standing in the way he protested against the delusions 
 proposed by M\e senator from Michigan, (Mr. Ferry) and of the senator 
 from Massachusetts (Mr. Boutwell). The first of these involved the cu- 
 rious proposition that expansion was first necessary in order to reach 
 
DEBATE ON RESUMPTION CONTINUED. 1501 
 
 specie payment with facility. The second counseled the doing of 
 nothing ; but to -wait until the business of the country would grow so 
 much that necessity would equalize gold and paper. The author of the 
 latter theory had not infonned the senate w^hen that period was likely to 
 corae — a very valuable piece of information. He himself favored 
 prompt action because many of the difficulties which would accompany 
 resumption, had already been anticipated by the crisis. 
 
 Mr. Sherman, (Rep.) of Ohio, laid down some general propositions, 
 such as the soundest political economists would concur in. The first of 
 these immutable axioms was that a specie standard was the only measure 
 of values, and no sophism could evade this truth. In the next place 
 congress was bound, both by good faith and policy, to appreciate cur- 
 rency to the gold standard, as early as possible. This, both branches of 
 congress, affirmed and reaffirmed, yet it pained him to say that not one 
 single act of congress had been passed, tending to advance the value of 
 gi'eenbacks to par in gold. It was as clear as light that congress had 
 made many promises, and had not done anything to fulfill them. Mr. 
 Sherman gave a condensed statement of the condition of public finances 
 as follows : 
 
 " Sir, let us see what has been done. We have paid $400,000,000 of 
 the public debt, and we boast of it — of debt not due for years. We 
 have paid to redeem that debt a premium of $40,000,000. In other 
 words, we have paid $440,000,000 to redeem four hundred millions of 
 debt not yet due, and we have not redeemed a single debt that was due 
 in March, 1869; but, on the contrary, we have increased the kind of 
 debts then due more in proportion than the increase of our population. 
 And, sir, while our promise did advance the credit of our bonds and of 
 our notes alike, and while the execution of that promise as to our bonds 
 has advanced our bonds to above par in gold, yet we have done nothing 
 whatever to redeeem the second clause of that pledge ; but, on the 
 other hand, all we have done has been done with the intention and with 
 the effect of depreciating the value of our notes. 
 
 " Mr. President, I am not here to find fault with individuals ; but I 
 do say that the congress of the United States, in the measures which 
 have been adopted, has not done what it ought to have done to redeem 
 the pledge of the public faith to pay these notes in coin ' at the earliest 
 practicable period.' Why, sir, at this moment we are living in daily vio- 
 lation of this pledge. I said a moment ago that instead of adopting 
 measures looking toward specie payments we have increased the volume 
 of our currency in every branch of it. Now let us see if this be true. I 
 have here a statement, taken from the official report of the secretary of 
 the treasury, of the amount of the cun-ency on the 30th of June, 1869. 
 
1502 THE .AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 I cannot find a statement for the 1st of March, 1869, but it was the 
 Bame, because it was fixed by law. I find on the 30th of June, 186,9, 
 we had three hundred and fifty-six millions of greenbacks, the same 
 amount that we had on the 18th day of March. That was the maximum 
 amount, as it was supposed, fixed by law. When the act of the 18th of 
 March, 1869, was passed, no one dreamed that there existed a power to 
 issue forty-four millions more. 
 
 "Our greenbacks were then $356,000,000. On the 1st of January, 
 1874, according to the last statement of the public debt, they were 
 $3.78,481,339. We had, then, increased this form of our currency $22,- 
 481,000. And that is not all. Since that time, and up to the 10th of 
 January, according to a New York newspaper — and I suppose it is 
 correct — I find that the amount of legal-tender notes outstanding was 
 $381,891,000, or an increase since the 1st of January of something like 
 $3,400,000, or at the rate of $400,000 a day. Every dollar of this new 
 issue of paper-money directly tended to depreciate that outstanding and 
 was in violation of the spirit and the provision of the law of 1869. I 
 am not now speaking of the legal power of the secretary of the treasury 
 to make this issue, because I have already given my opinion fully on 
 this subject in an official report, but only call your attention to the fact 
 that by our acquiescence we have actually watered, debased, and depre- 
 ciated by new issues the very notes we promised to pay in coin at the 
 earliest practicable period. 
 
 " Nor is this all. Under authority clearly conferred by law to the 
 secretary of the treasury, we have increased the fractional currency from 
 $27,508,928, at which it stood on the 80th of June, 1869, to $48,554,- 
 792, or an increase of fractional currency of $21,036,000. Again, air, 
 driven by a local demand which we could not resist, founded upon a pal- 
 pable injustice growing out of the mistake of an officer of the govern- 
 ment long ago in the distribution of the national-bank circulation, we did 
 authorize by law an increase of the bank circulation to the south and 
 west to the amount of $54,000,000. The amount of bank-notes issued 
 at the time we made this pledge was $299,789,000; and to-day, the 
 amount outstanding is $339,081,000, showing an increase in this kind of 
 notes of $39,300,000, or an increase of the currency since the promise 
 to pay it in coin at the earliest practicable period, and all legal tender in 
 effect, of $82,317,000; and now this process of inflation is going on 
 daily — first, by the issue of the balance of the forty-four million reserve; 
 and, second, by the issue of new bank-notes as banks are organized 
 under the act of July, 1870 ; and yet there is a cry for more, more. 
 
 " My honorable friend asked me a while ago what was the nature of 
 the pledge made by the act of March, 1869, as to the time of payment 
 
DEBATE ON THE FINANCES. 1503 
 
 of United States notes in coin. If I was defending a person charged as 
 a criminal for violating this law, or one like it, I would claim, as the 
 
 - senator from Indiana does, that as no time was fixed, no man could be 
 
 - convicted for a penitentiary offense for a violation of the law. But what 
 is this pledge ? Let me read it again : 
 
 ' And the United States also solemnly pledges its faith to make pro- 
 vision at the earliest practicable period for the payment of the United 
 # States notes in coin.' 
 
 " What is the meaning of that ? Does it not mean that the United 
 States shall apply its means, its power, its energies, its revenue, its 
 money to redeem these notes ? Does it mean a vague promise, such as 
 party platforms sometimes use to deceive and mislead the people ? 
 Does it mean only a vague, indefinite promise by which business men 
 are to be gulled and deluded into basing their contracts upon an artifi- 
 cial standard ? No, sir ; it is the promise of a great, proud, and rich 
 people, who mean what they say — that every practicable means shall be 
 used to that end." 
 
 The senator protested against further postponement of measures look- 
 ing toward the fulfillment of the promises of congress. He argued at 
 some length to show that there was no necessity for such delay. His 
 resume of the modes by which it had been proposed to return to specie 
 payment was as follows : 
 
 " There is, first, the proposition to accumulate gold in the treasury 
 with a view to the actual redemption of our notes in coin. That is sup- 
 ported by two bills now before the committee : one introduced by the 
 senator from Vermont (Mr. Morrill), and the other by the senator from 
 New Jfersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). What are the objections to this plan ? 
 They seem to me to be these : In the first place, any attempt to accumu- 
 late large masses of gold in the treasury, lying idle to await some future 
 event not fixed by act of congress, would not be a wise use of the public 
 moneys. In the next place, I entirely object to conferring upon the sec- 
 retary of the treasury the power of issuing one hundred millions or any 
 lesser sum of six per cent bonds with a view to buy gold to hoard it in 
 the treasury to maintain resumption. I believe that it is impossible, in 
 the very nature of things, to maintain the resumption of specie payments 
 at all times and under all circumstances ; and if any thing has been es- 
 tablished by modern experience, it is that all a nation can do that issues 
 paper-money is to maintain it at a specie standard in ordinary times ; 
 but, in times of panic, such as by periodical revulsions come over evety 
 country, specie payments cannot be maintained. They can scarcely be 
 maintained in England, and are not now maintained in France, although 
 they approach them. Therefore, every plan for specie payments ought 
 
1504 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 to have some provision for the temporary suspension of specie payments 
 or some means by which in times of great panic and financial distress 
 there may be a temporary departure from the specie standard. I say this 
 not that it ought to be so, but simply as a matter of demonstrated expe- 
 rience shown by the history of almost all commercial nations in Europe. 
 
 " The second plan is the actual payment of the United States notes 
 and their cancellation ; in other words, the plan of contraction. In the 
 first place, this plan while it operates does so with much severity as, in a 
 popular government like ours, to cause its suspension and repeal. Un- 
 doubtedly, the most certain way to produce specie payments is by re- 
 tiring the notes that are dishonored, paying them oS, taking them out 
 of circulation. But the trouble is, the process of contraction is itself so 
 severe upon the ordinary current business of the country that the people 
 will not stand it ; and in this country the people rule. The policy of 
 Mr. McCulloch, alt-eady commented upon, if it had been continued fur- 
 ther, would have undoubtedly brought us to a specie standard, but with 
 great distress, great impoverishment, and with more difticulty than was 
 really necessary to accomplish the object in view. 
 
 "These are the difficulties that occur to me as against these two poH- 
 cies. There is a third plan. This plan, which in my judgment presents 
 the easiest and best mode of attaining specie payments, is to take some 
 bond of the United States which in ordinary times, by current events, is 
 shown to be worth par in gold in the money-markets of the world, where 
 specie is alone the standard of value, and authorize the conversion of 
 notes into that bond. 
 
 " I again appeal to the senate to now firmly take its stand against any 
 inflation of paper-money under any circumstances, under any provoca- 
 tion, or any plea. This alone will do a great good to the country. But 
 if it will go further — if the senate will lead the way to some wise and 
 practical measure, looking to a redemption of the pledged faitli of the 
 United States, the people we represent will have cause to be proud of 
 the political body which they have so long honored. I believe, sir, that 
 no act of the senate would so much inspire confidence, give strength to 
 our business men, revive our industry, as by a decided vote on these 
 propositions to show that our firm purpose is to take the road that leads 
 to specie payments and a restored currency." 
 
 Mr. Logan, (Rep.) of Illinois, made a speech of some length, in which 
 he protested against any forced return to specie payments, and confessed 
 his confidence in the policy of moderate inflation. He did not believe 
 there was any talismanic power in a dollar of gold that would render it 
 more effective in trade than a paper dollar. 
 
 Mr. Boutwell, of Massachusetts, said that until that not distant equali- 
 
VETO OF BILL TO INCREASE PAPER MONEY. 1505 
 
 zation of the value of paper and coin, which a prosperous commerce 
 would bring about, any direct legislative action in favor of specie resump- 
 tion would be fraught with the greatest financial danger. The formal 
 debate on the resolution was here suspended. 
 
 Subsequently, on March 23d, Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, from the com- 
 mittee on finance, reported a bill to provide for the redemption and re- 
 issue of United States notes. This bill provided that the maximum limit 
 should be fixed at $382,000,000, where it should remain until reduced 
 as provided in the bill. 
 
 Mr. Merriam, (Dem.) of North Carolina, offered a substitute for the 
 entire bill, which differed from the other only in regard to the increase 
 of the public debt. The substitute was agreed to and the bill was re- 
 ported to the senate as amended. Senators Conkling, of New York, 
 Stewart, of Nevada, Anthony, of Rhode Island, and Thurman, of Ohio, 
 entered their protests against the bill in forcible and eloquent language. 
 Mr. Thurman's is well worth recording : 
 
 " Upon the measure itself I have a word to say. It simply means 
 that no man of my age shall ever again see in this country that kind of 
 currency which the framers of the constitution intended should be the 
 currency of the union ; which every sound writer on political economy 
 the world over says' is the only currency that defrauds no man ; it means 
 that so long as I shall live, and possibly long after I shall be laid in the 
 grave, this people shall have nothing but an irredeemable paper currency 
 with which to transact their business, that currency which has been well 
 described as the most effective invention that ever the wit of man de- 
 vised to fertilize the rich man's field at the expense of the poor man's 
 brow, I will have nothing to do with it, sir." 
 
 The bill was passed by a vote of 29 to 24, — 19 being absent. On 
 April 14th, the same bill passed the house by a vote of 140 to 102, 48 
 being absent. On April 22d, 1874, a message was received from presi- 
 dent Grant vetoing the bill. The senate refusing to pass the bill over 
 the president's veto by a two-thirds vote, it was killed. An act was 
 finally passed by congress, which increased the legal tender notes $26,- 
 000,000, and abolished the reserve on bank-note circulation. 
 
 95 
 
1506 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXI. 
 
 butler's civil rights bill. INDIGNANT ARGUMENTS OF DEMOCRATS IN 
 
 THE SENATE AND HOUSE. THE LOUISIANA QUESTION AGAIN. SENA- 
 TOR carpenter's review of THE SITUATION. FURTHER DISCUSSION BY 
 
 SENATORS. EXECUTIVE ACTION TO QUELL SOUTHERN DISTURBANCES. 
 
 In the house, on December 8th, 1873, Mr. Butler, (Rep.) of Massa- 
 chusetts, for the committee on the judiciary, reported a bill to protect 
 all citizens in their civil and legal rights. The bill provided that v^^ho- 
 ever being a corporation, or natural person and owner, in charge of any 
 public inn, or any place of public amusement for which a legal license is 
 required, or any line of stage-coaches, railroad, or other means of public 
 carriage of passengers or freight ; or of any cemetery or benevolent in- 
 stitution ; or any public school supported in whole, or part at public ex- 
 pense or by endowment for public use, should make any distinction in 
 the accommodation therein of any citizen of the United States of any 
 race, color, or condition, should on conviction thereof be fined not less 
 than $100, nor more than $5,000, for such an offense ; and the person, 
 or corporation so offending should be liable to the citizens thereby in- 
 jured in damages to be recovered in an action of debt. The second 
 section provided that offenses under this act, and actions to recover 
 damages, might be prosecuted before any territorial, or district circuit 
 court of the United States, having jurisdiction of crimes at the place 
 where the offense was charged to have been committed, as well as in the 
 district where the parties might reside, as then provided by law. Mr. 
 Butler proposed to explain and defend the bill. He himself was an 
 old state rights democrat ; but he insisted that no state had the right to 
 prohibit the full enjoyment she gave to all her citizens by discriminating 
 against any class. When a man was a citizen he sprang up to the high 
 plane of citizenship, and standing at that plane, he was the equal of every 
 citizen, whatever may have been his former condition. He must have 
 all his rights secured inviolate. This was the ground on which this bill 
 was presented to the house and country. There was no right in any 
 state to abate one jot or tittle of constitutional right of equality in the 
 civil and legal privileges of the meanest citizen. 
 
 Mr. Beck, (Dem.) of Kentucky, denied that any democrat wished to 
 see the negro race deprived of any privilege guaranteed to them by con- 
 
CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 1507 
 
 stitutional rights and laws ; but he, in common with his party, objected 
 to the usurpation by congress of authority over matters strictly within 
 the state jurisdiction. Mr. Beck cited the statutes of various states to 
 show that state authority included questions which congress could not 
 touch. He objected to the bill, not only as regards its coercive legisla- 
 tion, which was designed to drive party politics at the point of the 
 bayonet, but because the constitution and all its amendments were 
 violated. He cited the late decision of the supreme court in the 
 slaughter-house cases, in which the clearest distinction was drawn 
 between citizenship of the United States, and citizenship of a state. 
 The whole spirit and bearing of the decision was against the constitu- 
 tionality of the law now proposed, matters of regulation as to education, 
 local corporations, and their rights and privileges being subjects which 
 bore on the individual, as being a citizen of the state, and not as a citi- 
 zen of the United States. If congress took this step it would be the en- 
 tering wedge to get the control over education everywhere. Mr. Rainey, 
 (Rep.) of South Carolina, charged that the southern democrats had an 
 undying antipathy to the color race. So long as the colored man made 
 himself content with ordinary gifts it was well ; but when he aspired to 
 be a man, Avith the full rights of citizenship, then he was asking for 
 something which such gentlemen were not willing to grant. 
 
 Mr. Stephens, (Dem.) of Georgia, argued the question on constitu- 
 tional grounds, and on the ground of expediency. The highest judicial 
 tribunal had settled it by law and fact. As regards expediency, a 
 knowledge of the true condition of affairs in the south made it clear that 
 it would be to the ultimate injury of the colored race. 
 
 Mr. Elliott, (Rep.) of South Carolina, regretted that the dark hue of 
 his skin might lend a color to the belief that he was merely controlled 
 by personal motives. He wished to discuss it from a view as broad as 
 the constitution and the country themselves. He denied that there was 
 anything in the supreme court decisions cited, to sustain the dishonored 
 cause of proscription when they were examined in the light of the exact 
 question which occasioned them. The court held in this decision that 
 the leading and comprehensive purpose of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and 
 fifteenth amendments was to secure the complete freedom- of the race 
 which had been emancipated by the war. The clear construction to be 
 placed on the three amendments by this decision, was their purpose to 
 secure perfect equality among all grades of citizens. What was denied 
 to one class must be denied to all, except in the exercise of police pow- 
 ers inherent in the state. As regards the distinction between the two 
 kinds of citizenship, the speaker admitted its enunciation by the supreme 
 court, but denied that there was a word or line in the decision which 
 
1508 THE AMERICAN^ STATESMAN. 
 
 denied to congress the power to prevent a denial of an equality of 
 rights where they were existing by virtue of citizenship of the United 
 States. Mr, Elliot summed up the logic of his argument in the follow- 
 ing words : 
 
 " Let honorable members mark well this distinction. There are rights 
 which are conferred on us by the United States. There are other rights 
 conferred on us by the states of which we are individually the citizens. 
 The fourteenth amendment does not forbid a state to deny to all its 
 citizens all of those rights which the state itself has conferred, with cer- 
 tain exceptions, which are pointed out in the decision which we are ex- 
 amining. What it does forbid is inequality, is discrimination, or, to use 
 the words of the amendment itself, is the denial ' to any person within 
 its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' If a state denies to 
 me rights which are common to all her other citizens, she violates the 
 amendment, unless she can show, as was shown in the slaughter-house 
 cases, that she does it in the legitimate exercise of her police power. If 
 she abridges the rights of all her citizens equally, unless those rights are 
 specially guarded by the constitution of the United States, she does not 
 violate this amendment. This is not to put the rights which I hold by 
 virtue of my citizenship of South Carolina under the protection of the 
 national government ; it is not to blot out or overlook in the slightest 
 particular the distinction between rights held under the United States 
 and rights held under the states ; but it seeks to secure equality, to pre- 
 vent discrimination, to confer as complete and ample protection on the 
 humblest as on the highest." 
 
 Mr. Vance, (Dem.) of North Carolina, ai'gued the question from the 
 standpoint of expediency. He said the southern whites had been con- 
 sistent in their efforts to carry out the spirit of the amendments, and to 
 give the black race the fullest opportunity to uplift and develop them- 
 selves. He protested that the effects of this bill would culminate in race 
 antagonism ; suqh an enmity would not be beneficial to the colored man. 
 He submitted, in good faith, that if the question were ever presented in 
 the south, " Shall this country be ruled by white men or colored men ?" 
 the colored men would go down before it. He asserted that all history 
 proved the fact that in the conflict of races the pure Caucasian was 
 supreme. 
 
 Meanwhile the subject had been taken up in the senate, and the bill, 
 as originally presented by Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, was referred to 
 the committee on the judiciary. On April 30th the committee reported 
 the bill with an amendment. Mr. Frelinghuysen, (Rep.) of New Jersey, 
 invoked for the bill a calm and unpartisan study, of which the central 
 idea should be the equality of races before the law. The decision of the 
 
CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 1509 
 
 supreme court in the slaughter-house cases showed that the objects of 
 the amendments were to wipe out every consequence of slavery, to for- 
 bid state legislation that discriminated in the slightest sense between 
 the two races. He asked how the United States was to protect the 
 rights of the citizens of the United States in the states ? Congress could 
 not deal with the states, or with their officials, to compel proper legisla- 
 tion and its enforcement. It could only deal with the offenders that 
 might violate the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United 
 States. As no state under the old constitution could discriminate in law 
 against a citizen of another state as to fundamental rights, so now no 
 state could discriminate against a citizen of the United States merely on 
 account of his race. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, (Dem.) qf Ohio, did not believe that one-third of the 
 senate untrammeled by party measure would vote for a bill like this. 
 He made an elaborate argument to prove the unconstitutionality of the 
 proposed bill, quoting irqfn numerous state, and United States decisions, 
 to show there were prohibitions on the federal, and state authority. 
 Mr. Thurman said : " ' No state shall make or enforce anj law, which shall 
 abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States.' 
 Does this bill deal with any law of the state ? No, sir ; it does not 
 profess to do so. It is not aimed at any law of the state. The consti- 
 tution says no state shall make or enforce any such law. This bill says 
 to a state : ' Although you do not make such a law, although you do not 
 enforce any such law, although your law is directly the opposite, al- 
 though you punish every man who does any one of the acts mentioned 
 in this bill, and punish him never so severely, yet the congress of the 
 United States will step in and under that clause of the constitution 
 which says that you, the state, shall not make or enforce any such law, 
 we, the federal power, will seize the man whom yuu have punished for 
 this very act, and will punish him again ; we will treat the keeper of a 
 theatre as the state ; we will treat the hotel-keeper as the state ; we will 
 treat the railroad conductor as the state ; we will treat the stage-driver 
 as the state ; and although you may have punished each and every one 
 of these men for the very acts enumerated in this bill, we, under the 
 pretense that the states do make or enforce a law which deprives a citir 
 zen of his equal privileges and immunities, will seize that citizen again 
 and subject him to a double punishment for the offense for which he 
 has already suffered.' That is what this bill is ; and no sophistry can 
 make it any thing else. 
 
 " Take the case of Louisiana. If I am rightly informed — and if I am 
 not the senator from Louisiana can correct me — there is not one single 
 act or omission in this bill which is not already punishable in Louisiana 
 
1510 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 under her state statute. And now, sir, you are to go with the federal 
 power into the state of Louisiana and under pretense that that state has 
 made and enforced laws which violate the fourteenth amendment, when 
 every law that she has made and every law that she does enforce is in 
 strict consonance and accordance with that amendment, you are to go 
 there and seize her citizens who have already been punished by the 
 state authority and punish them a second time by the federal arm ! 
 
 " Why, sir, if it is constitutional reasoning that supports this bill, then 
 I confess that all my studies of the constitution have been wholly in 
 vain. If this is justice, then I confess that forty years and more of 
 study of the law have all been thrown away upon me. If this is not 
 monstrous, if this is not inhuman, if it is not a violation of the first prin- 
 ciples of right, if it is not a violation of the spirit of that provision in 
 the constitution that no man shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same 
 offense, if it is not legislation utterly disgraceful to a civilized people, 
 then I confess, Mr. President, that I am not abhj to see correctly what is 
 the scope or purpose of this legislation, or what are the, principles of 
 right and justice that should prevail under a civilized government." 
 
 The report of the committee was slightly amended, after which it was 
 adopted as a substitute for the original bill. On being put to the senate 
 it was carried by 29 to 16, 28 being absent. In the house the bill was 
 referred to the committee on the judiciary where it remained, together 
 with the house bill, at the end of the session. 
 
 In the senate on March 4th, the bill to restore the rights of the state 
 of Louisiana was considered. At the request of Mr. Carpenter, (Rep.) 
 of Wisconsin, the chief clerk read the preamble of the bill. This pre- 
 amble recited the facts that there were no state officers legally elected in 
 said state according to the constitution ; that there was no provision in 
 the constitution of said state for the election of state officers until the 
 next regular election, November, 1876; that the various state offices 
 were then filled de facto by persons claiming the right under a pretended 
 canvass by John Lynch and others, which canvass had been shown to be 
 fraudulent ; that the body of men claiming to constitute the legislature 
 were organized as such in virtue of illegal orders issued by the judge of 
 a United States circuit court ; that the president had recognized the de 
 facto governor and the other state officers as legal officials, on representa- 
 tions since shown to be false ; that the pretended legislature had op- 
 pressed the people of the state, and had gone into nefarious and expen- 
 sive litigation ; that public peace in the state was only preserved by the 
 military force of the United States. The bill then proposed to provide for a 
 new election. Mr. Carpenter made an able argument in which he set forth 
 the complicated facts involved in the Louisiana imbroglio. The general 
 
 ii 
 
THE LOUISIANA CASE AGAIN. 1511 
 
 election for presidential electors, governor or other state officers, half of 
 the senate and all of the members of the lower house, was held on No- 
 vember 4th, 1872. Congress had already adjudicated that no legal re- 
 sult had arisen from this general election, in rejecting the vote on presi- 
 dential electors. This ought to have decided, in his judgment, the va- 
 lidity of the whole election. The returns had been made to the governor 
 in conformity with the statute law. They were canvassed by the De 
 Ferriet board, appointed by governor Warmouth, and the Foreman board 
 appointed by the McEnery legislature. The result of both canvasses de- 
 clared the McEnery ticket elected by nearly 10,000 majority. The 
 Lynch board, on the other hand, never made a canvass of the returns 
 because they never had the returns before them. But in defiant and 
 flagrant violation of the law this board made a loose estimate of the 
 election, to the efEect that the Grant electors and the Kellogg ticket were 
 elected. Mr. Carpenter reviewed a former argument which he had made, 
 showing the following points : That the Lynch board, so called, never 
 had a legal existence ; that the persons claiming to be members of it 
 were enjoined from counting any but the official returns ; that the board 
 was abolished by act of November 20th, 1872 ; that this board never had 
 the returns before them ; that they had no legal warrant for doing what 
 they pretended to do ; that if all the other objections to the legality of 
 their action had not existed, the testimony of the utter fraud of their 
 proceedings were such as to nullify their action. The senator referred 
 at length to the report of the committee of investigation, made through 
 Mr. Morton, the chairman. The subject considered in this report was 
 the result of the election as to presidential electors. Mr. Morton's re- 
 port recommended the rejection of the Louisiana vote as regarded the 
 presidential vote. It was reasoned that the election of the Kellogg gov- 
 ernment was subject to all the objections and infirmities which congress 
 held conclusive against the election of presidential electors. As the cir- 
 cumstances were in all respects the same, he was therefore warranted in 
 declaring that congress had in efEect decided the Kellogg government 
 was illegal. As regards the decision of the supreme court of Louisiana, 
 sustaining the Lynch returning board, it had be«^n made before the re- 
 port of the senatorial committee. Though the senator from Indiana 
 (Mr. Morton), had since attempted to rest the validity of the Kellogg 
 election on that decision, yet in his report he had not hesitated to de- 
 nounce the Lynch canvass as absolutely void. Congress would stand in 
 an unenviable attitude if it decided in one way in regard to the validity 
 of presidential electors, and in another way in regard to the validity of 
 the state election held and canvassed under the same circumstancesv 
 The senator then discussed the two questions of the power of congress 
 
1512 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 and the expediency of passing such a bill. He viewed both of these af- 
 firmatively. If congress had no power to interfere at this time it would 
 not, if, in 1876, Kellogg and his associates should run again and be de- 
 feated by 20,000 majority, and Durell should again set them up ; and in 
 1880 the same thing should take place, and be repeated in 1884, and so 
 on during Kellogg's natural life. If congress could not interfere in the 
 first year of the usurpation it could not in the fiftieth. The supporters 
 of the doctrine of want of power in congress were thus reduced to the 
 dilemma of reasoning, that a permanent despotism, under the forms of 
 free government, could be set up in any state without any right in the 
 central government to raise a finger. Senator Carpenter reasoned at con- 
 siderable length that congress bad the power, and that the only remedy 
 for the Louisiana troubles indeed rested in the action of congress. He 
 closed his argument with the expression of the conviction that the re- 
 fusal of congress to act in such a case, and the denial of its power to do 
 so, would be setting a fatal precedent. Mr. Sherman, (Rep.) of Ohio, 
 believed that a large majority of the Louisiana people acquiesced in the 
 condition of things. They would have an opportunity at the next elec- 
 tion to redeem themselves from the hands of the usurpers. He thought 
 it the wisest thing to ignore what had occurred in Louisiana and let the 
 people right themselves. 
 
 Mr. Saulsbury, (Dem.) of Delaware, asserted that it was known to 
 every senator on the floor that, if the federal troops were withdrawn 
 and the proclamation made that the people of Louisiana should settle the 
 matter for themselves, the Kellogg government would melt out of exist- 
 ence in a month's time. The people had protested in every way 
 against the frauds perpetrated on them. Were their appeals for relief 
 to be spurned because they did not resist the federal authorities, and 
 were therefore supposed to acquiesce in the condition of things ? 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen, (Rep.) of New Jersey, could not agree with the 
 conclusions of the senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Carpenter), but admired 
 the marked abihty with which he had presented his views. He argued 
 that the president was authorized to recognize Kellogg as de facto gov- 
 ernor, and to send a force on the application of the latter to suppress in- 
 surrection and domestic violence. The president was entrusted with the 
 army not to enforce any man's views or opinions, but to enforce the 
 laws. He was to enforce the writ which spoke in the name of the 
 United States, and was tested by the chief-justice, and must be obeyed. 
 To hold the president responsible for unjust decisions would be an 
 absurd commingling of judicial and executive functions. He proceeded 
 to consider the proposition that the United States was not authorized to 
 order a new election in Louisiana. The constitution declared that the 
 
THE LOUISIANA CASE CONTINUED. 1513 
 
 United States should guarantee to each state government peace, tran- 
 quillity, and a republican form. Beyond this congress had no right to 
 go. The federal government had only to do with the form, leaving the 
 administration of the form to the people of the state. This v?ord, form, 
 was not a matter of chance as it occurred in the constitution. 
 
 The people of the southern states, when they entered into that com- 
 pact, knowing that a large portion of the population were disfran- 
 chised, would never have agreed to insert in the constitution that the 
 federal government should see to it that their state governments should 
 not only be republican in form but in substance. He believed that to 
 order a new election in Louisiana would establish a precedent that 
 would impair electoral government. The better way was to let the states 
 suffer the penalty of their misdeeds, the innocent with the guilty, and if 
 there were frauds in elections and usurpations in office, to let the remedy 
 come through the means organized under the state jurisdiction itself. 
 
 Mr. West, (Rep.) of Louisiana, made a brief argument on the prop- 
 osition that, even granting the right of congressional interference, the 
 state of facts would not warrant it. He maintained that the senate had 
 no grounds for refusing to believe in the legal election of governor 
 William P. Kellogg. All the evidence brought before the committee 
 on privileges and elections scarcely touched on the true subject of in- 
 quiry : How did the people of Louisiana vote on the 4th of November, 
 18V2? The senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Carpenter) had asserted his 
 belief that McEnery was not legally elected. If he did not believe in 
 McEnery's election he must believe in Kellogg's. That was a question 
 for congress to consider before it could have a right to interfere. Wil- 
 liam P. Kellogg was then governor of Louisiana, recognized as such by 
 the president, by the co-ordinate branch of congress, who had admitted 
 members bearing his certificates, and by the supreme court of the state. 
 Congress should be very careful, before undertaking to overthrow him 
 as governor, that he held the oflace contrary to the wishes and desires of 
 the people governed. 
 
 Mr. Bayard, (Dem.) of Delaware, offered an amendment to the bills 
 reciting the facts of the Louisiana case from the democratic standpoint. 
 In this recapitulation he claimed that the McEnery ticket for state oflBcers 
 of Louisiana was elected according to the returns ; that the persons so 
 organized in their respective oflncial capacities ; that the defeated candi- 
 dates by the interference of federal authority obtainec? armed possession 
 of the Louisiana state-house, excluding the rightful officers therefrom ; 
 and that this usurpation, by means of federal power, then continued in 
 defiance of popular will, and in violation of the constitutional laws. Mr. 
 Bayard asserted that the voluminous testimony taken sustained his alle- 
 
1514 THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 gations. The issue before the senate was no mere question of party tri- 
 umph, not a mere trial of McEnery ts. Kellogg. The real issue was 
 the preservation of federal government, whether it was to be a union of 
 equal states, or a consolidated power of unlimited rule, by a central 
 government over outlying provinces. This question might be equally 
 important to-morrow, to any state as well as to Louisiana. The issue 
 for the people of the United States to consider was shall this conspiracy 
 to overthrow a state be successfully accomplished ? Could an attorney- 
 general of the United States concoct, and carry into effect, a scheme 
 with his party confederates to invade a state, ride rough shod over her 
 constitution and laws, prearrange with a rough and reckless judge of a 
 court of the United States for a violent usurpation, known to be such by 
 all men, and to use this dishonestly assumed power as a pretext for the 
 assistance of the armed forces of the United States ? Mr. Bayard closed 
 his speech as follows : 
 
 " Sir, this is a case beyond mere technical pleadings and mere forms. 
 Law is silent before arms. Law disappears and the constitution of the 
 state and of the United States disappears before the breath of the 
 attorney-general and his associates in this business. The pretense of law 
 by Kellogg is a mockery ; it is a bold, shameless, unmitigated fraud 
 from beginning to end. The whole history of the means whereby even 
 the forms of government were followed in Louisiana — the installation of 
 Pinchback, the instant abolition of the courts of the state, the supply of 
 the bench with new men and interested candidates to whose sole juris- 
 diction of these very questions was by special statutes given — all these 
 things are such a tangled web of fraud that pretense of law or fair 
 dealing nowhere can be found among them." 
 
 After considerable further discussion the bill was laid over in the 
 senate. Shortly before the adjournment of the session a bill was passed 
 by both houses conferring jurisdiction upon the criminal court of the 
 District of Columbia. A prominent subject which interested this con- 
 gress was the question of transportation. It related to increased facili- 
 ties, and reduced prices for the transportation of agricultural products 
 from the fertile fields of the west to the Atlantic seaboard. Vast quanti- 
 ties of these products were practically without a market owing to the 
 cost of transportation. In the senate the subject was referred to a spe- 
 cial committee of which Mr. Windom, of Minnesota, was chairman. 
 The committee made a lengthy and exhaustive report, although no action 
 was taken on it during the session. The following is the substance of 
 the general propositions in which suggestions for cheap transportation 
 were embraced : 
 
 1 . Competition between railways, and its promotion by additional lines 
 
CHEAP TRANSPORTATION. 1515 
 
 without regulation. 2. Direct congressional regulation of railway trans- 
 portation, under the power to regulate commerce in the several states. 
 3. Indirect regulation and promotion of competition through the agency 
 of one or more lines of railway, to be owned or controlled by the gov- 
 ernment. 4. The improvement of natural waterways, and the construc- 
 tion of artificial channels of water communication. After a careful con- 
 sideration of the merits of these proposed improvements, taking into ac- 
 count the cost, practicability, and probable advantage of each, the com- 
 mittee came to the unanimous conclusion that the following were the 
 most feasible and advantageous channels of commerce to be created or 
 improved by the national government, viz. : First, the Mississippi river ; 
 second, a continuous water line, of adequate capacity, from the Missis- 
 sippi river to the city of New York, via the northern lakes ; third, a 
 route adequate to the wants of commerce, through the central tier of 
 states, fi'om the Mississippi river via the Ohio and Kanawha rivers to a 
 point in West Virginia, and thence by canal and slack-water, or by 
 freight railway to tide-water ; fourth, a route from the Mississippi river, 
 via the Ohio and Tennessee rivers, to a point in Alabama or Tennessee, 
 and thence by canal and slack- water, or by a freight railway to the ocean. 
 
 Mr. Windom minutely discussed the merits and advantages of these 
 four channels of commerce, and said in conclusion that ii was safe to say 
 that the completion of the system of improvements suggested would ef- 
 fect a permanent reduction of fifty per cent in the cost of transporting 
 fourth class freight from the valley of the Mississippi to the seaboard, 
 and that the cost of carrying a bushel of wheat or corn to the markets 
 of the east, and of the world, would be reduced at least twenty to twen- 
 ty-five cents per bushel below the present railway charges, and that a 
 similar reduction would be effected on return freights. The actual 
 movement of grain to the eastern and southern markets in 1872, as 
 shown by the carefully prepared statistics submitted with this report, 
 amounted to about 213,000,000 bushels. An average saving of twenty 
 cents per bushel on the surplus moved that year, would have amounted 
 to over $42,000,000. But for the fact that large quantities of corn were 
 unable to find a market, on account of the high transportation charges, 
 the amount moved would have been very much greater. Hence, in ad- 
 dition to the saving in transportation above named, a benefit perhaps 
 equally great would have been conferred upon the producer, in affording 
 him a market for his surplus products. 
 
 The murmurs of discontent which come from the overburdened west, 
 the demand for cheaper food heard from the laboring classes at the east 
 and from the plantations of the south, and the rapid falling off of our 
 principal articles of export, all indicate the imperative necessity for 
 
1516 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 cheaper means of internal communication. If we would assure our im- 
 periled position in the markets of the world, reinstate our credit 
 abroad, restore confidence and prosperity at home, and provide for a 
 return to specie payment, we should develop our unequaled resources and 
 stimulate our industries by a judicial system of internal improvements. 
 
 Congress adjourned on the 23d of June. 
 
 The condition of afiEairs in Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina and 
 Louisiana was such during a portion of the year as to give the federal 
 government ground for regarding them in a very unsatisfactory condition. 
 The statement of the Louisiana imbroglio, which has already been given 
 at some length, illustrates a condition of affairs which was by no means 
 confined to the one state. The conflict between parties in most southern 
 states had also become a conflict between races. The solid marshaling 
 of the southern whites against the southern blacks in opposing ranks, 
 was the primal cause of all the political trouble in the reconstructed 
 states. The soundest and wisest thinkers in the democratic party re- 
 cognized the fact that the colored line was the malign factor in politics, 
 and efforts were made, though perhaps not warmly, seconded by the 
 rank and file of the southern democratic party, to win over at least a 
 portion of the colored voters. In this there was a double difficulty. 
 The mass of tne blacks, made up of ignorance and incredulity, were 
 naturally disposed to regard with suspicion all overtures from their 
 former oppressors. On the other band they were impelled by every 
 natural motive, to put confidence in the party which they recognized as 
 their savior and emancipator. This very logical sentiment, on the part 
 of the colored people, had been stimulated to a morbid extent by the 
 machinations of many of the politicians who had settled in the south 
 after the war. Though many of the latter were able and conscientious 
 in their views of public policy, there were not a few who looked on the 
 situation only from the standpoint of personal advantage. The result 
 of years of rule at the hands of such men, backed as they were by an 
 electoral power which was enthusiastic in its support and too ignorant to 
 scrutinize public measures closely, subjected several of the states to gross 
 mal-adrainistration. The state debt accumulated in an unparalleled de- 
 gree, and the percentage of taxation increased at such a rate as to make 
 the ownership of property a burden difficult to carry. In this condition 
 of affairs it was natural that both parties, representing the white and 
 black elements, should have combined in secret political leagues the bet- 
 ter to drill their respective forces for success at the polls. As was to be 
 expected this condition of affairs was used by the rough and lawless ele- 
 ments on both sides as a pretext and cover for deeds of violence. How- 
 ever much these may have been misrepresented in either case for party 
 
AFFAIRS IN THE SOUTH. 1517 
 
 purposes, it is beyond question that the genuine status of things was 
 such as to give reasonable pretext for the exercise of federal power. Our 
 limits prevent more than a brief indication of the phases of affairs respect- 
 ively in the different southern states. It is enough to state that how- 
 ever various in detail the goveraraental affairs of these states, the funda- 
 mental causes, which worked themselves out in acts of rapine, outrage and 
 bloodshedj were the same in all of those which were in a disturbed con- 
 dition. The continuous reports which were sent to Washington, of the 
 violent deeds at the hands of the organized power, which had shown it- 
 self under the name of the ku-klux-klan, white leagues, etc., induced ex- 
 ecutive action. In September, 1873, a circular order was issued to the 
 United States attorneys and marshals, after a consultation between sec- 
 retaries Bristow and Belknap and attorney-general Williams, the presi- 
 dent giving his full approval. This circular, signed by attorney-general 
 Williams, called attention to the atrocious deeds committed with a view 
 of intimidating peaceable and law abiding citizens. The various officials 
 of the law were ordered to proceed with all possible energy to detect, 
 arrest, and punish the perpetrators of such crimes; and to call on the 
 United States troops for all needful aid in the discharge of duty. At 
 the same time a letter from president Grant to the secretary of war was 
 made public, which authorized the latter to place the troops stationed in 
 the south at the disposal of the attorney-general and his subordinates 
 without further orders. This action on the part of the executive was 
 held by the party favoring the administration to be absolutely justified 
 by the circumstances of the case. On the other hand, the democrats 
 and liberal republicans freely stigmatized this course as a logical sequence 
 in the congeries of acts by which it had been attempted to overthrow 
 the constitution and to substitute the hand of force and fraud for that 
 of peaceful and legal government. Without attempting to record the 
 respective recriminations of the parties in detail, it will be sufficient to 
 state that such was the condition of affairs in the south in the closing 
 months of 1874. 
 
1518 THB AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXII. 
 
 SECOND SESSION OF THE FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS, READING OP PRESI- 
 DENT'S MESSAGE. MR. KELLy's BILL FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE CUR- 
 RENCY. — SENATOR Sherman's resumption bill. — its passage and 
 
 APPROVAL BY THE PRESIDENT. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED CHANGE IN 
 
 THE METHOD OF ELECTING PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT. SPEECH 
 
 BY SENATOR MORTON. 
 
 The second session of the forty-third congress commenced on Decem- 
 ber 1th, 1874 ; Vice-president Henry Wilson in the chair of the senate, 
 and Hon. James G. Blaine in that of the house. The president's mes- 
 sage was received and read. General Grant commenced with an ex- 
 tended allusion to the depression of business and the causes thereof. In 
 discussing the question of the financial condition of the country, he em- 
 phasized the importance of an early return to specie payment. He 
 claimed that the greater part of the burden of the existing prostration 
 for the want of a sound financial system fell upon the working men, 
 through the deprivation of employment and the decreased purchasing 
 power of salaries. He suggested two or three things as necessary to a 
 return to specie payments. The legal-tender clause to the law author- 
 izing the issue of currency by the national government, should be re- 
 pealed, except in the case of expenditures provided by law, to be paid in 
 currency in the interval pending between repeal and final resumption. 
 This provision should be made to enable the secretary of the treasury to 
 obtain gold, whenever necessary, as soon as specie resumption com- 
 menced. To this should be added a revenue, suflaciently in excess of 
 expenses, to insure such an accumulation of gold as would sustain per- 
 manent redemption. Attention was called to the contract system under 
 which Chinese immigration had been encouraged. It was thought de- 
 sirable that legislation should be had on the subject to correct its mani- 
 fold evils. The relations of the United States with different foreign 
 governments were stated to be highly satisfactory, and all pending nego- 
 tiations were in a state of forwardness. In relation to the strife in Cuba 
 the president said that, although the insurrection had lasted six years, 
 Spain had gained no superiority. The significance of this fact pointed 
 to the probability that some positive steps, on the part of other powers, 
 would soon become a matter of necessity. In regard to the financial 
 
THE president's MESSAGE. 1519 
 
 statement of the fiscal year, ending June 30th, 1874, it was announced 
 that the excess of receipts over expenditures had been $2,344,882 ; and 
 that, for the current fiscal year, the estimate of excess would not exceed 
 nine million of dollars. In view of the large national debt existing, and 
 the obligation of adding one per cent to the sinking fund, a *sum then 
 amounting to $34,000,000 per annum, it was suggested that the revenues 
 should be increased or expenditures diminished, to reach this amount of 
 surplus. The propriety of readjusting the tariff so as to increase the 
 revenue was suggested to congress, A statement of the condition of 
 affairs in Louisiana was made, and the president's reasons for the steps 
 he had individually taken explained. He regretted to say that indica- 
 tions in several localities of the south showed determination to deprive 
 citizens of the freedom of the ballot. White-leagues and other societies 
 menaced the colored population by means of bands of masked ruffians. 
 A general system of terrorism and compulsion was put in force to carry 
 out the purposes of the ruling class at the south. It was recommended 
 that congress should make investigation into these facts. The president 
 very sensibly argued that with the treatment of the negro as a citizen' 
 and a voter, the southern disturbances would soon come to an end, as 
 parties would not be then divided on the color line but on principle. 
 
 Among the early matters considered in the house was the bill for the 
 improvement of the currency and the reduction of the funded debt. 
 This measure was introduced by Mr. KeUy, (Rep.) of Pennsylvania, and 
 was referred to the committee on banking and currency, who reported 
 it back with an adverse recommendation, and asked that it be placed on 
 the calendar. The bill was known to the financial men of the country 
 as the 3.65 convertible bond bill. Its provisions may be briefly sum- 
 marized as follows : The amount of United States notes in circulation 
 was to be limited to $400,000,000, and any holder presenting these 
 notes in sums of fifty dollars or any of its multiples could receive in ex- 
 change an equal ainount of United States coupon or registered bonds,' 
 bearing interest at the rate of 3.65 percent, payable semi-annually. On 
 the presentation of these bonds, it was to be the duty of the treasurer or 
 assistant-treasurer, to pay the principal and accrued interest in United 
 States notes, and to cancel the bonds thus redeemed. The secretary of 
 the treasurv was authorized to prepare United States notes to the amoutit 
 of $50,000,000, these to be held as a redemption fund, and to be held 
 in reserve solely for the payment of said bonds. The whole amount of 
 United States notes received in exchange for these 3.65 bonds was to 
 be applied, as rapidly as practicable, to the redemption of United States 
 bonds outstanding at the passage of the act. National banks were au- 
 thorized to hold these 3.65 bonds, instead of the reserve of United 
 
1520 TitE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 States notes required by law. Mr. Kelly advocated the passage of this 
 bill in an argument which explained its necessity as hinging on the trans- 
 mutation of the foreign gold-bearing debt into a debt held at home, so 
 as to utilize the resources of the American people and pay interest di- 
 rectly to those on whom the burden of taxation fell. By this inaugura- 
 tion of a system of convertible bonds, the great curse of foreign indebted- 
 ness would be modified and ultimately removed. The history of finance 
 clearly proved that an irredeemable bank note, based on convertible 
 bonds held at home, was the only safety of a sound currency. Mr. 
 Kelly argued that under the system of finance then current the green- 
 back, and the national note based on it, were a constant robbery of the 
 laboring classes of the country. This was the legitimate fruit of the re- 
 pudiation by congress of its own currency. This bill put it in the 
 power of any citizen or corporation to loan money to the United States, 
 at the rate of 3.65 per cent on call. Thus the brand of repudiation 
 would be removed from the legal-tenders, and within six months there 
 would be an accumulation of nearly $500,000,000 at a low rate of in- 
 terest, payable to our own people, with which to redeem gold-bearing 
 bonds now held abroad. This would give increased value to the green- 
 back, and diminish its disparity with gold. Mr. Butler, (Rep.) of Mas- 
 sachusetts, advocated the bill on the ground that the government coming 
 into the market as a borrower at a lower rate of interest, would reduce 
 the burden of the debt, and solidify its credit without injuring the 
 finances of the country. Mr. Dawes, (Rep.) of Massachusetts, opposed 
 tlie bill. He agreed with its advocates in the causes and character of 
 the evil which afflicted the country, but he did not agi'ee as to the pro- 
 posed remedy. He insisted that the reason of the high interest on time 
 loans was the fear that congress would inflate the currency, not contract 
 it. On the risk of this increased cuiTency, carrying with it a decrease 
 of purchasing power, capitalists were not willing to make long loans of 
 money except at high rates. The bill before the house proposed to do 
 now what government had only justified itself by doing formerly, as a 
 war measure, to make government promises to pay without provision for 
 immediate payment. After some further discussion of the bill it was 
 laid aside, and no final action taken on it in the house. 
 
 In the senate on December 21, Mr. Sherman, (Rep.) of Ohio, from the 
 committee on finance, reported the bill to provide for the resumption of 
 specie payments. We give a condensed statement of the provisions of 
 this important measure. 'The secretary of the treasury was required, as 
 rapidly as possible to authorize the coining at the United States mints 
 of such an amount of silver coins, up to fifty-cent pieces, as would re- 
 deem the whole amount of outstanding fractional currency. The section 
 
MR. Sherman's resumption bill. 1521 
 
 of tte United States statute providing for a charge of 1.5 per cent for 
 converting gold bullion into coin was repealed. The United States stat- 
 ute, limiting the aggregate amount of circulating notes of national bank- 
 ing associations, was also repealed. Each banking association might 
 thereafter increase its circulating notes without respect to said aggregate 
 limit. Whenever and so often as circulating notes were issued to any 
 banking association, it should be the duty of the secretary of the treasury 
 to redeem the legal tenders in excess only of $300,000,000, to the 
 amount of 80 per cent of national bank notes, until there should be out- 
 standing the sum of $300,000,000 in such United States legal-tenders, 
 and no more. On and after the first day of January, 1879, the secretary 
 of the treasury was to redeem in coin the United States legal-tenders 
 then outstanding, on their presentation for redemption at the office of 
 the assistant- treasurer in New York, in sums of not less than fifty dollars. 
 
 To enable the secretary to provide for such redemption, he was au- 
 thorized to use any surplus revenues not otherwise appropriated, and to 
 sell, at not less than par in coin, such of the bonds of the United States 
 as were described in the funding bill approved July 14th, 1870. Mr. 
 Sherman made an elaborate explanation of the provisions of the bill. 
 He gave a sketch of the plans of resumption, which had found favor 
 with the statesmen and financiers of the country. These were contrac- 
 tion of the currency by the gradual withdrawal of United States notes, 
 the conversion of United States bonds so as to make them exchangeable 
 with gold, and the plan of a graduated scale for a resumption in coin or 
 bullion. Either of these plans he himself could readily support; but 
 they had met with such opposition that there was no hope of carrying 
 any measure based on them. The committee had therefore organized a 
 bill based on these gradual steps : first, to retire the fractional currency ; 
 second, to reduce United States notes as bank notes were increased ; and 
 then to rest the plan of redemption on the declaration made on the faith 
 of the United States, that at the time fixed by the bill specie payment 
 would be resumed. 
 
 Mr. Schurz, (Rep.) of Missouri, thought it doubtful that the machinery 
 provided for by the bill was such as to make the performance of its 
 pledge possible. Aside from this pledge he found in the bill two things,, 
 free banking, and the retirement of legal tenders to the amount of 80' 
 per cent of the national bank notes. He asked the senator who had re- 
 ported the bill whether he thought Ijhcse were suflBcient to insure specie 
 resumption. 
 
 Mr. Sherman replied that by retiring 80 per cent of the legal tendiers- 
 the country was not only led toward specie payment, but the volume- of 
 notes necessary to be redeemed, lessened. 
 96 
 
1522 THE AMERICAJT STATESMAN. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, (Dem.) of Ohio, thought there was very little done by 
 this bill towards the resumption of specie payments, and, if anything, 
 it was to be found in the third section. That section proposed free 
 banking, and then for every $100 in bank notes issued there should be 
 redeemed eighty dollars of legal-tenders ; that this process should go on 
 until the amount outstanding should be $300,000,000. If the section 
 had stated that the legal-tenders thus redeemed were to be actually can- 
 celed, one could understand that the time would inevitably come when 
 the volume would be decreased to the amount mentioned ; but that was 
 not all in the section. Mr. Thurman proceeded to say : 
 
 "It goes further, and provides that after the first day of January, 
 1879, there shall be full and complete resumption of specie payments by 
 the government on the legal-tenders, and that means full and complete 
 resumption by the banks, because the banks by their charters are bound 
 to redeem either in legal-tenders or in coin ; and if legal-tenders are re- 
 deemed by the government in coin, it is equivalent to declaring that the 
 banks shall also redeem in coin. Therefore, this bill provides that from 
 and after the 1st day of January, 18V9, four years hence, there shall be 
 complete resumption of specie payments in the United States. Put that 
 provision in the bill, coupled with the other provision for retiring eighty 
 per cent of greenbacks for every additional dollar of national bank issue 
 under this bill, and see how they work. 
 
 " Does my friend, the chairman of this committee, believe that there 
 will be in the next four years $100,000,000 of additional national bank 
 currency issued ? What warrant has he to believe any such thing as 
 that? But without the issue of $100,000,000 more national bank cur- 
 rency he cannot retire $80,000,000 of greenbacks and bring them down 
 to $300,000,000. What warrant has he for supposing that ? Is it the 
 experience of the government for the last year ? Pray how much in- 
 crease has there been in national bank currency under the law which you 
 passed last session? About $1,000,000 or $1,400,000, if my recollec- 
 tion is right, at the very outside. Now, it was said that there was a 
 great demand for money, that a great deal of money was needed. 
 Well, in more than twenty states of this union there has been perfect 
 freedom to issue paper money by starting national banks for the last 
 eight months, and the result of it all is that the increase in the currency 
 is less than a million and a half of dollars. How, then, will it be in the 
 next four years ? What reason have you to suppose that in the next 
 four years you will have banks started or existing banks asking for an 
 increase of circulation, so that $100,000,000 will be put out, and you 
 will thereby retire $80,000,000 of the legal tenders ? No man can be- 
 lieve any such thing. Pass this bill to-day, and I venture the assertion 
 
DEBATE ON RESUMPTION CONTINUED. 1523 
 
 that the increase of national bank currency under it in the next four 
 years will not be $1 0,000,000 ; and the retiring of greenbacks, therefore, 
 under it, will not amount to more than $8,000,000 at the very outside. 
 That is the truth about it, sir. You will have no increased banking 
 under this bill, if you pass it, until business begins to revive ; and when 
 will business begin to revive ? All that is necessary is for a man to open 
 his eyes and read the history of his country to know when it will re- 
 vive. At intervals of about twenty years we have one of those things 
 called a panic, followed by stagnation in business, the result of over- 
 trading,' over-production, of extravagance of all sorts and descriptions, 
 extravagance in individuals, extravagance in corporations, extravagance 
 in governments large and small, until at last the bubble bursts, and 
 then comes a season of retrenchment, of economy ; and how long 
 does that last ? How long is it before debts are liquidated and a sur- 
 plus is accumulated, so that there begins to be an upward tide in the 
 business of the country ? Never has it been less than four years in the 
 United States. 
 
 " Now, Mr. President, one word more on the subject of this section of 
 the bill. My colleague says that this bill will have one great and good 
 effect : it will let the country know what is to be our policy, and then 
 business will go on steadily, because people' will know what they have to 
 expect. Why, sir, if it would have that effect it would be in that par- 
 ticular most beneficial, for that is an effect most ardently to be desired. 
 Yet my colleague says to the people — for what he says here goes to 
 them — this bill, which is to inform you what is to be the policy of the 
 government, does not inform you whether these $80,000,000 of retired 
 greenbacks are to be poured out again at the pleasure of a secretary of 
 the treasury ! Why sir, if this bill could have operation, if there would 
 be issued $100,000,000 of national bank notes, and then you retired 
 $80,000,000 of greenbacks, it becomes the most material thing in the 
 world for the capitalists and business men of the country to know whether 
 these greenbacks are to be reissued again; for, if they be reissued, the 
 effect would be an inflation of the currency of $100,000,000. If they 
 are to be canceled, then the inflation is only $20,000,000, and may not 
 be even so much as that on account of the reserve that the banks are 
 required to keep against their deposits ; but, if they are to be reissued, 
 then there is unmitigated inflation to the amount of $100,000,000. 
 Pass the bill in its present shape, and instead of settling you will unsettle, 
 instead of fixing you will unfix, the minds of the people." 
 
 Mr. Stephenson, (Dem.) of Kentucky, could not give his vote for this 
 bill, as he deemed it a piece of Janus-faced legislation, a measure of 
 party policy rather than of financial relief. Both the expansionists and 
 
1524 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 contractionists would claim this bill as a triumph. He was opposed to 
 it also on the ground that it conferred upon the secretary of the treasury 
 the power to expand or contract the currency at will. This unlimited 
 power in the secretary was a dangerous one, and he could not support it. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds, (Rep.) of Vermont, asked the senators to remember 
 that the construction of this bill, if it became a law, was a question which 
 did not belong to congress, but to another tribunal. He thought the 
 opponents of the bill had been more ready in criticismg the opinions of 
 others than pronouncing their own. Mr. Schurz said that he should vote 
 for this bill in spite of its defects, and do so simply on the ground that 
 it contained a pledge to resume specie payments at a fixed date. At 
 the same time he did not consider that the provisions of the bill fully 
 assured its object. It was a simple arithmetical problem to decide that 
 specie payments could not be resumed and maintained without less paper 
 money and more gold. The depreciation of currency indicated that the 
 present volume was in excess of that which, on a gold bfisis, would be 
 necessary for the business transactions of the people. Resumption under 
 such conditions would drive every dollar of the excess to the treasury 
 for redemption, and drain it of gold so rapidly as to perhaps force sus- 
 pension again. He repeated it, if specie payments were to be resumed 
 with any degree of certainty and safety, such a condition of things must 
 be brought about as would give the country less paper money and more 
 gold. He therefore moved that the bill should be recommitted, with 
 instructions to incorporate such provisions as would practically prepare 
 the way for specie resumption. The motion was not agreed to by the 
 senate. Mr. Schurz then offered an amendment to the effect that not 
 less than $2,000,000 of legal-tenders should be retired monthly by the 
 secretary of the treasury, such notes to be canceled and destroyed. 
 The amendment was rejected. The bill on being finally put to vote 
 passed without amendment by a vote of 32 to 14, 27 being absent. 
 
 On January 7th the same bill was also taken up in the house, and 
 passed by a vote of 136 to 98, 54 being absent. It was approved by 
 the president on January 14th, and it became a law. 
 
 A very important question discussed during this session of congress 
 was one affecting the manner of the presidential election. It was intro- 
 duced in the senate on January 21st, as a joint resolution to amend the 
 constitution, reported by Mr. Morton, from the committee on privileges 
 and elections. 
 
 Mr. Morton said the proposition was to amend the constitution of the 
 United States as to the method of electing president and vice-president, 
 so as to bring the election home to the people as nearly as possible, and 
 at the same time to avoid the existing dangers under the present method. 
 
PROPOSITION TO AMEND THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM. 1525 
 
 The first point to which he called attention was that the appointment of 
 electors should be placed exclusively in the hands of the state legisla- 
 tures. The states were not empowered to alter the appointment of elec- 
 tors ; the power of a legislature to appoint electors was conferred by the 
 constitution of the United States, and the constitution of a state could 
 not take that power from the legislature. In some states the electors 
 were once elected by separate districts; in all the states now by general 
 ticket. No contested election of electors could be determined by con- 
 gress, the constitution having placed that election entirely with the 
 states. Congress had power to fix the time when the electors should be 
 chosen by the states, and to determine when they should cast their votes. 
 No provision for contesting the election of electors had been made by 
 the states; they had only provided for electing electors by general 
 ticket. The law passed by congress in 1792, to carry out the provision 
 of the constitution, prohibited any contest in effect either by the state 
 or by congress. The law provided that the electors should assemble in 
 the several states on the first Wednesday in December, and cast their 
 votes ; it also provided that the electors should be chosen within thirty- 
 four days of the time of casting the votes, so that no time would be left 
 between the selection and the vote for any contest. When the electors 
 had cast their votes they could nev^er meet again, for their office had ex- 
 pired. And the constitution provided that they should vote by ballot ; 
 that the vote should be sealed up and sent to the president of the senate ; 
 that the vote should be opened in the presence of the two houses, and 
 then counted. If there was any fraud or irregularity it would be im- 
 possible to know it, for the sealed package was not to be opened till the 
 very moment of the counting before the houses. It did not seem to 
 have occurred to the members of the convention that there could be two 
 sets of electors, or that any reason could arise that demanded the setting 
 aside of the votes. The houses come together merely as witnesses ; they 
 could do nothing, no matter what might be the wrong visible on the 
 face of the papers, no matter what might be the irregularity. Because 
 of an omission in the constitution this great power was invested in the 
 vice-president. There was no power provided anywhere to determine 
 which of the sets of electoral votes should be counted, and therefore it 
 depended on him which set to hand over. He might understand, as 
 likely he would, the contents of the different papers placed in his hands. 
 The thecwy of the electoral college was that the president should not be 
 elected by the people ; but the election was to be vested in the hands of 
 select men, who were to act as deliberative bodies. They were to vote by 
 ballot, so that one elector should not know how the other voted, and so 
 that the people should never know how they voted. This theory turned 
 
1526 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 out in practice that the electors were pledged in advance to vote for a 
 particular candidate ; that they were mere agents to cast their votes 
 for their party. Why not let the people vote themselves for the presi- 
 dential candidates instead of voting for electors who are pledged to do 
 the same thing ? Mr. Morton then considered some of the difficulties 
 attending this system. He said that by law when electors died, or failed 
 to attend, others might fill their vacancies. Were there five in favor of 
 one candidate and five in favor of another, and one elector died, then 
 one five would have the majority over the other, could fill the vacancy, 
 and thus would secure a majority in the electoral college. The framers 
 of the constitution did not intend to make the election an election by 
 states. They expected the electoral colleges to divide up — some to vote 
 for one candidate and some for another. The electors, however, met 
 and cast the vote of the state, thereby making it a vote by states. 
 Under the present system ten states could elect a president of the 
 United States. There must be a change in the method of electing a 
 president and a vice-president. The nearest approach that could be 
 made to an election by the people would be to elect by districts. Mr. 
 Morton proposed that the candidate who got the highest number of 
 votes in a state should have two presidential votes, so that the power of 
 the small states should be preserved. They now had two presidential 
 electors, two votes at large, as they had two senators. That theory would 
 be preserved by giving them two presidential votes ; and the man who 
 procured the highest vote in the state should have those two votes. 
 Then the states would be divided into as many districts as it had mem- 
 bers of congress, and the candidate who got the highest vote in a district 
 had the vote of that district. This would bring an election home to the 
 people as nearly as possible. The states were now districted by their 
 legislatures, but congress had the power to lay oflE the districts for elect- 
 ing members of congress. Under the system of electing members of 
 congress by districts, instead of by general ticket, you appioached one- 
 third more nearly to the popular vote than by electing by the general 
 ticket. In the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, the 
 votes were cast solidly for one candidate for president, yet the same 
 states elected nearly one-third of all their members of congress on the 
 other side, electing democrats, showing that by the district system the 
 people of the states comparatively had a voice in the election of presi- 
 dent according to their views. Another question involved in electing by 
 districts as compared witli general ticket, was that when you elected by 
 general ticket under the present system, no man could vote unless he had 
 a party in the state large enough to hold a convention and put an elec- 
 toral ticket in the field. A particular candidate might have a majority 
 
PROPOSED CHANGE IN ELECTION OF PRESIDENT 152Y 
 
 in some states but he might have scarcely any friends in others ; his 
 friends might be all in one district, but unless there was a convention to 
 nominate candidates for electors his friends were excluded from voting, 
 because they could not vote directly but must vote for intermediate 
 nien. Mr. Morton considered the danger of the present system. He 
 said no state in the union had a law to contest the election of electors, 
 and there was no room for a state law. Congress had no power ; there 
 was no power to judge except the president of the senate. He was irre- 
 sponsible ; he was the depositor of all the votes, and as to whether the 
 votes should be cast depended entirely upon himself so far as the consti- 
 tution was concerned. When Buchanan and Fremont were candidates 
 in 1857, the electoral vote of Wisconsin waa not cast on the day fixed 
 by law, and the constitution required that these votes should be cast on 
 the same day. A snow storm in Wisconsin prevented the electors from 
 meeting ; therefore they voted on the next day. When they counted 
 the votes a motion was made by a senator to reject the vote of Wiscon- 
 sin, because it was not cast on the day provided by law. The president 
 of the senate (Mr. Mason), decided that the motion was out of order, as 
 nothing was in order but to count the votes. He took the view of his 
 power that the two houses were there simply to witness the count, not 
 to make motions or to offer objections. And when the votes had been 
 counted he dismissed the two houses. A debate of two or three days' 
 duration over the question arose in the house, and the conclusion was 
 that the two houses had no power over the question. The senate had a 
 debate on the same subject, and the senate came to the same conclusion. 
 If Mr. Mason had excluded the vote of Wisconsin his party would have 
 supported it ; if he had received the vote the republicans would have sup- 
 ported it ; and in that case he would have had the decision of the election 
 in his own hands. In either case it would have, probably, resulted in 
 insurrection. This danger was escaped, because Buchanan was elected 
 independently of the vote of Wisconsin, and it mattered little how it was 
 cast. The point to which the attention of the senate was called by Mr. 
 Morton, was the decision of the vice-president in that case, that nothing 
 was in order but to count the votes, and that the houses were there sim- 
 ply as witnesses. He then spoke of the plurality system, and said that 
 the candidate having a plurality should be elected. A majority of all 
 the electors appointed to elect was required, and if no candidate got a 
 majority then the election was taken to the house of representatives, and 
 the election was there not by each member having a vote, but by the 
 states. The plurality rule was adopted by all the states except three in 
 the election of state officers. A majority was not required to elect 
 electors, even under the present system. The election should be final, 
 
1528 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 there should not be a second election required ; the candidate that had 
 the majority over every one else should be' elected. This system had 
 •worked well in the states, and no state now proposed to go back from 
 the plurality to the majority rule. Mr. Morton asked for the reading of 
 the twenty-second joint rule, which was briefly as follows : The two 
 houses should assemble on the second Wednesday in February next suc- 
 ceeding the meeting of the electors of president and vice-president of 
 the United States, and the president of the senate should be their pre- 
 siding officer ; one teller should be appointed on the part of the senate, 
 two on the part of the house of representatives, to whom should be 
 handed the certificates of the electoral votes and, having read them out, 
 said tellers should make a list of the votes. The votes having been 
 counted the result should be delivered to the president of the senate to 
 be announced by him, which announcement would be sufficient declara- 
 tion of the persons elected president and vice-president of the United 
 States. If any question should arise in regard to counting the votes the 
 senate should withdraw, and the question should be submitted to that 
 body for its decision, and likewise be put to the house of representatives. 
 No vote objected to should be counted, no question decided afiirmatively 
 except by the concurrent votes of the two houses, Which being obtained, 
 the houses should reassemble, and the decision be announced by the pre- 
 siding officer. 
 
 Mr. Morton said this twfenty-second joint rule was grossly unconstitu- 
 tional ; that it was not only without authority, but in violation of the 
 very theory of the constitution. The intention was to place the election 
 of president independent of congress, to put the executive independent 
 of the legislature ; but this made the election of president dependent on 
 either house, not by a law, but by a joint rule. It enabled the senate 
 to throw out the vote of North Carolina, or New York ; enabled the 
 house to do likewise. It enabled either house, without debate, to throw 
 out the vote of any or of all the states. An illustration of this was had 
 in the formal objection made to receiving the vote of Arkansas. The 
 houses separated and voted. Objection was made to the seal found on 
 the certificate, it being the seal of the secretary of state and not the great 
 seal of the state. Upon that technicality the vote of Arkansas was lost. 
 The house overruled the objection but the senate sustained it. A formal 
 objection was made to the vote of Mississippi. The senate overruled 
 it, as did also the house by a small majority. Either house, against the 
 other, could cast out the vote of every state of this union for president 
 by finding some little objection to it, and throw the election into the 
 house of representatives. It was never intended that congress should 
 have any power over the electoral vote ; but here by a simple rule, never 
 
DISCUSSION ON ELECTORAL BILL POSTPONED. 1529 
 
 passed as a law, either house was enabled to disfranchise every state in 
 this union. In the election by the house of representatives the members 
 voted by states. In the election of a president by the house of repre- 
 sentatives under the present apportionment, each state having one vote, 
 forty-five members out of 'two hundred ind ninety-two could make the 
 election. This mode of election was full of danger ; it was tried and 
 came near rhaking shipwreck. Under the present system' ttfe electoral 
 vote had not approached within ten per cent of the popular vote, and 
 had varied from it several times from thirty to thirty-five per cent, and 
 under this system an election might be had by the states in the house 
 of representatives, in defiance of the popular vote and of the plurality 
 vote of the electors. Mr. Morton then concluded his speech by saying 
 that the original theory that the people could not be entrusted with the 
 election had failed ; that it' was now understood that large constituencies 
 were safer than stnall constituencies ; and that while the president's pa- 
 tronage was ample to reach every elector and every member of the house 
 of representatives, it was not sufficiently so to reach the people of the 
 United States Where Ihey voted directly for the Candidate of their 
 choice. 
 
 Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, said that it seemed that the remedy proposed 
 by the committee in the resolution under consideration failed to meet 
 the very danger which was most menacing. The greatest difficulty was 
 the count of the electoral votes in Washington. 
 
 Mr. Morton said the Committee had gravely deliberated over the sub- 
 ject, and had arrived at the conclusion that it was best to place the mat- 
 ter in the decision of congress to provide a tribunal for the purpose of 
 deciding questions of contested elections. , 
 
 Mr. Thurman said the tribunal that should count these votes ouglit"' 
 to be provided for in the constitution, fixed in the fundamental law so 
 that every party would be compelled to obey it. He then went oa to 
 say that another matter* in the resolution demanded grave consideration, 
 and that was the sweepiDg change proposed in the mode of electing the 
 president. He referred to the election by a plurality instead of by a 
 majority. Mr. Thurman proposed to postpone the pending joint resolu- 
 tion until the' Wedriesday following. The motion was agreed to, and 
 no final action was taken on the resolution, but the subject was further 
 discussed. 
 
1580 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXIII. 
 
 BILL REPEALING TWENTY-SECOND JOINT RULE. DEBATE IN THE SEN- 
 ATE. THE LOUISIANA QUESTION AGAIN. — SPECIAL MESSAGE BY THE 
 
 PRESIDENT. THE COMPROMISE. KNOWN AS THE WHEELER ADJUSTMENT, 
 
 GROWING UNPOPULARITY OF GENERAL GRANT. — THE WESTERN 
 
 WHISKY FRAUDS AND SECRETARY BELKNAp's DISGRACE. 
 
 A RESOLUTION was offered in the senate, on January 27th, 1875, rela- 
 tive to counting the votes for president and vice-president, to the effect 
 that the twenty-second joint rule of the two houses should be repealed. 
 It was referred to the committee on privileges and elections. On Feb- 
 ruary 6th, senator Morton reported, from the committee, a bill on the 
 subject. And on February 26th the bill was conijidered at length. 
 
 Mr. Bayard, (Dem.) of Delaware, suggested that the second section 
 of this bill met the difficult question on the contest between two sets of 
 electoral votes from the same state. It declared that all returns, the 
 false as well as the true, should be opened, and that they should be 
 counted, unless there was a concurrent vote from both houses rejecting 
 them. It was a new, a patent method for the disfranchisement of the 
 states where a contested election could be gotten up. It was an oppor- 
 tunity, if not an invitation, for the annihilation of the electoral votes of 
 the States, by having a false vote made equal in weight with the true, 
 and forbidding the rejection by a concurrent affirmative vote of both 
 houses. He also urged that this question should be settled by an 
 amendment to the constitution, thus placing it on a high non-partisan 
 basis. The new congress would be made up of houses nut of the same 
 political opinion. There was no reason why so important a thing should 
 be hurried in such hot haste. Mi; Thurman, (Dem.) of Ohio, thought 
 that the point on which the senator, who had just spoken, relied in op- 
 position to the second section, was not well taken. If the second section 
 were stricken out of the bill, then the only provision for counting the 
 votes would be that the returns should be counted, unless both houses 
 concurred in rejecting them. That would be the rule applicable in every 
 case. Under such a law it would be impossible for the vote of a state 
 to be counted twice, as had been asserted. Once the votes to which a 
 state was entitled had been counted, they could be counted no more. 
 The thing had become res adjudicata. The moment it was decided, 
 
THE LOUISIANA QUESTIOK. 1531 
 
 as to the counting of tlie returns, that that return should be counted, the 
 vote of that state was given and no other vote from it could be received. 
 There could not be such a thing as heaping up the votes of a single 
 state, and giving her twice the vote to which she was entitled, requiring 
 a candidate to receive more votes in order to elect him than the consti- 
 tution required. It was within the discretion of the president of the 
 senate which return he should present first ; and certainly he would 
 know which of the two returns was the republican or democratic return, 
 and certainly would the republican one be opened first. The effect of 
 striking out the second section of the bill was simply that where the two 
 houses were divided in opinion on the question which shall be the true 
 return, the whole thing was determined by the return which the presiding 
 officer handed in first. To strike out the second section would be to 
 confer this great power on the presiding officer. If there were two re- 
 tntns from two different bodies of men it was the duty of the house to 
 determine which was the true body. Under the present rule no decision 
 was arrived at, and no effort made at a decision between the conflicting 
 claims. One house decided that one body were not the true electors, 
 and their certificates were rejected ; the same was done by the other 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said the difficulty that arose under the 
 constitution was that the constitution required the vote of each state 
 should be opened by the president of the senate ; that the fault of the 
 present rule was that, unless both houses concurred in counting a partic- 
 ular paper as a vote, the paper was not counted at all. He said what 
 the constitution required was a law that should provide a tribunal, which 
 would be bound to decide whether the paper opened by the president of 
 the senate, in the presence of the two houses, was the vote the constitu- 
 tion spoke of. 
 
 After some further discussion the bill was put to the senate, and 
 passed by a vote of 28 to 20, 25 being absent. No action was taken on 
 it in the house of representatives. 
 
 One of the matters discussed in the house during the latter part of 
 January was a series of resolutions fixing the time of the presidential 
 office at six years, making him ineligible to re-election. After a short 
 discussion the question was negatived. 
 
 Jn the senate, on February 5th, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, offered a res- 
 olution calling on the president of the United States to inform the sen- 
 ate whether any portion of the army had recently interfered, or inter- 
 meddled with the general assembly of Louisiana ; whether any persons 
 claiming seats in that legislature had been prevented from taking the 
 8$me. Mr. Conkling, (Rep.) of New York, suggested that the phrase- 
 
1532 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ology should make it dependent on the president's judgment. Mr. 
 Thurman insisted that, in a case of this kind, the president had no right 
 to dictate to the senate. Mr. ConkUng repUed that this resolution re- 
 lated to a serious disorder in a great community. It was suggestive of 
 something higher than mere strife and competition of faction. It was 
 a question that could not be settled in a day, and the president's judg- 
 ment should be considered as to whether the time was ripe for laying 
 the facts before congress. Mr. Thurman said he was familiar with the 
 usages of the senate, and had been, long before the- preceding senatior 
 had had an opportunity of knowing them. In respect to foreign affairs 
 it had always been the usage to make such requests subject to the dis- 
 cretion of the president ; but in times of profound peace he could not 
 admit that it had been customary to make the president's opinion obli- 
 gatory on the senate. The resolution simply asked for official informa- 
 tion on a most important subject. It related to what had taken place in 
 the past, not to what would be likely to take place in the future. He 
 then proceeded to cite various examples to prove the point he had made. 
 He closed his argument with the claim that the senate had the right to 
 know who had called the army to organize a state legislature. Mr. Mor- 
 ton denied that any right inhered in the senate to demand of the presi- 
 dent to give any information on the matter. If a part of the facts were 
 to be brought out, the whole story should be clearly revealed. There 
 should be an addendum in the resolution calling on the president for in- 
 formation in regard to the existence of armed leagues in the state of 
 Louisiana, hostile to the government, and intent on overthrowing it. 
 Mr. Edmunds, (Rep.) of Vermont, attacked the position taken by sena- 
 tor Thurman that the senate had ever made an unconditional demand on 
 the president for information. He would like to have a division of the 
 senate on this subject. He was sure that there would be found on one 
 side in solid phalanx all the apologists and defenders of what were called 
 the rights of the people in the south, which meant the old aristocracy of 
 white men, whose rights their predecessors had defended in 1860 and 
 1861. It was high time that the people of the countiy should know 
 whether the amendments for liberty and human rights, recently incorpo-' 
 rated in the constitution, were to have vital force, or whether they were 
 to be frozen out by ku-klux leagues, and ruffianly organizations, in whose 
 favor there were imany apologists on the floor of the senate. Mr. Ed- 
 munds proceeded at some length to state the question from the republi- 
 can stand-point, emphasizing the lawless condition of the state of Louis- 
 iana. He was as anxious as the senator from Ohio for information ; but 
 he wanted the whole truth, 
 
 Mr. Thurman said that during his five years in the senate he had heard 
 
LOUISIANA AFFAIES AGAIN. 1533 
 
 precisely the same speech, preaching the s«(me Creed of hatred at least a 
 half dozen times. Ku-klux outrages and white leagues had nothing to 
 do with the subject before the senate. The charge that there had been 
 murders, assassinations, and multiform outrages ■ could not condone the 
 fact that the president had crushed with armed hand the legislature of a 
 state. The time had passed when the incessant grinding of the southern 
 outrage mill could cover up plain violations of the constitution. The 
 senator had no right to indict the people of Louisiana as assassins and 
 murderers. It would be fully as logical to make a similar indictment 
 against the people of Nevada because the roads of that state swarmed 
 with bands of thieves and robbers. There was a lively passage at arms 
 between senators Thurman and Edmunds; and the debate was closed by 
 Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, who characterized the speeches from the re- 
 pubhcan part of the house, as blazing with passionate hatred, and tend- 
 ing, by blowing the trumpet of party discord^ to divert the mind of the 
 country from the real question involved, that of constitutional right. On 
 the question of the amendment of Senator Conkliug being called, it was 
 carried by a vote of 32 to 21, 20 being absent. The resolution, as 
 amended, jvas then agreed to. The answer of the president to the reso- 
 lution, consisted of an extended report on the state of aflEairs in Louis- 
 iana, chiefly in December 1874. This session of congress closed on 
 Mai'ch 3d, when that body adjouraed sine die. Many questions of inter- 
 est were discussed during this session of congress. The only bill of great 
 importance passed was that providing for a return to specie payments. 
 
 There were disturbances throughout several states of the south, espec- 
 ially in South Carolina and Arkansas ; but these disorders, though dan- 
 gerous and detrimental to the interests of the states, were so local in their 
 character that our limits preclude anything further than the merest passing 
 allusion. The status of Louisiana was vitally different in this, that its 
 affairs were, through a variety of causes, vitally complicated with ques- 
 tions of national politics. The debates in congress had been largely en- 
 gaged on the question, the constitutional element mostly involved, being 
 the right and the special cause for the interference of the military arm 
 by order of the president. Fresh complications had arisen in Louisiana 
 since our last resume of the politics of that state. The new election of 
 1874 was preceded by a condition of intense excitement; charges of 
 fraudulent registry were bandied between the two parties, and the public 
 mind was in a mood of most unwholesome ferment. A partial compro- 
 mise had been entered into by the chiefs of the two parties, so far as to 
 have shaped itself into the preliminaries of negotiations, for a board of 
 arbitrators to re-examine the election returns of 1872. But the confer- 
 ence committee finally dissolved without coming to any conclusion. 
 
1534 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The new law providing for the appointment of the returning board dif- 
 fered widely from the former one, inasmuch as it fixed that important 
 body as an organization made up of five persons, to be elected by the 
 senate from all political parties. The election was held on November 2d, 
 and attended with general quiet. On the day before the declaration of 
 the results of the canvass by the returning board, the committee ap- 
 pointed by the conservative party to witness the counting of the returns 
 made a sworn statement that there had been chosen four conservative 
 and two republican congressmen and seventy-one conservative, and 
 thirty-seven republican members of the legislature ; also that the demo- 
 cratic candidate for state treasurer was elected. In submitting this state- 
 ment the committee certified that they had compiled the result from the 
 duplicate returns in their possession, as compared with the duplicate re- 
 turns in the hands of the returning board. They entered a protest 
 against the action of the returning board in having rejected, on purely 
 ex -parte testimony, the returns from conservative parishes so as to give 
 the republicans the majority. 
 
 On December 24th the result of the labors of the returning board 
 was announced by J. Madison Wells, the president. This gave the ma- 
 jority to the republican candidate for treasurer, and returned fifty-four 
 republicans and fifty-two conservative members to the legislature. In view 
 of the dissatisfaction on the part of the conservatives at this result of 
 the election, and the plain indications that the assembling of the legisla- 
 ture would not be peaceable, lieutenant-general Sheridan was ordered to 
 make a tour of the south with the purpose of assuming command of the 
 department if he thought it desirable. The circumstances attending the 
 organization of the legislature on the 4th of January, in 1875, constitute 
 one of the most memorable events in the political history of the country. 
 Of the different reports we give a succinct statement, as compiled from 
 that of the congressional committee, which had visited New Orleans to 
 investigate the condition of affairs in Louisiana and were witnesses of 
 the events. The following statement made by the sub-committee ap- 
 pointed to visit New Orleans, may be considered authoritative. We 
 simply quote that section which relates to the organization of the legis- 
 lature : 
 
 " As to the proceedings on the 4th of January, about which the com- 
 mittee desired a statement, we now add that your sub-committee, on the 
 invitation of the democratic conservative committee of the state of 
 Louisiana, visited the hall of the house of representatives, and witnessed 
 the convening of the Louisiana house of representatives, Mr. Potter re- 
 fusing to go inside the bar, remained outside, while Messrs. Foster and 
 Phelps were seated inside and near to the speaker's chair. Mr. Potter 
 
THE SXTB-COMMITTEE ON LOUISIANA. 1535 
 
 remained only until Wiltz was elected speaker, and states nothing as to 
 what subsequently occurred. Mr. Foster remained perhaps an hour, 
 and Mr, Phelps remained about an hour longer, until he learned that the 
 military were about to enter under governor Kellogg's orders. The 
 doings in the state house on the 4th of January, as seen by the commit- 
 tee or subsequently in evidence, wei'e substantially as follows : 
 
 " At twelve o'clock noon, William Vigers, the clerk of the last house, 
 called the assembly to order and proceeded to call the roll of members, 
 as made up from the returns of the returning board. This roll contained 
 the names of 106 members, classed by governor Kellogg as 53 republi- 
 cans and 53 democrats. But it is claimed that one of the democrats 
 was not a staying democrat. The republicans claimed that one of their 
 members, Mr. A. Gr. Cousin, had been kidnapped and forcibly taken to 
 a distant parish to prevent his presence at the organization of the house. 
 Your committee were about to investigate this charge, when in public 
 session, it was claimed by the democratic counsel and admitted by the 
 republican counsel that the arrest was under legal process and by the 
 hands of the sheriff. It was further claimed, and not denied, that the 
 privilege of his office did not shield him from arrest. The charge was 
 embezzlement. The full house would contain 111 members, of which 
 66 would be a quorum. On the first call of the roll, 102 answered to 
 their names. It is claimed by the republicans, and we believe conceded 
 by the democrats, that 50 of these answering to their names were demo- 
 crats, and 52 were republicans. The instant the clerk finished the roll- 
 call, several members rose to their feet, but the floor was successfully 
 held by Mr. Billieu, who said that he nominated L. A. Wiltz as tempo- 
 rary chairman. The clerk suggested that the legal motion was to elect 
 a speaker. Mr. Billieu, himself, paying no attention to the clerk, pro- 
 ceeded hurriedly to put his own motion, which was received by loud 
 yeas followed by loud nays, and declared it carried. Mr. Wiltz sprang 
 instantly to the platform, took from the clerk the gavel, was quickly 
 sworn in by justice Houston, who followed him to the platform, and 
 then rapped the house, which during this time had been in great confu- 
 sion, into a temporary quiet. Mr. Wiltz, as temporary chairman, admin- 
 istered the oath to the members en masse, who rose to receive it. Some 
 members made a motion to elect Mr. Trezevant clerk. Mr. Wiltz put 
 the motion and declared it carried. Trezevant at once came forward 
 and took the clerk's chair. 
 
 " Immediately after, and with the same haste, Mr. Flood was elected 
 sergeant-at-arms, and at once, whether on motion or not your committee 
 do not remember, a number of assistant sergeant-at-arms were appointed, 
 who promptly appeared, wearing badges on which was printed, " assis- 
 
1533 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tant sergeant-at-arms." While the above-mentioned motions were being 
 put, numbers objected and called for the yeas and nays, all of which was 
 disregarded and pronounced out of order by the acting chairman. Colo- 
 nel Lowell, a republican, made the point of order that the constitution 
 of the state allowed any two members to call for the yeas and nays on 
 any motion, but the temporary chairman decided the point not well 
 taken until a motion for permanent organization was made. 
 
 " Next, a motion to go into election for a permanent organization was 
 offered, and declared premature. Against this ruling the republicans 
 protested. A motion to seat the democratic members alleged to be 
 elected in the four parishes, whose election was referred to the legisla- 
 ture, was immediately made and carried. During this stage there was 
 much disorder. The republican members protested, but their protests 
 were disregarded. These gentlemen then iappeared and were sworn in. 
 A motion to adjourn was then put and declared lost. Mr. Lowell (Rep.), 
 then moved that the house proceed to a permanent organization, and 
 that the vote be taken upon the roll of the returning board. The mo- 
 tion was declared lost, Mr. Lowell protesting. Mr. Matthews (Kep.), 
 then nominated Mr. Lowell as temporary chairman, and put the motion 
 amid great confusion and disorder, and declared it passed. Mr. Lowell 
 declined to serve. The house then proceeded to elect a speaker ; the 
 roll was called by clerk Trezevant, who reported 55 votes for Wiltz, 2 
 for Hahn, and 1 (Mr. Wiltz's own) blank. This result was ascertained 
 by the clerk by simply keeping a tally of the members voting as they 
 answered to their names; no roll of members voting was kept, neither 
 were tellers ordered, or any such other means employed than calling the 
 roll to ascertain the number voting. This vote includes the five mem- 
 bers who had been sworn in to fill vacancies ; during the roll-call, when 
 Mr. Hahn's name was called, he rose and asked to be excused from vot- 
 ing, and to be allowed to state his reasons. Objection was made, and 
 then the speaker pro teni. asked for unanimous consent to his explana- 
 tion ; consent was given, and Mr. Hahn spoke at some length. After 
 the announcement by the clerk of the vote, Mi'. Wiltz was sworn in as 
 speaker, and proceeded to swear in others present so far as they came 
 forward to be sworn. Those thus sworn in were said to number 60 in 
 all, made up of 50 conservatives and 5 republicans who were returned 
 by the returning board, and the 5 democratic members who had just 
 been admitted. 
 
 " Outside of the bsir of the legislative hall in the state-house there were 
 a large number of police, supported by the federal -troops. No person 
 was permitted to enter the state-house except through the orders of 
 Governor Kellogg. Within the bar of the house were permitted only 
 
THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE. 1637 
 
 the gentlemen returned by the returning board, and the clerk and 
 sergeant-at-arms of the former legislature, ten persons allowed to the 
 conservatives as messengers, who suddenly became their assistant ser- 
 geants-at arms, and a few other persons, such as were admitted by cour- 
 tesy to the floor. Without the bar in the public pari of the hall stood 
 the contestants and other persons admitted ; they numbered by actual 
 count one hundred and twenty-seven. Besides these the door of the 
 hall was kept by twenty-seven police. Wiltz maintained control of the 
 assembly until some time after he was chosen speaker. When the repub- 
 licans undertook to withdraw from the hall, Mr. Wiltz gave instructions 
 to the sergeants-at-arms not to allow any one to pass out or enter the 
 hall. Then the disturbance without the bar at once increased, and pistols 
 were displayed, when, at this juncture, a conservative member moved 
 that the speaker be requested to ask Colonel de Trobriand to preserve 
 order. A committee was appointed to wait on Colonel de Trobriand and 
 request his compliance. Colonel de Trobriand came to the bar, unac- 
 companied, except by one aide, whom he left there, and then alone ap- 
 proached the speaker. The speaker requested him to ask for order in the 
 lobby. Colonel de Trobriand did so, and order was then restored. The 
 speaker thanked him in the name of the house for his courtesy, and he 
 withdrew. The action of the body proceeded for an hour or so without 
 interruption, during which time a committee on contested seats was ap- 
 pointed, minor officers elected, and debate had ; but no message was sent 
 to the senate or to the governor notifying them that the house was or- 
 ganized and ready to proceed to business ; when, at length. Colonel de 
 Trobriand returned and stated he had orders to remove the five members 
 sworn in who had not been returned by the returning board ; and, after 
 the protest and resistance of Mr. Wiltz and the persons referred to, and 
 after General Campbell had been sent for to point them out, they were 
 removed by the United States soldiers. Mr. Wiltz then left the chair, as 
 Mr. Vigers, to organize the house, began to call the roll made out by the 
 returning board ; and two democratic members had answered to their 
 names, when Mr. Wiltz interrupted the clerk, and called upon the con- 
 servative members to refuse to answer and to leave the hall. The inter- 
 ruption over, Mr. Vigers began anew his roll-call, and obtained only fifty 
 responses, but as the two democratic members had just before answered 
 on the roll-call, which was interrupted, he assumed it right to announce 
 that fifty-four members had answered to their names. 
 
 " Those who remained after Mr. Wiltz and his friends withdrew, elected 
 Hahn speaker by acclamation and proceeded to the business of the legis- 
 lature. There was no subsequent roll-call by which the number of those 
 members whose names were returned bv the returning board, and wha* 
 97 
 
1538 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 still remained present at these deliberations, could be determined. Your 
 committee have not been able to agree upon any recommendation ; but 
 upon the situation in Louisiana, as it appeared before us, we are all 
 agreed. 
 
 This report was signed by Messrs. Charles Foster, "William Walter 
 Phelps, Clarkson A. Potter, and the Hon. George F, Hoar, as chairman. 
 Such were the events of one of the most extraordinary occasions in the 
 history of American politics. The circumstancesr of the difficulty, and 
 the dispatches of general Sheridan, Avhich were bitterly denunciatory of 
 the conservative party, caused an almost unparalleled excitement through- 
 out the country. The violent tone of the latter documents could hardly 
 have been greater if the state of Louisiana had been in open and armed 
 rebellion. He was sharply criticised even by many of those who were 
 fully affiliated to him in political views, especially after the sworn state- 
 ments, made by the most eminent and respectable citizens of the state, 
 denying the truth of the facts affirmed. The president was widely de- 
 nounced for the part taken by the military, and there was an emphatic 
 expression of indignation against the illegal interference with the organi- 
 zation of a state legislature. Numerous meetings were held in northern 
 -cities; special messages were sent by governors of northern states to 
 their legislatures ; and legislative resolutions were passed denouncing the 
 ■course of the federal government. Amid this general denunciation, 
 howevefc, many of the able and thoughtful people of the country did not 
 hesitate to indorse the action of general Grant as necessary to prevent 
 bloodshed. A second congressional committee, consisting of representa- 
 tives George F, Hoar, William A. Wheeler, William P. Fry and Samuel 
 P. Marshall, were sent to New Orleans, and organized for their work on 
 January 2d, 1875. They were in session fourteen days, and made an ex- 
 tended examination of the facts. Before they left negotiations were set 
 on foot for adjustment of the difficulties on the basis of an acquiescence 
 in the government of Kellogg, and a submission of the claims of such 
 members of the legislature as had been excluded from seats for the de- 
 cision of the congressional committee. After various consultations a 
 plan of adjustment was submitted by Mr. Wheeler. This was substan- 
 tially that the assembly would not then disturb the state government, 
 but accord to governor Kellogg all legitimate support in maintaining the 
 laws of the state, and that the house, as constituted on the award of the 
 committee, should remain without change. To make the adjustment 
 efiectual Mr. Wheeler undertook to secure an extra session of the legis- 
 lature, the body supported by general Sheridan having adjourned. 
 Before the extra session convened by governor Kellogg on the 24th of 
 Mai'ch, in obedience to the Wheeler compromise, resolutions had been 
 
PRESIDENT GRANT AND THE THIRD TERM. 1539 
 
 adopted in congress indorsing the action of the president in protecting 
 the government of Louisiana, and recognizing William P. Kellogg as the 
 legal governor. On the second day of the extra session of the Louisiana 
 legislature twelve members, who had been excluded by the returning 
 board, were admitted to seats in accordance with the award made by the 
 congressional committee. A resolution forming a part of the Wheeler ad- 
 justment was passed by the house by a large majority, and a conservative 
 speaker appointed. Thus all the conservative members had taken their 
 places, and both branches of the legislature proceeded to their work. 
 In this manner were the Louisiana difficulties, for the time being, com- 
 promised ; if not in a method satisfactory to the more earnest members 
 of the political parties throughout the country, at least equitably ad- 
 justed to allow the legislative business of the state to move on unim- 
 peded. That the condition of affairs was not so stable as to satisfy 
 thoughtful men of their permanent settlement is true, but it gave a 
 needed rest to the bitterness and irritation Avhich had made Louisiana 
 politics so long a party bugbear. 
 
 A question which enlisted public attention largely during the year 
 1875 was the assumed disposition of president Grant to secure a third 
 term. It was well known that many able and influential politicians did 
 not hesitate to express their conviction that a second re-election of the 
 president would be a happy event for the national interests. These wide- 
 sown statements, made in private conversation, on the platform, and 
 through the press, were believed by large numbers of people to have 
 taken their inspiration directly from the primitive source. Whether or 
 not this charge was true, the advocacy of a third term may be considered 
 to have been tentative. It cannot be doubtful that a second renomina- 
 tion by the republican party would have been deemed by president 
 Grant a compliment that he could hardly refuse. The experiment of 
 testing the popular feeling, however, was so unsatisfactory and drew 
 forth such excited expressions of opposition, alike from republicans and 
 democrats, that president Grant, in a letter to general Henry White, 
 president of the Pennsylvania republican convention, dated May 29th, 
 1875, expressed himself openly on the subject, yet with a diplomatic 
 phrasing which did great credit to the lessons which a bluff soldier- 
 president had taken in the school of political finesse. In this letter he 
 enlarged on the unwillingness with which he had vacated the life-posi- 
 tion which peculiarly suited his tastes, and the sacrifices he had made 
 alike in his feelings and in his pecuniary interests. He said that he had 
 accepted the renomination on account of the pressure brought on him 
 by his friends and political adherents. As for the third-term question 
 he would not write or utter a word to change the people in their choice. 
 
1540 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 There was nothing in the constitution that could restrict the number of 
 years which a president might serve in successive re-elections. He was 
 not a candidate for renomination, but he did not deny that circumstances 
 might arise under which he might feel forced to accept the will of his 
 party and of the people. This guarded statement of president Grant was 
 interpreted by his friends as a temperate and dignified reply to unjust 
 aspersions, while it confirmed his opponents in the belief that their 
 charges were justified by the secret wishes and machinations of the so- 
 called presidential clique. The animadversions of the opposition press 
 were stimulated in several unforeseen ways during the latter part of the 
 year 1875, and the early part of the succeeding year. There had been a 
 more than usually exciting discussion of the so-called " school question." 
 The interest of this hinged on the claim of the Roman Catholics to be 
 exempt from taxation to support public schools, on the ground that they 
 could not send their children to institutions where no religious instruc- 
 tion was given, or else such as was perversive of the Catholic faith. In 
 a speech made by president Grant at Des Moines, Iowa, at the reunion 
 of the army of Tennessee on September 9th, 1875, he had expressed 
 himself as strongly opposed to sectarian schools. The somewhat pecu- 
 liar manner of expression used in the speech opened an opportunity, 
 which was quickly seized, to charge him with the attempt to throw a 
 religious firebrand into the presidential contest of 1876. Further fuel 
 was added to the excitement by a letter to ex-speaker Blaine by a well- 
 known New Jersey politician, which found its way into the public prints. 
 In this letter it was distinctly charged that Grant was a member of a 
 secret anti-Catholic league, and Blaine was recommended, as an ambi- 
 tious candidate for the presidency, to add to his popular strength by 
 joining the same order. 
 
 The agitation in political circles created by this discussion was, how- 
 ever, soon cast into the shade by the development of vast frauds upon 
 the public revenue by western manufacturers of whisky. In this gigan- 
 tic system of frauds were implicated twenty-four distilleries, thirty-seven 
 rectifying houses, and over fifty United States gangers and storekeepers. 
 The frauds involved nearly two and a half millions of proof gallons, 
 amounting in loss of tax to the government in ten months of $1,650,000. 
 The cities principally implicated in this robbery of the government weve 
 Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Chicago and St. Louis, the two latter cities bear- 
 ing off the palm of wholesale stealing. The discovery of these frauds 
 was owing to secretary Bristow, who had succeeded Mr, Richardson in 
 the bureau of the treasury. As soon as he became familiar with the 
 machinery of his department, he instituted a radical and pitiless war on 
 the frauds which had robbed the aovernment of so much of its revenue. 
 
DECLINE OF THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION. 1541 
 
 In the course of these investigations he discovered the western whisky 
 frauds, which struck the country with a great shock, and served as much 
 as any one cause to discredit the administration of Grant with the people. 
 Numerous prosecutions followed, including those of John A, Joyce, 
 special revenue agent, and John MacDonald, supervisor of internal rev- 
 enue, botli of whom were convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary. 
 Indictments were also found against chief-clerk Averv, of the treasury 
 department, and general O. E. Babcock, secretary of the president, for 
 complicity in these frauds. Avery was convicted in December, and 
 Babcock acquitted in February, 1876. The developments during the 
 trial of all those indicted, seemed to indicate an ardent desire on the 
 part of prominent officials in Washington, from the president down, to 
 shield the more influential from just punishment. The frankly-expressed 
 dissatisfaction of secretary Bristow, at the ways in which he had been 
 hampered in the performance of his duty, was the cause of a rupture 
 with the president, Avhich finally resulted in the resignation of the 
 former. Thus the country lost one of the most able and faithful officers 
 who had relieved the record of the administration. That the people 
 were quick to discern their loss and the causes that had led to it, was 
 emphasized in a thousand ways. Probably the public press, without re- 
 gard to party, never in the most heated political discussions of the past, 
 abounded with more indignant and bitter denunciations of the action of 
 the administration. 
 
 A still greater odium was cast on the Grant administration by the mal- 
 versation in office on the part of the secretary of war, Belknap. For 
 several years previous to the discovery of secretary Belknap's crime, the 
 charge had been freely made by army officers that post-traderships, 
 which under the new regulation of the war department were made sub- 
 ject to the appointment of the secretary, paid heavy toll to high officials 
 at Washington. Without attempting to give the details of the sad 
 story of feminine envy and ambition involved in this unfortunate case of 
 official guilt, it is sufficient to state that the facts were finally so assured 
 as to drive secretary Belknap to a full confession of his guilt and a resig- 
 nation of his position. The crime of secretary Belknap was essentially 
 as follows: In the year 1870, Caleb P. Marsh, of New York, received 
 from general Belknap the appointment of post-trader to Fort Sill, Indian 
 Territory, which he sub-let to a certain John F. Evans. It appeared in 
 connection with the transaction, secretary Belknap received from Evans 
 several large sums of money, ranging from $1,500 to $12,000, in virtue 
 of the appointment, the whole sum amounting to $24,450. Instantly 
 the facts became generally known through the resignation of the secre- 
 tary of war, an impeachment was moved in the house, and on April 4th 
 
1542 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 the managers appointed to conduct it appeared at the bar of the senate. 
 The trial lasted several months and resulted in an acquittal, as it was not 
 sustained by a two-thirds vote. This action of the senate was not based 
 however on any doubt of the guilt of the accused, but largely on a ques- 
 tion of jurisdiction, he having ceased to be an officer of the government 
 at the time of the trial. Although general Grant could be by no means 
 implicated in the guilt of one of the most trusted members of his cab- 
 inet, this unfortunate event co-operated with many others to cloud the 
 last year of his administration with such public disfavor as to set at per- 
 fect rest the long mooted question of a third term. 
 
 CHAPTER CXXIV. 
 
 rORTY-THIRD CONGRESS. PRESIDENT GRANt's LAST MESSAGE. IMPOR- 
 TANT DEBATE ON TENURE OF OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEN- 
 ATE PRO TEMPORE. DISCUSSION OF THE TWENTY-SECOND JOINT RULE. 
 
 PROPOSITION TO REFORM THE CLAUSE. MORTOn's BILL FOR COUNT- 
 ING THE ELECTORAL VOTE. 
 
 The first session of the XLIIId congTess opened at Washington on 
 December 6th, 1875, T. W. Ferry, of Michigan, being in the chair of 
 the senate. In the. house Michael R. Kerr was elected speaker, receiving 
 ]73 votes against 106 given to the Hon. J. G. Blaine. The president's 
 seventh annual message was then read. It made early reference to the 
 school question in the direction taken by the president's Des Moines 
 speech, alluded to in the previous chapter. It was suggested that a con- 
 stitutional amendment should be submitted to the several states for ratifi- 
 cation, making it the duty of each state to establish and forever maintain 
 free schools, adequate to the education of all children in the rudimentary 
 branches, irrespective of sex, color, birthplace or religion ; forbidding 
 the teaching in said schools irreligious or pagan tenets, and prohibiting 
 the granting of any school taxes or any part thereof, either by legislative, 
 municipal or other authorities, for the benefit or aid, directly or indirectly, 
 of any religious sect or denomination. In connection with this the mes- 
 sage called attention to the vast amount of untaxed property, which then 
 amounted to about $1,000,000,000. It was suggested that the taxation 
 of all property equally, whether church or corporation, would be both 
 beneficial and equitable. 
 
PRESIDENT grant's LAST MESSAGE. 1543 
 
 Considerable space was given to the relations of the country with 
 Spain and the Cuban insurrection. Protracted continuance of the strife 
 seriously affected the commercial interests of all nations, especially those 
 of the United States. The failure of Spain to establish peace and con- 
 quer the insurgents was commented on, and the question of the acknowl- 
 edgment of Cuban belligerency touched. The president did not be- 
 lieve that the conflict in Cuba, dreadful and devastating as it was, rose 
 to the fearful dignity of war. Unless the granting of belligerent rights 
 was amply justified by all the circumstances, it could only be regarded 
 as a gratuitous display of sympathy with rebellion. Applying to the 
 existing affairs in Cuba the test recognized by publicists and writers on 
 international law, the president failed to find in the insurrection the ex- 
 istence of such a political organization, having the forms and capable of 
 the ordinary functions of government towards its own people and other 
 states, with courts for the administration of justice, with a local habita- 
 tion, possessing such organization of force, such material, such occupa- 
 tion of territory, as to take the contest out of the category of mere re- 
 bellion, and place it on the footing of war to which a recognition of bel- 
 ligerency would be a just concession. He regarded the accordance of 
 belligerent rights not only as unwise and premature, but indefensible 
 as a matter of right. The recognition of independence or belligerency 
 was equalh inadmissible, but something should be done to bring to an 
 end a most distressing condition of affairs. Other nations would be 
 compelled to assume the responsibility of mediation and intervention. 
 The United States was ready to respond at all times to any request for 
 its good offices. The message proceeded to speak of the relations of 
 the government with other countries as being on the whole quite satis- 
 factory. The subject of telegraphic cable lines was recommended to 
 the attention of congress. It was suggested that the following condi- 
 tions should be fixed : 
 
 1. No line should be allowed to land on the shores of the United 
 States under the concession from another power, which does not admit 
 the right of any other line or lines, formed in the United States, to land 
 and freeh' connect with and operate through its land-lines. 
 
 2. No line should be allowed to land on the shores of the United 
 States which is not by treaty stipulation with the government from 
 whose shores it proceeds, or by prohibition in its charter, or otherwise 
 to the satisfaction of this government, prohibited from consolidating or 
 amalgamating with any other cable telegraph-line, or combining there- 
 with for the purpose of regulating and maintaining the cost of tele- 
 graphing. 
 
 3. All lines should be bound to give precedence in the transmission 
 
1544 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of tlie ofBcial messages of the governments of the two countries between 
 which it may be laid. 
 
 4. A power should be reserved to the two governments, either con- 
 jointly or to each, as regards the messages dispatched from its shores, 
 to fix a limit to the charges to ■ be demanded for the transmission of 
 messages. 
 
 The report of the secretary of the treasui-y showed an increase of re- 
 ceipts from the customs and the internal revenue, the former having 
 been for the last fiscal year $157,167,722, and the latter $110,007,i.-t>. 
 In discussing the question of specie resumption it was hoped that con- 
 gress would take some further action to consummate this important 
 step. He recommended a few measures as follows : 
 
 " A repeal of so much of the legal-tender act as makes these notes 
 receivable for debts contracted after a date to be fixed in the act itself, 
 say not later than January 1, 1877. We should then have quotations at 
 real values, not fictitious ones. Gold would no longer be at a premium, 
 but currency at a discount. A healthy reaction would set in at once, 
 and with it a desire to make the currency equal to what it purports to 
 be. The merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen could do business on 
 a fair margin of profit, the money to be received having an unvarying 
 value. Laborers and all classes who work for stipulated pay or salary 
 would receive more for their income, because extra profits would no 
 longer be charged by the capitalist to compensate for the risk of a down- 
 ward fluctuation in the value of the currency. 
 
 " Second, that the secretary of the treasury be authorized to redeem, 
 say not to exceed $2,000,000 monthly of legal-tender notes, by issuing 
 in their stead a long bond, bearing interest at the rate of 3.65 per cent 
 per annum, of denominations ranging from fifty dollars up to one thou- 
 sand dollars each. This would in time reduce the legal-tender notes to 
 a volume that could be kept afloat without demanding redemption in 
 large sums suddenly. 
 
 " Third, that additional power be given to the secretary of the treasury 
 to accumulate gold for final redemption, either by increasing revenue, 
 curtailing expenses, or both — it is preferable to do both ; and I recom- 
 mend that reduction of expenditures be made wherever it can be done 
 without impairing government obligations or crippling the due execution 
 thereof." 
 
 The questions on which the message requested special legislation may 
 be summarized as follows : 
 
 " 1. That the states shall be required to afford the opportunity of a 
 good common school education to every child within their limits. 
 
 " 2. No sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school supported 
 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 1545 
 
 in whole or in part by the state, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax 
 levied upon any community. Make education compulsory, so far as to 
 deprive all persons who cannot read and write from becoming voters 
 after the year 1890, disfranchising none, however, on grounds of illit- 
 eracy who may be voters at the time this amendment takes effect. 
 
 " 3. Declare church and state forever separate and distinct, but each 
 free within its proper sphere ; and that all church property shall bear its 
 own proportion of taxation. 
 
 r. Drive out licensed immorality, such as polygamy and the impor- 
 tation of -Avomen for illegitimate purposes. To recur again to the cen- 
 tennial year, it would seem as though now, as we are about to begin the 
 second century of our national existence, would be a most fitting time 
 for these reforms. 
 
 " 5. Enact such laws as will insure a speedy return to a sound cur- 
 rency, such as will command the respect of the world." 
 
 The first month of the session in the senate was devoted to the discus- 
 sion of various proposed amendments to the constitution, the most im- 
 portant of which affected the method of electing president and vice- 
 president. Some of these will be introduced to the attention of the 
 reader further on. A series of resolutions were offered in the senate on 
 January 10th, 1876, relating to the tenure of office of the president j)^o 
 tempore. These were substantially that the tenure of the president j^ro 
 tempore of the senate elected at one session did not expire in congress 
 after the first recess ; that the death of the vice-president did not vacate 
 the office of president of the senate ; that the office was held at the 
 pleasure of the senate ; and that the Hon. T. W. Ferry, of Wisconsin, 
 who was elected at the last session, continued to hold the ofiice by virtue 
 of said election. 
 
 Mr. Merrimon, (Dem.) of North Carolina, expressed the opinion that 
 the president pro tempore of the senate should continue to hold the office 
 until a new vice-president should be elected, and qualified. The senate 
 was a perpetual body exactly defined in the constitution and in all things 
 its power was limited by the constitution. The vice-president was con- 
 stitutionally president of the senate, and beyond the control of that 
 body. The clause in the organic law clearly implied that the president 
 2)ro tempore should be elected for the time of absence of the vice-presi- 
 dent for any cause. The senate was always required to have a presiding 
 officer, and the purpose of the constitution was to supply a certain and 
 fixed presiding officer for the time the regular officer should be absent 
 whether long or short. To say the senate could determine the time of 
 office thus fixed by the constitution would be shocking to the legal 
 mind. If the office were one created by the senate it then might fix the 
 
1546 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 time, but here the oflSce was designated and limited by the constitution 
 itself. The president pro tempore of the senate was an officer clothed 
 with all the powers, duties, privileges and responsibilities borne by the 
 vice-president. His official character was recognized by the conslitution, 
 and by all the branches of the government, and his official apts were as 
 valid as those of the vice-president. The framers of the constitution 
 knew that under the general parliamentary law the senate could make a 
 temporary presiding officer who could be rendered subject to its will. It 
 was not a mere surplusage that a special provision was enacted in the or- 
 ganic law, the obvious reason of this was that the president jiro temp)ore 
 of the senate should be perfectly free and independent, not subject to 
 the caprices and changing intrigues of political parties. It was deemed 
 unwise to make an officer so dignified and important, a mere tool of a 
 party or a majority. 
 
 Mr. Saulsbury, (Dem.) of Delaware, considered the question as one 
 involving the right of the senate to change its presiding officer at pleas- 
 ure. He could not concur in the view entertained by some that when 
 the senate had once elected a president pro tempore, it exhausted the 
 power conferred by the constitution. If such was the case there would 
 be no power, in case of the death of the president pro tempore, to elect 
 his successor. The same failure of power would inhere in the offices 
 where the officer might fail to perform his duty, and thereby provoke 
 the displeasure of the senate. According to his reading of the constitu- 
 tion it was not absolutely necessary that the senate should even choose a 
 president from its own body. In this case it would be impossible to 
 reach him for failure in his duties. On the assumption that he was 
 necessarily selected from the senate, then he could only be removed ac- 
 cording to the doctrine contended for, by expelling him from the body 
 as a senator as well as a president pro tempore. This would be mani- 
 festly unjust, for the functions of his office as the president of the senate 
 differed widely from those of a senator from a state, both of which he 
 was obliged to carry out. According to the argument of the preceding 
 speaker developed to its logical results, the senate having exercised once 
 its grant of power in appointing a temporary officer, that power became 
 exhausted. Mr. Saulsbury proceeded to contend that the temporary 
 president of the senate was not a civil officer of the government in the 
 ordinary sense ; but that he was purely an officer of the senate, elected 
 by its votes and removable at its pleasure. 
 
 Mr. Jones, (Rep.) of Florida, concurred with the views of Mr. Merri- 
 mon. It was not enough to show by the terms of the constitution that 
 the president pro tempore was an officer of the senate, and under ordinary 
 provisions, was removable at its pleasure. If the power conferred on 
 
TENURE OF OFFICE OF PRBSIDENT OF SENATE PRO TEMPORE. 1547 
 
 congress touching the filling of office for the president of the United 
 States was in conflict with that supposed to exist on the part of the 
 senate to remove its presiding officer, then reasonable construction must 
 decide the question at issue. If congress had the right to cast upon the 
 president 'pro tempore of the senate the office of president of the United 
 States, when the president and vice-president were dead, and it became 
 necessary to guard against uncertainties that the tenure of the office of 
 president of the senate should be fixed, could it be said that the right to 
 t-emove such officer should supersede the right of congress to designate 
 him as heir expectant of the presidency. The right of the senate to re- 
 tnove an officer was a right derived from implication, while the other 
 right exercised by congress was in virtue of express power given by the 
 constitution. Mr. Jones proceeded further to argue that by the very 
 words of the constitution the power of removal did not exist. The con- 
 stitution gave to the senate the right to elect a president pro tempore in 
 the absence of the vice president, and on the appearance of the latter 
 officer the right of the former terminated. The speaker enlarged in his 
 remarks on the schisms and intrigues, which such an absolute power of 
 removal might engender under certain circumstances. The time might 
 easily come when this assumption would make the senate competent to 
 elect the man who should occupy the first place in the nation, or in 
 other words a large partisan majority in the two houses might remove by 
 impeachment both the president and vice-president, prompted by the 
 hope of placing a favorite in the presidential office. The question was 
 taken on the first resolution and it was adopted unanimously. The 
 second resolution was also adopted without debate. The third resolution 
 to the effect of the president p)ro tempore of the senate was held at the 
 pleasure of the senate called out a legal debate of considerable interest. 
 Several able arguments were made prominetitly by Messrs. Edmunds and 
 Stephenson. 
 
 Mr. Edmunds, (Rep.) of Vermont, said he thought it obvious, that the 
 clause in the constitution empowering the appointment of a president 
 pro tempore of the senate was 'inserted merely to rebut the implication, 
 that the vice-president of the United States could be president of the 
 senate, or in other words to exclude the presumption that the power of 
 the' senate to have a presiding officer during the absence of the vice- 
 president was annihilated. Along time ago in England, the house of 
 commons was totally unable to do any business according to their prece 
 dents and usages when the speaker was sick or unable to take the chair ; 
 for they had no power, growing up as they did to select a speaker ^jj-o 
 tempore. The question was as to the meaning of the president of the 
 senate ^ro tempore. He concluded that if the constitution makers had 
 
1548 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 intended that the president pro tempore of the senate should be an officer, 
 who had a title to a continuous office, determined either by efflux of 
 time or some external contingency they would have so declared when 
 they were regulating the office. That would have occurred to every 
 bodv, who intended that the presiding officer of the senate should be ir- 
 removable. The term pro tempore simply meant for the time being, not 
 for any future time, and but for the construction established by a long 
 course of usage that the office should not terminate on the particular day 
 he was called to the chair, it would be necessary to elect a presiding 
 officer every morning, Mr. Edmunds argued further as follows : 
 
 " I am fortified in this opinion completely by the state of the English 
 law upon the subject at the time the constitution was made, and, indeed, 
 ever since, until quite recently. Of course everybody knows that the 
 senate was constituted upon the model of the house of lords. Senators 
 do not hold their offices for life, as the lords do, but they hold them in- 
 dependent of direct elections by the people. They are selected by other 
 bodies than the people — by the legislatures of the states — and they have 
 a limited terra. Like the lords, they have regularly a presiding officer 
 who is not one of their body, but who is an independent and external 
 officer, if I may use that phrase. The lord chancellor in England, or, if 
 he be dead, the lord keeper of the great seal, is the regular presiding 
 officer of the house of lords, not a member of the body, having no vote. 
 In the practice of the house of lords and under its immemorial proceed- 
 ings, when the lord chancellor was absent, just as we say ' when the 
 vice-president is absent,' the lords chose a speaker of the lords ^ro tem- 
 pore, the very phrase being used in all the journals and proeedings, as 
 well-known a parliamentary common law in England as any other law 
 that existed in England at the time our constitution was made. But you 
 will find, when you look at the journals of the lords, that although their 
 standing order reads, as it appears in May's book on parliamentary law 
 — I cannot find the original order — that they are to choose a speaker 
 pro tempore ' during the vacancy,' which is a much stronger term than 
 simply 'j9?*o temj)ore'^ yet every morning they choose a fresh speaker 
 pro tempore, usually the same gentleman, of course ; but I am speaking 
 of the officer. He only holds by virtue of the standing orders of the 
 lords from day to day, and the first thing after prayers are said and the 
 house is counted, in the absence of the lord chancellor, is to elect a 
 speaker jt^ro temjjore, and he holds through that day. The next day, 
 the chancellor not appearing, the same ceremony is gone through with, 
 until the lord chancellor appears. 
 
 " I say that the wise men who framed the constitution and who were 
 modeling it in this respect somewhat upon the methods and proceedings 
 
THE DEBATE CONCLUDED. 1549 
 
 and characteristics of the government with which they were most fa- 
 miliar, in providing for this president pro tempore of the senate in the 
 absence of the vice-president, must have expected that those words would 
 have the same construction that they were known to have by the imme- 
 morial practice and common law of the house of lords in Great Britain. 
 So then our historic knowledge, as well as the words of the constitution, 
 clearly proves to ray mind that the president /)ro tempore holds his office 
 at the pleasure of this body, and that every day, if we like, we may se- 
 lect another officer, and but for our long practice — a very convenient 
 one, too, indeed — I should have said, if the question were a new one, 
 that he would only hold his office from day to day, without an order of 
 the senate, which it would be perfectly competent to make, of course, 
 that he should hold for any definite length of time or until the reappear- 
 ance of the regular presiding officer." 
 
 In conclusion the senator declared that in the power of the United 
 States senate to appoint a president 2)ro tempore and other officers, there 
 was carried also the right to change those officers at pleasure. 
 
 Mr. Stephenson, (Dem.) of Kentucky, reasoned that all the usages of 
 the senate on the question of the tenure of the president joro tempore, had 
 been in favor of the opinion that the office was one of fixed tenure, and 
 was not subject to removal at the pleasure of the senate. He quoted 
 authorities that it was not competent for that body to remove the tem- 
 porary officer at their own whim and pleasure. The senator argued at 
 considerable length against the construction of the constitution involved 
 in the argument of Mr. Edmunds. This would confer by implication 
 the right to remove at pleasure a president j^ro temj^ore even after he 
 had become president of the United States, without cause ; or, in a 
 state, would authorize the senate to remove the president jt»ro tempore 
 after he had become invested with the executive duties as governor or 
 acting-governor. Such an error carried its own refutation, and it was 
 against such results that the federal government intended to provide. 
 After some further debate the question was put to the senate, and the 
 resolution was agreed to by a vote of 34 to 1 5. The fourth resolution 
 of the series was withdrawn. 
 
 On December 15th, Mr. Edmunds, (Rep.) of Vermont, offered a reso- 
 lution that the joint rules of the senate and the house in force at the 
 close of the last session should be adopted for the present session. The 
 resolution was referred to the committee on rules, and was reported back 
 favorably by the chairman, Mr. Hamlin, of Maine. The latter senator 
 remarked that as the attention of the senate had never been called to 
 the precise point raised in the resolution, he thought it worthy of some 
 explanation. The senate had its rules as an existing body. The house 
 
1550 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of representatives was a body that expired every two years and with it 
 expired its rules. Joint rules were simply concuiTent, agreed on by both 
 houses for the arrangement of business, although logically these rules 
 would expire at the close of each two years, by long acquiescence and 
 usage they had been allowed to stand as rules, but were not authorized 
 by any affirmative vote. The senator from Vermont had brought the 
 matter to the notice of the senate. It was necessary that this point 
 should be settled. Should any senator arise, and interpose an objection 
 at any time that there was no joint rule existing to which both houses 
 had agreed, it seemed to him that the parliamentary objection would be 
 well taken. After further remarks in the same strain Mr. Hamlin re- 
 commended the amendment of the resolution by making it a concurrent 
 one. 
 
 The president pro tempore then stated that the question was on the 
 amendment proposed by the senator from Indiana (Mr. Morton), except- 
 ing the twenty-second joint rule.* 
 
 * The twenty-second rule was as follows : 
 
 The two houses shall assemble in the hall of the house of representatives at the hour 
 of one o'clock p. m., on the second Wednesday in February next succeeding the meet- 
 ing of the electors of president and vice-president of the United States, and the presi- 
 dent of the senate shall be their presiding officer ; one teller shall be appointed on the 
 part of the senate, and two on the part of the house of representatives, to whom shall be 
 handed, as they are opened by the president of the senate, the certificates of the elec- 
 toral votes ; and said tellers, having read the same in the presence and hearing of the 
 two houses then assembled, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the 
 said certificates ; and, the votes having been counted, the result of the same shall be 
 delivered to the president of the senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the 
 vote and the names of the persons, if any, elected ; which announcement shall be 
 deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected president and vice-president of 
 the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the journals of 
 the two houses. If, upon the reading of any such certificate by the tellers, any ques- 
 tion shall arise in regard to counting the votes therein certified, the same having been 
 stated by the presiding officer, the senate shall thereupon withdraw, and said question 
 shall be submitted to that body for its decision : and the speaker of the house of repre- 
 sentatives shall, in like manner, submit said question to the house of representatives 
 for its decision ; and no question shall be decided affirmatively, and no vote objected to 
 shall be counted, except by the concurrent votes of the two houses ; which being ob- 
 tained, the two houses shall immediately reassemble, and the presiding officer shall then 
 announce the decision of the question submitted, and upon any such question there 
 shall be no debate in either house ; and any other question pertinent to the object for 
 which the two houses are assembled may be submitted and determined in like manner. 
 At such joint meeting of the two houses seats shall be provided as follows : For the 
 president of the senate, the "speaker's chair ;" for the speaker, a chair immediately 
 upon his left; the senators in the body of the hall, upon the right of the presiding of- 
 ficer ; for the representatives, in the body of the hall not occupied by the senators ; 
 for the tellers, secretary of the senate, and clerk of the house of representatives, at the 
 clerk's desk ; for the other officers of the two houses, in front of the clerk's desk, and 
 npon either side of the speaker's platform. Such joint meeting shall be dissolved until 
 the electoral votes are all counted and the result declared ; and ne recess shall be taken 
 
SENATE DEBATE ON TWENTY-SECOND JOINT RULE. 1551 
 
 The resolution as amended then read that the joint rules of the two 
 houses should remain in force with the exception of the twenty-second 
 joint rule. 
 
 Mr. Bayard, (Dem.) of Delaware, said the effect of the present amend- 
 ment nullified by the action of the senate one of the joint rules of the 
 two houses adopted February 6th, 1865. It related to the important 
 subject, th^count of the electoral votes. He had always believed that 
 this rule was unwarranted by the constitution. At the last session of 
 congress the senator from Indiana had proposed an amendment in the 
 shape of a bill. He believed that no time would be so fortunate as it 
 was then for the settlement of joint rules, when the two houses were of 
 a different political complexion. Independent of the question of the 
 power of the two houses of congress over this question of counting elec- 
 toral votes, the question came up whether a joint rule adopted by the 
 two houses became void by the expiration of each congress. He would 
 like to know from those who had given careful attention to the question 
 whether a joint rule would expire ipso facto at the expiration of the con- 
 gress in which it was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Merrimon, of North Carolina, from the committee on rules, an- 
 swered that there had been no departure from the uniform custom of 
 continuing the joint rules from congress to congress, at least on the part 
 of the senate ; and as a legal proposition a joint rule binding on one house 
 would be binding on the other. 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen, (Rep.) of New Jersey, regarded the twenty-second 
 joint rule as very objectionable, and he thought that another should be 
 substituted in its place. It was uncertain as the matter was left in the 
 twelfth amendment whether the president acted merely ministerially or 
 judicially. The law said he was to open the certificates, and the votes 
 in the presence of the two houses wei'e to be counted, but it was left un- 
 decided who should count the votes or who should decide if they were 
 lawful. There were a great many difficult questions involved, and now 
 was a propitious time to settle them. 
 
 Mr. Sherman, (Rep.) of Ohio, said it was universally conceded that the 
 rules of the house of representatives expired with congress, that no act 
 of congress could prevent it. He considered that the rules of the senate 
 were no more operative than the rules of the house of representatives. 
 They could be changed at any moment. 
 
 Mr. Morton, (Rep.) of Ohio, thought that there was no question of the 
 senate being a continuing body from the nature of its organization; 
 
 unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any of such votes, in which 
 case it shall be competent for either house, acting separately, in the manner hereinbe- 
 fore provided, to direct a recess, not beyond the next day at the hour of one o'clock p. ji. 
 
1552 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 wheD it adjourned from one session to another it was nothing more than 
 a recess. On the other hand the house of representatives was not a con- 
 tinuing body. So far as the legal interest of the house was concerned 
 there were times when it did not exist, that it could not have any legal 
 life until it was oraranized. 
 
 Mr. Saulsbury,(Dera.) of Delaware, did not believe that it was competent 
 for the senate to annul at pleasure any joint rule. The view which he 
 took of the joint rules was that as they required the concurrent act of 
 both houses they partook of the nature of a statute, and that neither 
 house could annul a joint rule without the concurrence of the bodies that 
 enacted it, therefore he did not believe it competent for either the senate 
 or the house to annul a joint rule. The strongest legal argument of the 
 discussion was made by the senator from New York, Mr. Conkling : 
 
 " I find my way sufficiently clear when I see that once in two years 
 the members of the house of representatives are rechosen, not some of 
 them but all of them, thus supplying anew the whole personnel, the whole 
 incarnation (if I may so speak) of that house. Now, by settled usage in 
 that case, in analogous cases, and by usage, as it seems to me very clearly 
 within the attributes and within the prerogatives of the house, each con- 
 gress (as it is called for convenience, as the senator from Ohio says) pro- 
 ceeds to take its own orders, to make its own rules under the express 
 permission of the constitution of the United States. When the senate 
 concurs in. a joint rule, a concurrent rule, the senate assents to the mak- 
 ing of rules by the house, if they proceed from the house, extending as 
 to those rules to this body. It assents by adopting them as a part of its 
 own rules. Should any house undertake to make rules to govern a suc- 
 ceeding house, I conceive the action would be entirely nugatory ; and, if 
 so, it follows as a matter of course that a rule made by one house, al- 
 though the senate may be a party to it, if it is designed to bind a suc- 
 ceeding house, is as void as it would be were it a rule for the house 
 alone. Certainly the house would have no greater prerogative, no more 
 far-reaching prerogative in the establishment of a rule, if it ha^jpens to be 
 a rule to which some other body is to be a party, than it would have 
 were it a rule for the government of itself, supposing all the time that it 
 be a rule in the strict sense of that word as distinguished from a statute 
 or from that kind of joint resolution which a senator over the way had 
 in mind when he inquired whether the signature of the president had 
 ever been attached to this rule. 
 
 " If I be right in that, Mr. President, it is very clear that in every 
 congress as it is called (adopting again this term for convenience), the 
 house of representatives is obliged to adopt rules in some form for its 
 government ; and it is very clear that the resolution referred to by the 
 
BILL FOR COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTE. 1553 
 
 senator from Oregon, adopted by the house at the commencement of the 
 session, was an expedient, competent, and orderly proceeding. If that 
 resolution covered, as perhaps it did, the joi-nt rules of the two houses, it 
 brings to us the question whether we will adopt those joint rules. Now, 
 undoubtedly it would be competent for the senate, sub silentio (as the 
 senator from Massachusetts said touching another matter), by acquies- 
 cence, by that silence which implies consent, to go on and observe the 
 joint rules. That it seems has been dorte repeatedly, perhaps usually, 
 before. It would have happened now very likely but for the fact that 
 every senator who has regarded this subject at all cannot have failed to 
 feel that we were called upon to take some action touching the twenty- 
 second joint rule, which it has been said by the senator from Delaware 
 and by other senators involves very grave dangers. A resolution was 
 offered by the senator from Vermont for what reason of coarse I cannot 
 know — bringing to our attention the question not whether if we simply 
 by silence allowed these rules to drift they would be for all purposes of 
 convenience and for all purposes of technical regularity an authority, 
 and, if you please, the rules of the senate, but whether, if we saw fit to 
 abstain from adopting them or to insist that they be changed as a condi- 
 tion to adopting them, that power resides in the senate." 
 
 Mr. Bayard then submitted an amendment striking out the former res- 
 olution, and moving that the matter be referred to the committee on 
 rules of the senate and the house of representatives, with instructions 
 that they should confer,, and report as to what amendments should be 
 made in the joint rules of the two houses : Also whether legislation was 
 expedient in regard to the matters considered in the twenty-second joint 
 rule. The question came up then on the amendment of Mr. Bayard, 
 and it was rejected. The resolution was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Morton's bill providing for counting the electoral vote for presi- 
 dent came up in the senate December 8th, 1875. It was substantially 
 the same bill offered at the previous session. The bill was referred 
 to the committee on privileges and elections, and reported back without 
 amendment on March 3d, 1876. The first section provided that the two 
 houses of congress should assemble in the hall of the house of represent- 
 atives at the hour of one o'clock on the last Wednesday in January, 
 next succeeding the meeting of the electors of president and vice-presi- 
 dent of the United States, and the president *of the senate should be their 
 presiding officer; one teller should be appointed on the part of the sen- 
 ate, and two on the part of the house of representatives, to whom should 
 be handed, as they were opened by the president of the senate, the cer- 
 tificates of the electoral votes; and the tellers, having read the same in 
 the presence and hearing of the two houses then assembled, should make 
 
1554 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 a list of the votes as they should appear from the certificates ; and the 
 votes having been counted, the result of the same should be delivered to 
 the president of the senate, who should thereupon announce the state of 
 the vote, and the names of the persons, if any, elected, which announce- 
 ment should be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected 
 president and vice-president of the United States, and, together with a 
 list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two houses. If, 
 upon the reading- of any certificate by the tellers, any question should 
 arise in regard to counting the votes therein certified, the same having 
 been stated by the presiding officer, the senate should thereupon with- 
 draw:, and the question should be submitted to the body for its decision ; 
 and the speaker of the house of representatives should, in like manner, 
 submit the question to the house of representatives for its decision ; and 
 no electoral vote or votes from any state, to the counting of which ob- 
 jections had been made, should be rejected except by the affirmative 
 vote of the two houses. When the two houses had voted, they should 
 immediately reassemble, and the presiding officer should then announce 
 the decision of the question submitted. And any other question perti- 
 nent to the object for which the two houses were assembled might be 
 submitted and determined in like manner. 
 
 The second section provided that if more than one return should be 
 received by the president of the senate from a state, purporting to be the 
 certificates of electoral votes given at the last preceding election for presi- 
 dent and vice-president in such state, all such returns should be opened 
 by him in the presence of the two houses when assembled to count the 
 votes ; and that return from such state should be counted which the two 
 houses, acting separately, should decide to be the true and valid return. 
 
 By the third section it was provided that when the two houses sepa- 
 rate to decide upon an objection that might have been made to the 
 counting of any electoral vote or votes from any state, or for the decision 
 of any other question pertinent thereto, each senator and representative 
 might speak to such objection or question ten minutes, and not oftener 
 than orice ; but after such debate had lasted two hours, it should be in 
 the power of a majority of each house to direct that the main question 
 should be put without further debate. 
 
 Section four declared that, at such joint meeting of the two houses, 
 seats should be provided as follows : For the president of the senate, the 
 speaker's chair; for the speaker, immediately upon his left ; the senators 
 in the body of the hall upon the right of the presiding officer ; for the 
 representatives, in the body of the hall not provided for the senators ; 
 for the tellers, secretary of the senate, and clerk of the house of represent- 
 atives, at the clerk's desk ; for the other officers of the two houses, in 
 
DEBATE ON ELECTORAL BILL. 1555 
 
 front of the clerk's desk and upon each side of the speaker's platform. 
 The joint meeting should not be dissolved until the electoral votes were 
 all counted and the result declared; and no recess should be taken un- 
 less a question should have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, 
 in which case it should be competent for either house, acting separately, 
 in the manner hereinbefore provided, to direct a recess not beyond the 
 next day at the hour of ten o'clock in the forenoon. 
 
 Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, said : " I have felt long that which I appre- 
 hend the honorable senator from Indiana has felt, some degree of em- 
 barrassment in regard to the measure of power committed to congress 
 over the counting, accepting or rejecting of the electoral votes of the 
 electors of the various states. The letter of the constitution on this 
 subject is very meagre. In the second article of the original constitution 
 it was provided that ' each state shall appoint, in such manner as the 
 legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole 
 number of senators and representatives to which the state may be en- 
 titled in congress ;' and then proceeds to exclude senators or representa- 
 tives or persons holding an office of trust or profit from the office of 
 elector. Then follows in the original constitution a provision' for the 
 meeting of the electors, which has been superseded and annulled by the 
 twelfth amendment to the constitution. Then follows a paragraph au- 
 thorizing congress in its discretion to determine the time of choosing the 
 electors and the day on which they shall give their votes, and declaring 
 that that day shall be the same day throughout the United States. 
 
 "The twelfth article of amendments, superseding a portion of the 
 third paragraph of the second article, provided that — 
 
 ' The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot 
 for president and vice-president, one of whom, at least, shall not be an 
 inhabitant of the same state with themselves ; they shall name in their 
 ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the per- 
 son voted for as vice-president, and they shall make distinct lists of all 
 persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice-presi- 
 dent, and of the number of votes for each ; which lists they shall sign 
 and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of government of the United 
 States, directed to the president of the senate. The president of the 
 senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of representatives, 
 open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.' 
 
 " This latter clause contains all the power that is delegated to the two 
 houses of congress or to any other officer of the government in respect 
 to the counting of the electoral vote ; and the present bill provides sim- 
 ply the legislative machinery to accomplish this result. There has been 
 argument heretofore before congress, which I have concurred in, to the 
 
1556 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 effect that the two houses are mere witnesses to the counting of these 
 votes. The only officer named is the presiding officer of the senate, 
 into whose custody the certificates shall have been delivered in accord- 
 ance with the mandate of the constitution by the electors or their agents, 
 their messengers, and those certificates being in his hands are to be 
 opened by him and the votes are then to be counted ; by whom, is sim- 
 ply a matter of inference, perhaps of necessary inference ; but they are 
 to be counted." 
 
 Mr. Sherman, of Ohio : " The proviso of section 3, in my judgment, 
 may possibly enable either house to defeat the object of the bill, the ob- 
 ject of the bill as declared on the second page, in section 1, being to 
 prevent either house from defeating the counting the vote of any state, 
 and to repeal the practice that had grown up under the twenty-second 
 joint rule, by which either house might by its affirmative vote exclude 
 any state for any cause whatever from having its electoral vote counted 
 for president. That rule is sufficiently met by the language of the twen- 
 ty-ninth, thirtieth, and thirty-.first lines of the first section, as follows : 
 
 ' And no electoral vote or votes from any state, to the counting of 
 which objections have been made, shall be rejected except by the affirm- 
 ative vote of the two houses.' 
 
 " But, under the proviso to section 3, I fear very much that either 
 house might by indirection defeat the counting of a Vote, because it 
 provides for the separation of the two houses and the consideration by 
 each house of the question, and then provides : 
 
 * That after such debate has lasted two hours it shall be in the power 
 of a majority of each house to direct that the main question shall be put 
 without further debate.' 
 
 " This provision is not compulsory, and either house might prolong 
 debate indefinitely, and thus prevent the question from being taken on 
 the counting of the vote. It is true it is rather a violent supposition to 
 suppose that either house of congress would, by an abuse of its power, 
 endanger the existence of the government ; but the object of this bill is 
 to guard against all possibility of the abuse of power in that respect, and 
 it is not an improbable supposition that in high party times, under great 
 excitement, one house might thus neglect or refuse to direct the main 
 question to be put. We know very well the influence of party excite- 
 ment and party feeling, especially under strong provocation. Therefore 
 it seems to me that this provision ought to be more peremptory in its 
 character ; it ought to require, after two hours' debate, a peremptory 
 putting of the main question. I suggest to the senator from Indiana 
 whether it would not be safer and more in harmony with the object of 
 the bill to require after a reasonable time, say two hours, that the ques- 
 
DEBATE ON ELECTORAX BILL CONTINUED. 1557 
 
 tion should be put- in each house and the convention again assembled., 
 I therefore move an amendment to make the provision read : ' That after 
 such debate has lasted two hours it shall be the duty of each house to 
 put the main question without further, debate.' " 
 
 HIr. Cooper, of Tennessee, " We do know that the difficulty which, 
 the second section seeks to provide against has arisen and may arise 
 in the future ; and the great question to be determined, it seems to me, 
 is, where shall we lodge the power of deciding in such an emergency 
 what has been the expressed will of the people of a state who may by 
 some abnormal condition in the political affairs send two returns to be 
 counted purporting to be the vote of the electoral college of that state ? 
 
 " The bill as reported by the committee proposes to vest this power in 
 the two houses of congress, acting separately. It provides that they 
 mnst concur before the president of the senate or the proper officer shall 
 be permitted to count either of the returns thus made. It seems to me 
 that, if we would avoid a conflict where such a difficulty arises, it would 
 be better to vest the choice of which is the proper return in somebody 
 who will determine it and not leave it between the two houses, which 
 may be composed, as at present, of opposite politics, and which would 
 be apt in that case to disagree, and thus exclude the vote of any state 
 that might thus send two or more returns. 
 
 " The suggestion was first intimated by the senator from Pennsylvania, 
 and afterward by the senator from Maryland, that, as the constitution 
 has vested the house of representatives, who are directly from the people, 
 with the power to choose a president in default of an election by the 
 people, it gives us the proper idea of what would be the safest body with 
 which to intrust this power of choice in the event of a difference of opin- 
 ion, or of two returns coming from any one state. It strikes me to be 
 more consistent with the theory of the constitution of the United States 
 that this power should be vested in that body, thus pointed out by the 
 constitution to choose a president where the people themselves shall fail 
 te make a choice, than that it should be placed elsewhere. I therefore 
 have prepared an amendment to the second section, which I offer for the 
 consideration of the senate, carrying out this view to vest in the house 
 of representatives, the representatives of the people, the choice of the 
 proper returns to be counted in the event that two or more returns are 
 sent up. I move to strike out in the second section all after the word, 
 " which," in line seven, to the end of the section as follows : 
 
 The two houses, acting separately, shall decide to be the true and valid 
 return.' 
 
 " And in lieu thereof insert — 
 
 ' The house of representatives, voting by states, in the manner pro- 
 
1558 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 vided by the constitution when the election devolves upon the house, 
 shalJ decide to be the true and valid return.' 
 
 " So that, if amended, the section will read : 
 
 ' That if more than one return shall be received by the president of 
 the senate from a state, purporting to be the certificates of electoral vo^s 
 given at the last preceding election for president and vice-president in 
 such state, alt such returns shall be opened by him in the presence of 
 the two houses when assembled to count the votes ; and that return from 
 such state shall be counted which the house of representatives, voting by 
 states, in the manner provided by the constitution when the election de- 
 volves upon the house, shall decide to be the true and valid return.' " 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey : " Mr. President, it had always ap- 
 peared to me that the provision of the twelfth article of the amendments 
 to the constitution, which declares that the president of the senate shall, 
 in tlie presence of the senate and house of representatives, open all the 
 certificates, and omits to say that he shall do anything more, was equiva- 
 lent to the exclusion of the idea that any other duty was to be performed 
 by him, and that the constitution left it open as to who should count 
 the votes otherwise than by stating that they should ' then be counted.' 
 There is some force, however, in the resolution of the convention to 
 which our attention has been called by the senator from Maryland ; and 
 as we are making suggestions, it has occurred to me that the second sec- 
 tion might be amended by adding : 
 
 ' And if the two houses do not agree as to which is the true and valid 
 return, then the president of the senate shall determine which is the 
 valid return.' 
 
 "I do not mean to say that, on deliberation, that is the best provis- 
 ion ; but it is very clear from the amendments which have been offered 
 that it is within the compass of our power to provide for that omission 
 which exists in the bill." 
 
 Mr. Cooper : " I ask leave to modify my amendment, instead of strik- 
 ing out to leave the section as it now is, and add the words : 
 
 ' And if the houses do not agree on which return shall be counted, the 
 house of representatives, voting by states in the manner provided by the 
 constitution when the election devolves upon the house, shall decide 
 Avhich shall be the true and valid return.' 
 
 " So that the question shall only be left to the house voting in that 
 way in the event that the two houses acting separately cannot agree." 
 
 On March 14th, the senate, as in committee of the whole, resumed 
 the consideration of the bill to provide for and regulate the counting of 
 votes for president and vice-president, and the decision of questions aris- 
 ing thereon, the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. Sheiv 
 
DEBATE ON ELECTORAL BILL CONTINUED. 1559 
 
 man to strike out in lines seven, eight, and nine, of the third section the 
 words : 
 
 In the power of a majority of each house to direct that the main ques- 
 tion shall be put. 
 * And inaert in lieu thereof : 
 
 The duty of each house to put the main question. 
 
 So that the proviso will read : 
 
 Provided, That, after such debate has lasted two hours, it shall be the 
 duty of each house to put the main question without further debate. 
 
 The amendment was agreed to. 
 
 The president pro tempore : " The question will now be on the amend- 
 ment proposed by the senator from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), which will 
 be read." 
 
 Mr. Johnston, of Virginia, said : " Mr. President, I offer the following 
 amendment to the amendment, as a substitute for it : 
 
 ' But if the senate should vote for counting one certificate and the 
 house of representatives another, the joint meeting of the two houses 
 shall finally determine which shall be counted, by a vote by states, the 
 representation from each state (including the senators therefrom) having 
 one vote ; but if the representation of any state shall be equally divided, 
 its vote shall not be counted,' " 
 
 The president pro temjMre : ',' The question is on the amendment of 
 the senator from Virginia to the amendment of the senator from Ten- 
 nessee." 
 
 Mr. Johnston : " It is evident that the bill is defective in one respect. 
 The author of the bill himself admits that in a certain contingency this 
 bill will not be operative ; that where there are two returns from a state 
 and the house of representatives votes for accepting one return and the 
 senate the other, in that event the vote of the state will be lost. It seems 
 to me in a bill of so much importance as this there ought to be no omis- 
 sion of that sort, but that the bill ought to be complete and provide for 
 every contingency that may arise. It is not only the right of congress 
 to provide for counting the electoral votes, but it is an imperative duty, 
 and we ought to perform that duty. It seems to me that congress itself 
 is the only body to determine this question. The constitution provides 
 that where there has been no election by the people the house of repre- 
 sentatives shall decide who shall be president, but the same constitution 
 provides that where there shall be no elec.tion of vice-president the sen- 
 ate shall decide who shall be vice-president. The second article of the 
 constitution in the second section has this provision. After providing for 
 the election of president by the house, it says : 
 
 * The person having the greatest number of votes as vice-president shall 
 
1560 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 be the vice-president, if such number be a majority of the whole number 
 of electors appointed ; and if no person have a majority, then from the 
 two highest numbers on the list the senate shall choose the vice-presi- 
 dent ; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole 
 number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be neces- 
 sary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office 
 of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United 
 States.' 
 
 " It seems, then, according to that provision of the constitution, that 
 in a certain event the vice-president shall be chosen by the senate. There 
 is provision for the failure of an election by the electoral college of presi- 
 dent and vice-president ; in one event the house elects the president, and 
 in another event the senate elects the vice-president. The returns of the 
 election of both officers are embraced in the same certificates. It would 
 seem to me, therefore proper, as the election is for both, that the two 
 houses should be the joint tribunal to determine the' question. In that 
 view I think the amendment I have offered is the proper solution of this 
 question." 
 
 Mr. Frellnghuysen, of New Jersey, said : " I shall propose an amend- 
 ment when the proper time comes, which I will now read : 
 
 ' If the two Tiouses shall not agree, the difference shall be immediately 
 referred to the chief-justice of the supreme court, the presiding officer of 
 the senate, and the speaker of the house, whose decision shall be final. 
 If the chief-justice is absent or unable to attend, the senior associate 
 justice of the supreme court present in the capitol or other place of meet- 
 ing shall act in his place.' 
 
 " This is a judicial question ; a -question of law and of fact ; but judi- 
 cial, whether of fact or law ; and it seems to me that there is a propriety 
 in referring it to the presiding officer of the judicial department. It is 
 true that it is judicial, and yet it is political in its nature. The constitu- 
 tion has imposed certain duties upon the presiding officer of the senate, 
 and the presiding officers of the senate and of the house are competently 
 associated with the chief-justice. If it be said that nothing will result 
 excepting the loss of the vote of one state unless we make this arrange- 
 ment, the loss of one state is a great loss ; it is an organic loss ; it is a 
 loss that may change the character of the whole election ; it is a loss 
 that the people of this country would not quietly submit to. It seems 
 to me it is very important that before we pass this bill we should make 
 such arrangement as will secure the vote of every state, for thereby we 
 may avoid civil war." 
 
 Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, said : " I am not prepared just now to vote 
 upon any of the propositions which have been suggested ; that is, I am 
 
DEBATE ON ELECTORAL BILL CONCLUDED. 1561 
 
 not as well prepared as I would like to be. This, subject is full of diffi- 
 culty. For reasons that I gave yesterday, I do not think a matter of dis- 
 agreement can be referred to the supreme court. I do not believe you 
 can confer upon that court as a court any such power. I have seen no 
 reason to change the opinion I expressed yesterday. 
 
 " Then, to give the house of representatives the right to decide it may 
 be a matter of necessity, and yet there are very grave considerations 
 there, for you put the house under the temptation to disagree with the 
 senate, so that the result of the disagreement may be that the house wiU 
 have the decision alone. So, take it any way you will, there is difficulty. 
 I do not believe that, we can or ought to confer this power, in the case 
 of disagreement of the houses, upon the presiding officer of either house. 
 I do not think that can be done. What I desire is that we *inay, in the 
 situation in which we find ourselves placed, one house having a majority 
 of one party and the other house having a majority of the other party 
 endeavor to come to some understanding that being agreed upon, will 
 command the support of reasonable men of all parties," 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen : " I move the amendment which I read to the 
 senate as an amendment to the amendment suggested by the senator 
 from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), to come in after the word 'agree.' " 
 
 The president ^:)ro tempore : " The senator from New Jersey moves to 
 amend the amendment of the senator from Tennessee by striking out all 
 after the word ' agree ' and inserting what he has read, which is to per- 
 fect the text while the substitute is pending offered by the senator from 
 Virginia (Mr. Johnston). The senator from Virginia proposes" a substi- 
 tute for the whole amendment, striking out all after the word ' and.' 
 The rule permits a perfection of the text The question will be first on 
 the amendment proposed by the senator from New Jersey." 
 
 Mr, Morton, of Indiana, said: " Mr. President, there are three propo- 
 sitions here as amendments to the second section of this bOl. That sec- 
 tion provides for a ca^ where there are two returns of electoral votes 
 from the same state, and further provides that only that return which 
 both houses agree is the true and valid return shall be counted. 
 
 "But, sir, I now present the question as to whether you can const,itute 
 an umpire between these two houses. In the first place, to go back to 
 the main proposition, the constitution declares that — 
 
 ' The president of the senate shall, in . the, presence of ihe senate and 
 house of representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then 
 be counted.' 
 
 " Two constructions are contended for here. One is that the president 
 of the senate himself shall open and count the votes and shall determine 
 all questions arising upon the certificates, or, in case there are two cer- 
 
1562 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tificates, shall decide which is the true and valid return. That is one 
 coustruction claimed. There is another that the duty of the president 
 of the senate is simply to open the certificates in the presence of the two 
 houses; that the two houses are assembled, not &s a joint convention, 
 but each in its separate capacity ; that they are there not only as wit- 
 nesses, but they are there as judges ; and, if a question arises in regard 
 to the vote of a state or a part of it, it is to be settled by the two houses 
 who are present there as the judges of the election. 
 
 " We could, without doing any great violence to the constitution, 
 adopt either of these constructions. Each is possible under the language. 
 The constitution says : 
 
 ' The president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and 
 the house diF representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall 
 then be counted.' 
 
 " It does not say who shall count them ; it leaves it open to inference 
 that they shall be counted by the two houses on the one hand, or by the 
 president of the senate on the other. I will assume, for the sake of the 
 argument, that you can give to it either construction. I will assume 
 that it is open to both views. Then the question comes, which is the 
 more reasonable, which is the better, which is the safer of the two : to 
 adopt that construction which gives this great power to one man, the 
 president of the senate, who may be counting the votes for himself, as 
 it has turned out six times in our history ; or would it be safer to leave 
 it to the determination of the two houses of congress, representing the 
 states and the people ? If we are open to adopt either one of these con- 
 structions, I say the latter is the safer, it is the more reasonable, it is in 
 conformity with the spirit of our government and of our popular institu- 
 tions. I then adopt the latter construction." 
 
 The various amendments offered, except so far as have been otherwise 
 recorded, and many more which lack of space forbids us to mention, 
 were rejected. The bill, as amended, passed to its third reading, and on 
 being put to the senate passed by a vote of 32 to 26, 5 being absent. 
 We have thought this subject worthy of a detailed report, as it touched 
 upon vital and most important questions of constitutional law and equity. 
 The most severely contested election which had been known for many 
 years intensified public interest on this subject to an almost unequaled 
 degree, as events had proved that on this problem might absolutely hinge 
 the election of a president. 
 
THE AMNESTY BILL. 1563 
 
 CHAPTER CXXV. 
 
 DEBATE ON JEFFERSON DAVIS AND ANDERSONVILLE. SPEECHES BY BLAINE, 
 
 OF MAINE, AND HILL, OF GEORGIA. CENTENNIAL APPROPRIATION. 
 
 DISCUSSION OF THE " SCHOOL " QUESTION. SPEECHES BY MESSRS. KER- 
 
 NAN AND CHRISTIANCY. PASSAGE OF BILL SUBSTITUTING SILVER FOR 
 
 FRACTIONAL CURRENCY. MR. COx's RESOLUTIONS ON SILVER CIRCULA- 
 TION. 
 
 In the house, on January 10th, Mr. Randall, (Dem.) of Pennsylvania, 
 moved the suspension of the rules on the bill known as the amnesty bill. 
 This bill provided that all disabilities, remaining by virtue of the third 
 section of the fourteenth amendment, should cease. It also provided 
 that when a person from whom disabilities were removed by this act 
 should be elected or appointed to any place of trust under the govern- 
 ment, he should take the prescribed oath. The bill was defeated by 
 175 ayes to 95 nays, a two-third majority not having been reached. 
 Mr. Blaine, (Rep.) of Maine, rose to a privileged question. He moved 
 to reconsider the vote just declared. Every time the question of am- 
 nesty had been brought up in the house by gentlemen on the other side, 
 it had been done with a certain flourish of magnanimity, which aimed 
 to impute to the republican party bigotry, narrowness, and tyranny. He 
 hoped that this would be the last time that amnesty would be discussed 
 in an American congress. He desired to place on record just what the 
 republican party had done in the matter, a record of magnanimity and 
 mercy far beyond any in the world's history. When he had entered 
 congress, the same time with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the 
 union was rocking to its foundation in the hot flames of war. That 
 gentleman would have been surprised could he have foreseen that before 
 the close of their joint service they would see sixty-ofie gentlemen then 
 in arms against them admitted td equal privileges in that house, all by 
 the grace of the republican party. At the close of the war the govern- 
 ment had the right to determine what should be the political status of 
 the people who had been defeated. Nothing more sanguinary or sweep- 
 ing was done, however, than to make an exclusion in the fourteenth 
 amendment which included about eighteen thousand men in the south, 
 letting go millions, and only holding those under disabilities who had 
 violated a peculiar and personal oath to support the constitution. That 
 
156,4 THE AMERICAN ST ATB8M AN. 
 
 disability was hardly placed when congress, more than two-thirds repub- 
 lican, commenced to remit it ; the very first bill took that disability 
 from 1,578 citizens, and the next from 3,526. In 1872, congress, still 
 two-thirds republican, passed a general law relieving again a considerable 
 number. In no instance since that act had the disabilities been taken 
 from any man except on his respectful petition to congress, and in no 
 case had such petition been refused except once. There were widely 
 varying opinions in regard to the number still under disabilities in the 
 south. He had occasion to make careful investigation into the exact 
 number left, which he would state at 750. He knew no reason why 
 amnesty should not be granted to them as to others. All that he would 
 ask was that they should go before a United States court and swear that 
 they meant to conduct themselves as good citizens. 
 
 He would except Jefferson Davis from such an operation of the am- 
 nesty law. It was not because Jefferson Davis was the head and front 
 of the rebellion, nor that he was more guilty than thousands of others. 
 He probably had been a much less dangerous enemy of the United 
 States than many who had received amnesty. His reason for excepting 
 Jefferson Davis was that he was the author knowingly, deliberately, and 
 guiltily of the gigantic murders and crimes at Andersonville. Since the 
 introduction of the bill in the previous month he had taken occasion to 
 review the historical cruelties of the world, the atrocious murders of the 
 duke of Alva in the low countries, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, the 
 unimaginable horrors of Spanish inquisition. He believed that none of 
 these compared in atrocity with the hideous crime of Andersonville. 
 He did not arraign the southern people for this ; in fact there were 
 many evidences of uneasiness among them about it. One of the great 
 crimes of Davis was that besides conniving at and producing that condi- 
 tion of things, he had concealed it from the southern people, made false 
 statements about it. He had attempted in his message to the confed- 
 erate congress to cast the onus of cruelty on the Federals, charging that 
 their barbarous treatment of prisoners was retaliatory. This was false, 
 for Mr. Davis knew that the senate of the United States refused to pass 
 a resolution of retoliation, as contrary to civilization and Christianity. 
 There was no proposition now to p^inish Jefferson Davis. He himself 
 had thought the indictment of Jefferson Davis for treason was foolish,; 
 but he had considered it no less weak to allow Davis to go at large than 
 to hang Wirts. To have done this was like skipping over president, 
 superintendent, and board of directors in case of a great railroad acci- 
 dent, and hanging the brakeman of the rear car. Mr. Blaine proceeded 
 to make an eloquent but embittered speech in which he enlarged on the 
 cruelties to the northern prisoners. The very men who had been guilty 
 
DEBATE ON AMNESTY. 1565 
 
 of these cruelties and bad received amnesty were then busy in consoli- 
 dating again into one compact political organization the old slave states, 
 with a hope of governing a country with the united south and a few 
 votes in the north. He did not suppose it would make any difference 
 in this plan whether Mr. Davis received amnesty or not. But he him- 
 self was opposed to crowning with full citizenship the man who organ- 
 ized the Andersonville murder. 
 
 Mr. Kelly, (Rep.) of Pennsylvania, protested against the stirring up 
 afresh of old sores and animosities. He thought that it would be folly 
 to except Jefferson Davis now that amnesty had gone so far. It would not 
 do to permit foreigners to reason, " How illogical to have let a man ifrho 
 had caused such crimes to have been perpetrated, enjoy immunity for 
 ten years, and now to constructively punish him for it ! " They would 
 all believe that the ex-chief of the confederacy was so powerful and dan- 
 gerous that the government feared him. To thus distinguish Jefferson 
 Davis would be to honor hini overmuch. 
 
 Mr. Hill, (Dem.) of Georgia, deplored the character of the speech 
 made by Mr. Blaine. He wished the country to understand that south- 
 ern men did not reciprocate the manifest purpose of the gentlemen on 
 the other side. But he felt it his duty to vindicate the truth of the his- 
 tory. In regard to the claim of magnanimity for the republican party 
 he said : " If with the history of the last fifteen years fresh in the 
 memory of the people the country is prepared to talk about the grace 
 and magnanimity of the republican party argument would be wasted. If 
 with masters enslaved, intelligence disfranchised, society disorganized, 
 industry paralyzed, states subverted, legislatures dispersed with the 
 bayonet, the people can accord to that party the verdict of grace and 
 magnanimity, may God preserve our country from grace and magnanim- 
 ity." Mr Hill examined the two propositions made by Mr. Blaine that 
 Mr. Davis was willfully guilty of the " gigantic murder " of Andersonville, 
 and the facts themselves of Andersonville prison life. He read extracts 
 from official documents to show that, admitting there had been crimes at 
 Andersonville, Mr. Davis could not be held responsible for them. He 
 then examined the alleged maltreatment of Federal prisoners in the south, 
 claiming that the prisoners had received the same food and supplies 
 allowed confederate soldiers in the field. They had also been allowed to 
 purchase freely from outside, and to receive whatever was %ent to them 
 from the north. The cause for the great mortality among the Anderson- 
 ville prisoners was the utter want of medicine in the confederacy, a lack 
 from which Confederates suffered just as much in their own hospitals as 
 the Federal prisoners in their stockades. Mr. Hill pursued his argument at 
 considerable length, in which he fortified his defenses of the Confederate 
 
1566 THE AMERICAN . STATESMAN. 
 
 government against the charge of wanton cruelty with great ability. 
 Mr. Hill closed his speech with a strong plea for concord and fraternal 
 feeling in the following words : 
 
 " Is the bosom of the country always to be torn with this miserable 
 sectional debate whenever a presidential election is pending ? To that 
 great debate of half a century before secession there were left no ad- 
 journed questions. The victory of the north was absolute, and God 
 knows the submission of the south was complete. But, sir, we have re- 
 covered from the humiliation of defeat, and we come here among you 
 and we ask you to give us the greetings accorded to brothers by brothers. 
 We propose to join you in evey patriotic endeavor, and to unite with 
 you in every patriotic aspiration that looks to the benefit, the advance- 
 ment, and the honor of every part of our common country. Let us, 
 gentlemen of all parties, in this centennial year, indeed, have a jubilee of 
 freedom. We divide with you the glories of the Revolution and of the 
 succeeding years of our national life before that unhappy division — that 
 four years night of gloom and despair — and so we shall divide with you 
 the glories of all the future." 
 
 Mr. Blaine's motion to reconsider was agreed to, and the bill with 
 amendments was put to the house. It was lost by a vote of 184 to 97, 
 two-thirds having failed to vote in its favor. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins, (Rep.) of Pennsylvania, offered a bill early in January 
 1876, relating to the appropriation of money for the centennial buildings 
 at Philadelphia. The preamble of the bill reviewed the acts that had 
 already been passed from 1871 down to that time, in connection Avith 
 the international exhibition proposed. It appropriated the sum of $1,- 
 500,000 for completing the centennial buildings and other purposes to 
 be paid on the draft of the president and treasurer of the centennial 
 board of finance, one-third immediately after the passage of the act, and 
 the remaining two-thirds in four equal monthly parts ; provided that in 
 the distribution of money, that might remain after paying the debts of 
 the exhibition, the government should share equally among the holders 
 of centennial stock, and the like percentage paid intb the treasury of the 
 United States; and provided further that the United States should be 
 under no circumstance' liable for any debt or obligation of the centennial 
 commission. At a subsequent day, when the bill was again brought up 
 for consideration, Mr. Hopkins made some extended remarks on the 
 subject of the great international fair, in which he submitted the reasons 
 that demanded the granting of the appropriation. The exhibition, con- 
 ceived as a fit way to commemorate the first centena,ry of the nation, 
 was commenced when the land echoed with the hum of cheerful industry 
 and prosperity five years before. Since that time a financial panic had 
 
DEBATE ON CENTENNIAL APPROPRIATION. 1567 
 
 swept over the country, and the enterprise which commenced so auspi- 
 ciously, flagged under the general blight which had seized the affairs of 
 the country. The managers of the exhibition had struggled with un- 
 tiring zeal and signal ability to complete the original designs. But the 
 treasury of the commission was almost empty, and individual enterprise 
 almost exhausted ; but a few months remained until the proposed open- 
 ing, and the buildings were incomplete. At this emergency government 
 was asked to extend a helping hand and save the country from disgrace. 
 Mr. Hopkins labored to show that the honor of the nation was involved 
 in the success of the enterprise; that the United States had made itself 
 directly sponsor and guarantor of the exhibition. In answering the ques- 
 tion, " Was the country liable to stand dishonored before the world by 
 the failure of the centennial exhibition ? " the speaker reviewed the acts 
 in detail by which congress had identified itself with the organizing and 
 carrying on of the enterprise. He claimed that these acts made the na- 
 tion responsible, and a failure to consummate that responsibility by com- 
 ing to the assistance of the centennial commission at that moment of dire 
 necessity would involve national 'disgrace, and make the country the 
 laughing-stock of the nations. He contended by various arguments based 
 on analogy that congress had the constitutional power to make this ap- 
 propriation, and cited the various parallel cases in which the national 
 government had exercised its right to illustrate the power and dignity of 
 the United States. 
 
 Mr. Tucker, (Dem.) of Virginia, argued against the right of congress 
 to appropriate money for such an object. He made an extensive argu- 
 ment, showing the exact limitation of the powers granted to congress by 
 the constitution. He thought that the gentlemen around him had bet- 
 ter keep the centennial anniversary by a strict and honest adherence to 
 the constitution, than by all the material exhibition that could be aggre- 
 gated in Philadelphia. This was a government of expressly granted 
 and enumerated powers, and among these he could not find any which 
 justified the granting of a centennial appropriation, The phrase in the 
 constitution which had been greatly relied on to give constitutionality to 
 the bill was the power given to congress " to provide for the general de- 
 fense and common welfare." By the construction of judge Story this 
 clause was expressly limited in its character, and could not be fairly held 
 to contain a substantive grant of power. If congress had the sweeping 
 right to provide for the general welfare, and do whatever it thought ne- 
 cessary therefor, the government would become invested with unlimited 
 power ; every breakwater to sustain the reserve power of states would 
 be destroyed. The only arrest of consolidation was in limiting the 
 power of congress to the grants expressly specified in the constitution. 
 
1568 THE AMEEICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The speaker then showed in detail that the various grants made by ecu- 
 gress for such purposes as ornamenting the capitol, supporting the Smith- 
 sonian Institute, etc., were strictly warranted by the letter of organic law. 
 He closed his speech with a warning to the country couched in the fol- 
 lowing strong words : " I put it on the ground that the only limit to this 
 growing corruption in the country is a limitation upon the power of the 
 government. If you would advertise to this country that any scheme 
 that a plausible committee or commission can induce gentlemen to strain 
 themselves up to the point of believing to be for the general welfare, is 
 open to the exercise of power by this congress, I tell you, sir, it Avill be 
 an advertisement for jobbers, and the lobby will be so filled that its 
 agents ' will push us from our stools ' and drive its members from this 
 house. But whenever it comes to that the people of the country will 
 say, * Thank God, they shall not sit here any longer !' Whenever you 
 claim power to do anything you may judge for the general welfare, you 
 proclaim to the country and to all its schemers and jobbers this invita- 
 tion : ' Have any of you any scheme you think for the general welfare ? 
 If so, bring it forward.' There will be no lack of them, sir, and the 
 lobby out there will corrupt this body if it is corruptible. Your Credit 
 Mobiliers, your railroad schemes, and all your other thousand plans for 
 plunder upon the tax-paying and the tax-burdened people of the land, 
 will be without remedy. There is only one remedy, and that is to lijnit 
 power ; but there is no limitation of power if this government can do 
 any thing it pleases upon the ground of ' general welfare.' " 
 
 Mr, Springer, (Dem.) of Illinois, moved to amend the bill by provid- 
 ing that the amount appropriated should be paid in full into the treasury 
 of the United States before any dividend should be paid to the holders 
 of the stock, thus making the United States a preferred creditor. An 
 amendment was also proposed by Mr. Kasson, (Rep.) of Iowa, providing 
 that the appropriation should only be paid after the president and treas- 
 urer of the centennial board of finance should execute a bond of $500,- 
 000 to the United States for the faithful disbursement of the amount 
 appropriated. Both these amendments were adopted, and the bill was 
 passed by a vote of 146 to 130, 14 being absent. The same bill was 
 also passed in the senate without further amendment by ^ vote of 41 to 
 15, 16 being absent. 
 
 Mr. Blackburn, (Dem.) of Kentucky, on April 3d, 1876, brought to 
 the attention of the house the subject of the president's frequent ab- 
 sences from the seat of government, in the shape of a resolution calling 
 on the executive to inform the house to what extent executive offices, 
 acts, or duties had been performed at a distance from the capital, and 
 what public necessity may have existed for such performance. The reso- 
 
TH^ SCHOOL QUESTION. 1569 
 
 lution was adopted and the president sent a special message to the house 
 in reply. 
 
 In this paper general Grant intimated, though guarding his words with 
 oflBcial etiquette, that the hoiise of representatives had transcended its 
 powers and privileges in pursuing such an inquiry. While declining 
 any detailed answer to the demand of the house, he freely acknowledged 
 that in common with all of his predecessors he had frequently absented 
 himself from the seat of government, but that during such absences he 
 had never neglected the duties of his office. He enlarged on the fact 
 that the rapidity of travel, of mail communication, and the facilities of 
 telegraphing, afforded the president, whenever he might be in the United 
 States, as quick intercourse with the departments in Washington as 
 might be obtained at the white house. President Grant justified hi^ ab- 
 sences from the capital by a citation of precedents, (see appendix, note S.) 
 The president's message and accompanying documents were referred to 
 the committee on the judiciary. 
 
 The subject presented on the previous year in the president's speech 
 at Des Moines, Iowa, alluded to in a previous chapter, and further recom- 
 mended to the attention of congress in his last message, was brought up 
 in the house on August 4th for debate. The immediate occasion was 
 the presentation on the part of Mr. Lord, (Rep.) of New York, of a re- 
 port from the committee on the judiciary on the house resolution 
 known as the Blaine amendment to the constitution. This resolution 
 was as follows : 
 
 Article XVI. — No state shall make any law respecting an establish- 
 ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; and no money 
 raised by taxation in any state for the support of public schools, or de- 
 rived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted there- 
 toj shall ever be under the control of any religious sect ; nor shall any 
 money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects 
 or denominations. 
 
 The committee on the judiciary reported an amendment to the resolu- 
 tion to the effect that the article proposed should not vest, enlarge, or 
 diminish legislative power in congress. After various points of order 
 had been moved, Mr. Lord, (Rep.) of New York, proposed a substitute, 
 and called for the previous question. This substitute simply incorpo- 
 rated the amendment referred to above. 
 
 Mr. McCrary, (Rep.) of Iowa, a member of the committee, who had 
 been absent at its last meeting, to whom Mr. Lord yielded the floor for 
 five minutes, placed on record his objection to the substitute as offered. 
 The clause added nullified the whole force of the amendinent. It was a. 
 strange anomaly to put a provision in the constitution, and accompany it 
 99 
 
1570 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 with another clause that the law making power of the United States 
 should have no power to enforce it. 
 
 Mr. Lord said the question had been before congress for nearly eight 
 months and had been pressed on the attention of congress by the presi- 
 dent, the public press, and the most distinguished republican leader in 
 the house. The gentleman who introduced the amendment had never 
 contended that it was designed to confer any legislative power on con- 
 gress, but inasmuch as this question had been watched with some jeal- 
 ousy, and several congresses in the adoption of past amendments had 
 added clauses declaratory of the power of congress, it had been deemed 
 wise to add to the present article the clauses to which objection had just 
 been made. The words of limitation only applied to the proposed arti- 
 cle, and congress had the power expressly affirmed and reserved under 
 the constitution. The previous question was seconded and the main 
 question ordered. The substitute, proposed by the committee on the 
 judiciary through Mr. Lord, was agreed to. The question was then 
 taken, and the joint resolution as amended passed by a vote of 180 to 7, 
 98 not voting. The subject was also taken up in the senate on August 
 7th. 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen, (Rep.) of New Jersey, said : 
 
 " Mr. President, the people of our country are seriously and pro- 
 foun(^ly in earnest on this subject. This amendment, as the senate will 
 see, prohibits the appropriation of any school funds to any school that is 
 under control of any sect or denomination, and prohibits the division of 
 such fund among different denominations. So far it is very well as a 
 pronunciamento ; but suppose a state for the purpose of propitiating 
 some religious denomination does make an appropriation in violation of 
 this amendment, what are we to do about it ? The amendment is a mere 
 brutumfulmen ; it has no sanction and there is no one to enforce it. If 
 the power was given to congress by legislation to enforce the amend- 
 ment, we could make it a high crime for any officer to pay or for any 
 one to receive the money, or we could by legislation appoint some offi- 
 cial, possibly the attorney-general of the United States, whose duty it 
 should be to bring the violation to the attention of the courts. The only 
 remedy now under the amendment, and I do not know whether that 
 could be without further legislation, would be for a tax-payer to seek the 
 courts and after the money had been paid and spent, and after tedious 
 years perhaps the tax-payer might recover his contribution to that fund. 
 Therefore it seems to me that another section should be added giving 
 congress the power to enforce this amendment. 
 
 " But there is a more serious objection to the amendment than that I 
 have noticed. The amendment only applies to a school fund, and pro- 
 
DISCUSSION Oil* THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 1571 
 
 hibits its being appropriated to schools under denominational control. 
 There is not a word in the amendment that prohibits public money from 
 being appropriated to theological seminaries, to reformatories, to monas- 
 teries, to nunneries, to houses of the Good Shepherd, and many kindred 
 purposes. We know that in one state within a decade $1,200,000 was 
 voted Protestant institutions for which the Catholics of the coimtry were 
 taxed, and wc know that in the same period several millions of dollars 
 were voted to Catholic institutions for which Protestants were taxed." 
 
 He furthermore urged that the amendment should cover the whole 
 subject, and proposed a substitute embodying that purpose ; also provid- 
 ing that congress should have power to enforce the provisions of the 
 article by legislation. A substitute was also proposed by Mr. Sargent, of 
 California, to the effect that neither the United States, nor any state, 
 territory, county, or municipal corporation should aid in the support of 
 any school wherein the peculiar tenets of any religious denomination 
 were taught. 
 
 Mr. Christianc}^ of Michigan, believed the people were in earnest on 
 this question and recognized its importance, but he thought the resolu- 
 tion, as it passed the house, was full of defects. It contained no provis- 
 ion against theological schools, nor against the states raising any amount 
 of money or devoting any amount of public lands to the support of pri- 
 vate religious schools. The resolution prohibited states from committing 
 the wrong indirectly, but allowed them to do it direcllrj. Another de- 
 fect was it did not prohibit the federal government as well as the state 
 governments. He himself had prepared a substitute which he thought 
 covered the entire ground. The distinctive changes were these : 
 
 "" Nor shall congress, nor any state, raise by taxation, donate, or appro- 
 priate any money or property for the support of any church or religious 
 society ; nor for the support or in aid of any theological school or sem- 
 inary, or of any school or seminary teaching the peculiar religious doc- 
 trines or subject in any respect to the control or direction of any church, 
 religious society, sect, or denomination. And no special or denomina- 
 tional system of religion or religiour3 belief shall in any state or territory 
 or in the District of Columbia constitute any part of the course of study 
 or instruction in any school or institution of learning supported wholly 
 or in part by taxation or by the donation of any money or property by 
 any state or by the United States." 
 
 Mr. Christiancy asked to have his amendment referred to the com- 
 mittee with the other amendments. The whole subject was sent back to 
 the committee on the judiciary. On August 11th they made their re- 
 port which was embodied in the following: 
 
 Article XVI. — No state shall make any law respecting an establish- 
 
15V2 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; and no reli- 
 gious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public 
 trust under any state. No public property and no public revenue of, 
 nor any loan of credit by or under the authority of, the United States, 
 or any state, territory, district, or municipal corporation, shall be appro- 
 priated to or made or used for the support of any school, educational or 
 other institution under the control of any religious or anti-religious sect, 
 organization, or denomination, or wherein the particular creed or tenets 
 of any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination shall 
 be taught. And no such particular creed or tenets shall be read or 
 taught in any school or institution supported in whole^r in part by such 
 revenue or loan of credit ; and no such appropriation or loan of credit 
 shall be made to any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or de- 
 nomination, or to promote its interests or tenets. This article shall not 
 be construed to prohibit the reading of the bible in any school or insti- 
 tution ; and it shall not have the effect to impair rights of property al- 
 ready vested. 
 
 Sec. 2. Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to pro- 
 vide for the prevention and punishment of violations of this article. 
 
 On August 14th the resolution, as finally amended in the judiciary re- 
 port, was taken up for its final passage. 
 
 Mr. Kernan, (Dem.) of New York, said that the proposed article, as 
 originally brought to the attention of the public many months ago, by a 
 gentleman of distinction, Mr. Blaine, met with but little opposition and 
 was in the main unobjectionable. This declared that neither money nor 
 public lands should be devoted.by a state to the support of any religious 
 sect or denomination ; but the new article proposed in the senate was 
 radically different, and Hangerous, and he could not vote for it. The 
 leading principle of the constitution was that the federal government 
 should have power of action on such subjects as were of general and na- 
 tional interest to the people of all the states. The framers of the con- 
 stitution believed that it was wiser that the people of each state should 
 have the exclusive power to control their local and internal affairs. It 
 could be readily seen that as regards the local affairs of a state, if the peo- 
 ple of Ohio for example should have a voice in the affairs of Missouri, 
 there would not be much contentment. The fact that the people of the 
 different states did not come in conflict in matters of local policy in the 
 halls of congress made the federal government strong. Believing that 
 nothing but evil would grow out of allowing the representatives of one 
 state to have a voice in the local affairs of another, and that this wise 
 principle was violated by the proposed amendment in the senate, he 
 wished to record his protest against it. 
 
THE SCHOOL QUESTION CONTINUED. 1573 
 
 In answer to a question from Mr. Morton, Mr. Kernan admitted that' 
 even the Blaine amendment violated the principle for which he con- 
 tended ; bnt he was willing to vote for it in the hope that it would quiet 
 groundless fears as to common schools, and avert the evils which sprang 
 from religious prejudice. The proposed amendment in the senate went 
 far beyond the former one, and in his judgment would increase strife 
 and dissension and bring evil to the whole country. 
 
 Mr. Christiancy ably summed up the argument in favor of the senate 
 amendment in the following cogent remarks : 
 
 " Mr. President, I have already once called attention to the resolution 
 as it came from the house. That resolution proposed to amend the con- 
 stitution of the United States so as to prevent any moneys raised for 
 public schools, or lands dedicated for public-school purposes, from being 
 under the control of any religious sect or denomination, or from being 
 divided among them, and that is all there is of it. It did not propose to 
 prohibit any state or the United States from raising any amount of 
 money by taxation, or from voting any amount of property for the sup- 
 port of any religious sect or denomination, or for any sectarian or de- 
 nominational school, but the diversion of money already raised for pub- 
 lic schools or the diversion of property already dedicated to the support 
 of public schools is in the most solemn manner by this resolution of the 
 house declared by the house and every man who voted for it a great 
 public evil ; not only an evil, but an evil of such magnitude and of such 
 imminence as to call for a constitutional prohibition. Such is the clear 
 declaration which the house have made to us, and every man who voted 
 for that resolution has made to us, of the evil to be guarded against. 
 What is this evil ? In what does the evil consist ? Certainly it is no 
 greater evil to do this wrong, for the resolution admits it to be a wrong, 
 indirectly than it would be to do it directly. What, then, is the evil, 
 and what are the principles which would be violated without this consti- 
 tutional provision ? I take it to be this : In a country situated like ours, 
 where the conscience is left free, where religious toleration is universal, 
 where the people are divided into a great number of churches and sects, 
 with a very large proportion, if not a majority, of the population belong- 
 ing to no church or sect, and where our public schools could never be 
 maintained unless placed upon a footing of substantial equality among all 
 people who may choose to send to them, it would be wrong to raise 
 money by taxation or to appropriate property belonging to the whole 
 people for the support of any one of those denominations. That I take 
 it is the real principle upon which it becomes wrong to do this very thing 
 which the house proposes to prohibit. The principles, it will be seen, 
 therefore, are much broader than the resolution; and what has been an 
 
1574 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 enigma to me is that those who can go so far as to admit the evil stop 
 so far short of a remedy. 
 
 " Now, Mr. President, is the thing itself any worse when done indi- 
 rectly, by first raising the money or devoting the property to public 
 schools and then dividing it among the various sects for the support of 
 their sectarian schools, than if the same result were accomplished directly 
 by raising the tax or appropriating the money or property directly for 
 the purpose of supporting the same sectarian or denominational schools ? 
 If there be any difference, is not the latter the more obvious and mani- 
 fest, and the one which would naturally first occur to the mind of any 
 man seeking by a constitutional amendment to provide a remedy ? 
 What would be thought of the law-makers who should provide carefully 
 for the punishment of aiders and abettors in a crime, but leave the prin- 
 cipal offenders to go free and unpunished ? Able and honest minds, in 
 attempting to provide an enactment against a direct wrong, or one com- 
 mitted by direct means, do sometimes, from a failure to foresee the va- 
 rious methods by which the same wrong may be indirectly committed, 
 fail to make sufficient provision against it when committed by indirect 
 means. But this is the most notable instance which has ever come under 
 my observation where the author of an important prohibitory provision 
 has so clearly seen and provided against the wrong when attempted in- 
 directly, and has yet been utterly oblivious of, and made no provision 
 against, the same wrong when done or attempted directly. But such is 
 the fact. While this resolution prohibits the division among sects or for 
 sectarian schools, of any money first raised by taxation for or property 
 which may have been devoted to public schools, it leaves both the na- 
 tional and state governments at perfect liberty to raise by taxation any 
 amount of money and to appropriate any amount of money or property 
 directly to or for the use of any such religious sects or denominations 
 and for any schools or institutions under their control or direction, though 
 the main or entire purpose of such schools may be instruction in and the 
 propagation of the peculiar denominational or sectarian system of re- 
 ligion or religious belief or catechism of such sect or denomination. It 
 does not prohibit even the diversion or division to or among such sects 
 or sectarian schools of any money or public property unless raised by 
 taxation for or devoted to public schools. Now we all know that as a 
 general thing and in most of the states the various church or denomina- 
 tional schools are private schools and not properly included under the 
 designation of ' public schools ' at all. 
 
 " But, Mr. President, believing that neither any church nor any de- 
 nominational school should be supported or aided by taxation or by ap- 
 propriation of public property, I have from my youth up steadily advo- 
 
DISCUSSION RELATING TO SALARIES. 1575 
 
 cated this view. It is a principle essential to the success of any system 
 of public education in this country, and is, or at least should be, far 
 above all mere party politics, and I am as intensely desirous as any man 
 can be to place it entirely beyond and outside of the field of party poli- 
 tics, where it may always be safe, whatever party may be in power. 
 This is a favorable time to accomplish this desirable end, and I hope we 
 shall avail ourselves of it and ward off at once and forever all the threatr 
 ened dangers to arise from the violation of this great principle. All this 
 will be accomplished if the resolution reported by the committee shall 
 pass and become a part of the federal constitution." 
 
 The question on being put to the house met with the following vote : 
 28 ayes to 16 nays, 27 being absent, and was therefore lost. 
 
 During May of this session a report was made by Mr. Morton, from 
 the committee on privileges and elections, relative to the charge made 
 against senator Spencer, of Alabama, that he had employed or authorized 
 corrupt means and practices to secure his last election. Mr. Spencer had 
 on September 16th, 1875, offered a resolution asking for an examination. 
 A memorial had also been sent from the legislature of Alabama, making 
 the indictment that he had not been legally elected. The committee 
 made a full and exhaustive examination into the facts of the case. The 
 questions involved in the inquiry were two-fold. The first was whether 
 what was known as the court-house legislature by which Mr. Spencer was 
 elected, or the Capitol legislature by which Mr. Sykes was elected, was 
 the lawful organization. After full argument by the respective counsel 
 it was decided that the court-house legislature was the legal one ; that 
 the question was res adjudicata, and that Mr, Spencer was entitled to 
 the seat. As to the other branch of the inquiry, whether the aforesaid 
 senator or his friends had been guilty of bribery or other corrupt prac- 
 tices, it was decided after a faithful examination of many witnesses that 
 the charge was entirely partisan and unauthorized by an equitable con- 
 struction of the facts of the case. We allude to this instance in justice 
 to both parties, as an illustration of the fact that while many or perhaps 
 most of the charges made against the so-called " carpet-baggers," among 
 the politicians of the south, may have been true, there were cases where 
 such accusations were founded on party malice and intrigue. 
 
 Among the matters brought up for legislation in this congress was a 
 bill to reduce the presidential salary to $25,000 per annum. The bill 
 was passed by the two houses, but was returned by president Grant with* 
 his veto. In this he stated that he believed that $50,000 per annum, at 
 the present time, was only a fair compensation for the duties performed 
 by the executive. He believed that the majority of the citizens of the 
 United States were wdlling to pay their highest executive officer a just 
 
1576 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 salary. As he himself had no personal interest in the matter, he felt 
 constrained to return the bill without his approval. A large amount of 
 business, not specially important and involving no vital political princi- 
 ples, was transacted during the session which closed on the 1 5th of Au- 
 gust, 1876. 
 
 The trial of secretary Belknap took up a large portion of the session. 
 As full an allusion to the important event as is consistent with our limits 
 has already been made. (See Chapter CXXIII.) 
 
 A bill to provide for the issue of silver coin in place of fractional cur- 
 rency passed both houses and became a law. This directed the secre- 
 tary of the treasury to issue silver coins of the denominations of ten, 
 twenty, twenty-five and fifty cents, in redemption of an equal amount of 
 fractional currency ; and all fractional currency redeemed under the act 
 was held a part of the sinking fund, the interest to be computed as in 
 case of bonds redeemed under the acts relating to the sinking fund. ' 
 
 Mr. Cox, from the committee on banking and currency, also intro- 
 duced a joint resolution relative to the issue of silver coin, which finally 
 passed both houses in the following form : 
 
 " Be it enacted, etc., That the secretary of the treasury, under such 
 limits and regulations as will best secure a just and fair distribution of 
 the same through the country, may issue the silver coin at any time in 
 the treasury to an amount not exceeding $10,000,000, in exchange for 
 an equal amount, of legal-tender notes ; and the notes so received in ex- 
 change shall be kept as a special fund, si-purate and apart from all other 
 money in the treasury, and be reissued only upon the retirement and 
 destruction of a like sum of fractional currency received at the treasury 
 in payment of dues to the United States ; and said fractional currency, 
 when so substituted, shall be destroyed and held as part of the sinking 
 fund, as provided in the act approved April 17, 1876. 
 
 " Sec. 2. That the trade- dollar shall not hereafter be a legal-tender, and 
 the secretary of the treasury is hereby authorized to limit, from time to 
 time, the coinage thereof, to such an amount as he may deem sufiicient 
 to meet the export demand for the same. 
 
 " Sec. 3. That, in addition to the amount of subsidiary silver coin au- 
 thorized by law to be issued in redemption of the fractional currency, it 
 shall be lawful to manufacture, at the several mints, and issue, through 
 the treasury and its several offices, such coin to an amount that, include 
 • ing the amount of subsidiary silver coin, and of fractional currency out- 
 standing, shall, in the aggregate, not exceed, at any time, $50,000,000. 
 
 " Sec. 4. That the silver bullion required for the purpose of this act 
 shall be purchased, from time to time, at market rate, by the secretary 
 of the treasury, with any money in the treasury not otherwise appro 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS. 1577 
 
 priated ; but HO pmicbase of bullion shall be made under this act when 
 the market rate for the same shall be such as will not admit of the coin- 
 age and issue, as herein provided, without loss to' the treasury ; and any 
 gain or seigniorage arising from this coinage shall be accounted for and 
 paid into the treasury, as provided under existing laws relative to the 
 subsidiary coinage ; Provided, That the amount of money at any one 
 time invested in such silver bullion, exclusive of such resulting coin, shall 
 not exceed $200,000." 
 
 CHAPTER CXXVI. 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS OF 1876. THE PLATFORMS OF THE RESPECT- 
 IVE PARTIES. NOMINATIONS OF GOVERNOR HAYES AND GOVERNOR TIL- 
 DEN. CONDITIONS OF THE DISPUTED ELECTION. APPOINTMENT OF AN 
 
 ELECTORAL COMMISSION. PROCEEDINGS OF THAT BODY. SUCCESS OF 
 
 THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. CONCLUSION. 
 
 The great political event of the year was the presidential election 
 which culminated in a disputed result. For the first time in the history 
 of the United States the question. was unsettled by the result at the polls, 
 and the same uncertainties which had complicated the political affairs of 
 Louisiana for a succession of elections disturbed a great question in na- 
 tional politics. The political conditions of the country were, in many 
 respects, singular at the time when the national conventions of parties 
 met and made their nominations. The ranks of the democratic Organ- 
 ization had become consolidated and disciplined by the long and unsuc- 
 cessful contest which had been waged against the dominant party. They 
 had become tempered and strengthened by defeat, yet always encouraged 
 by that growing sense of power which was encoul-aged b\' several victo- 
 ries in- matters of state politics, so oftentimes forerunners of national suc- 
 cesses. This feeling too had been encouraged by the many evidences of 
 internal dissatisfaction among the republicans, and by the evidences of a 
 threatened revolt from party dictation. This feeling not only inspired 
 the more intelligent members of the republican party at the north, but 
 cropped out among the colored population of the south. At a conven- 
 tion of colored men held at Nashville in April, 1876, some of the leading 
 men present advised the blacks no longer to remain in the republican 
 party, but to make terms with their white southern friends, and there- 
 
1578 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 after vote for honest and competent members without reference to 
 party. 
 
 Mr. Pinchback, of Louisiana, declared that " the colored people were 
 beginning to think for themselves, and would never vote again the repub- 
 lican ticket in a solid column as heretofore." Not less significant than 
 this step toward the abolition of the color line in politics was the move- 
 ment of dissatisfaction among the leading men of the republican party 
 at the north. A circular addressed to many prominent republicans, and 
 signed by Messrs. Wm. Cullen Bryant, of New York, Theodore D. 
 Woolsey, of Connecticut, Alexander n. Bullock, of Massachusetts, Horace 
 White, of Illinois, and. Carl Schurz, of Missouri, called for a conference 
 to be held at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in New York on May 15th. A 
 large number of distinguished and able men were present, representing 
 seventeen states. The character of the conference was very well indi- 
 cated in the election as president of Dr. Theodore D. Woolsey, ex- 
 president of Yale College, and one of the most distinguished living au- 
 thorities on questions of political economy, and social and international 
 law. The meeting resulted in an address to the American people, whi6h 
 did much to stimulate public opinion, and provoke thoughtful discussion. 
 This document enlarged on the corruption, greed and selfishness, which 
 degraded the party in power, and called for a radical reform. It called 
 on those who sympathized with its views to support no candidate whose 
 name was associated in any way with corrupt practices and combina- 
 tions ; or who had ever permitted party interests to divert him from 
 using official influence and power in exposing and correcting abuses. In 
 few words the test recommended to establish the eligibility of a candi- 
 date was placed in the question, " Can he with certainty be depended 
 upon to possess the moral courage and sturdy resolution to grapple with 
 abuses which have acquired the strength of established customs, and to 
 this end to firmly resist the pressure even of his part}'^ friends ? " 
 
 This open letter to the American people struck the sympathies of 
 many of the wisest and purest men of the nation ; and, as indicating the 
 sense of a deep-seated need, probably did much toward shaping the nom- 
 inations of both dominant parties. The earliest nominating convention 
 was that held at Cleveland, Ohio, on May 17, by the prohibition reform 
 party, which as indicated in the name touched upon questions of morals 
 rather than of politics. General Green Clay Smith, of Kentucky, was 
 nominated as its presidential candidate. 
 
 Shortly afterwards the national greenback convention assembled at 
 Indianapolis and placed the " soft money " party in position on a definite 
 platform. This demanded the immediate and unconditional repeal of 
 the specie resumption act of January 14th, 1875. The belief was ex- 
 
THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM OF 1876. 15T9 
 
 pressed that the United States notes issued by the government and con- 
 vertible on demand into United States obligations, bearing a low rate of 
 interest, not exceeding one cent a day on every one hundred dollars, 
 and exchangeable for United States notes at par, would afford the best 
 circulating medium ever devised ; such United States notes being full 
 legal-tender for payment of all obligations not made payable in coin ex- 
 pressly by existing contracts. The protest was made against the issue 
 of gold bonds for sale in foreign markets, as the American people would 
 promptly take at paf all government bonds, provided they were made 
 payable at option and bore interest at 3.65 per cent or less. 
 
 Nineteen states were represented in this convention by 239 delegates, 
 and Mr. Peter Cooper, of New York, was nominated for president of 
 the United States, and the Hon. Newton Booth, of California, for vice- 
 president. The latter subsequently declined, and the vacancy was filled 
 by the appointment of Samuel F. Cary, of Ohio. 
 
 The first really important event of the campaign was the assembling of 
 the republican convention at Cincinnati June 14th. It quickly became 
 evident that the managers of the party planned to fight the political 
 battle on the strictly party basis. The animus of the proceedings, and 
 the protracted contest in favor of candidates whose names were univer- 
 sally associated with all that was intense in partisan acerbity clearly indi- 
 cated the dominant feeling. The platform was no less significant of the 
 bent of the managers of the convention. 
 
 It commenced with a laudation of the republican party as having been 
 the instrument of Providence in purging the land of slavery, and assert- 
 ing the fact that the work of the republican party was yet unfinished ; 
 that until the permanent pacification of the southei'n states on a basis 
 not merely of an acquiescence in, but in a hearty sympathy with the re- 
 sult of the war, it was unsafe that the administration of public affairs 
 should pass out of the hands which had grasped them since the inaugu- 
 ration of the late war. 
 
 To the end tliat both the legislative and executive departments of the 
 government should put in vigorous exercise all their powers for remov- 
 ing just causes for discontent from any class, a congress and a chief ex- 
 ecutive were demanded whose devotion to these duties was unfaltering. 
 The belief of the republican party in an early resumption of specie pay- 
 ments and the honorable discharge of all obligations to the public cred- 
 itors was announced. The duty of civil service reform was referred to 
 in general terms, and the country was congratulated on the quickened 
 conscience of the people concerning political affairs. 
 
 Among the various matters indorsed by this series of resolutions was 
 an amendment to the constitution forbidding the application of public 
 
1680 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 funds in the support of sectarian schools ; opposition to subsidies to 
 corporations and monopolies ; the establishment of equal rights for wo- 
 men by laws concerning personal and property relations; and the extir- 
 pation of polygamy. The platform closed with the charge against the 
 democratic party of being the same in character and spirit as when it 
 sympathized with treason, and with reasserting the sentiments of unre- 
 pentant rebellion. 
 
 The battle of candidates commenced in the convention with uncom- 
 mon ardor. Stephen W. Kellogg nominated Martip Jewell, of Connec- 
 ticut, ex-postmaster general; R. W, Johnson nominated the Hon. O. P. 
 Morton, of Indiana ; John M. Harlan nominated Benjamin H. Bristow, 
 of Kentucky; Robert H. Ingersoll, of Illinois, nominated James G. 
 Blaine, of Maine ; Stewart L. Woodford nominated Roscoe Conkling, of 
 New York ; Edward F. Noyes nominated Rutherford B. Hayes, of Ohio ; 
 Linn Bartholomew nominated John F. Hartranft, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Of these candidates the preference was shown on the first ballot for 
 Blaine. The speech nominating him made by Mr. Ingersoll was a mag- 
 netic and powerful effort which touched the convention with striking ef- 
 fect. Of all the candidates the recent record of Mr. Blaine had been 
 such as to inspire the most intense party deyotion. A consummate 
 politician, extreme and uncompromising in his view^s, with the mastery 
 of brilliant gifts in oratory and political generalship, it is not to be won- 
 dered at that he should have led the convention with a power that threat- 
 ened to sweep all before it. His competitors fought with such skill, 
 however, as to check the rising tide. The seeds of personal animosity 
 and prejudice were so astutely sown that Blaine's success became, after 
 several ballots, more than doubtful. The closing scenes of the conven- 
 tion illustrated a fact so often displayed in the history of American 
 politics, that the personal ambitions and animosities of distinguished 
 politicians make it difficult to secure anything like an unanimous and 
 cordial support. 
 
 The convention finally found it necessary to compromise on the least 
 known of the candidates, R. B. Hayes, of Ohio, On the seventh ballot 
 he received 384 votes and was unanimously elected. The nomination of 
 Mr. Hayes struck the country with a shock of surprise, and was received 
 by the masses of the republican party with unrepressed expressions of 
 disappointment. 
 
 •The career of Mr, Hayes, though honorable and straightforward, had 
 never in any way concentrated public attention on his name. He had 
 served with marked distinction during the late war, having been four 
 times wounded, and promoted to the rank of brevet major-general. In 
 the autumn of 1864, while still in the field, he was elected to congress, 
 
THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION. 1581 
 
 and was re-elected at the close of his first term. He resigned his seat to 
 assume his position of governor of Ohio, to which he had been elected 
 over Judge Thurman. He was re-elected, and again in 1875, a third 
 time made governor of his state. The latter campaign in which General 
 Hayes was opposed by Governor William Allen, was fought on the finan- 
 cial issue, the democratic sentiment of the state having committed itself 
 to the theory of currency expansion. The deep interest aroused by this 
 campaign, and the republican success made Governor Hayes the first fa- 
 vorite of his state, and gave him some well-founded claim on the political 
 attention of the nation. While Mr. Hayes' career as a public man had 
 been highly dignified and clearly unexceptionable, his nomination was be- 
 lieved by many of his own party to have been a mistake. The second 
 place on the ticket was given to William A. Wheeler, of New York, 
 then a representative in congress. The principal portion of Governor 
 Hayes' letter of acceptance is of suflacient importance for special 
 reference. 
 
 He indorsed with great earnestness the necessity of civil service re- 
 form, and committed himself if elected to carrying out such reform in a 
 radical and thorough fashion. He expressed his strong sympathies with 
 the early resumption of specie payments, and declared it his desire to 
 forward the pacification of the south on such principles as would equally 
 advance the rights of both white and colored people. The letter was a 
 moderate and thoughtful document, which while it promised but little in 
 rhetorical phrase, made a favorable impression of the man, and the 
 motives which prompted him. 
 
 The democratic national convention met at St. Louis, Missouri, June 
 28th, 1876, and was organized by the appointment of Hon. John 
 Ai» McClernand as president. The platform adopted affirmed the 
 faith of the democracy in the peraianence of the federal . union ; 
 devotion to the constitution of the country with all its amendments 
 as a final settlement of the controversy of the late civil war; the 
 total separation of church and state, and in the absolute equality of 
 all citizens of whatever class or denomination before the la^s. Re- 
 form was enlarged on as necessary to re-establish in the hearts of the 
 people that devotion to the union formerly endangered by secession, and 
 more recently again imperiled by a corrupt centralism, which inflicted 
 on ten states the rapacity of carpet-bag tyrannies, and honey-combed 
 the offices of the government with incapacity, waste and fraud. The 
 platform denounced the failure of the republican party during eleven 
 years of peace in making good the promise of the legal tender notes, and 
 squandering four times their sum in useless expense without accumulating 
 any reserve for their redemption. The resumption clause of the act of 
 
1682 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 1875 was denounced as a hinderance to a speedy return of specie pay- 
 ments. Reform was demanded in a more judicious system of economy, 
 in official retrenchment, and in a reconstruction of the tariff which im- 
 poverished many industries to subsidize a few, and was a master piece of 
 injustice and false pretense. It cost the people five times more than it 
 produced to the treasury, .obstructed the processes of production, and 
 wasted the fruits of labor. The necessity of reform was especially em- 
 phasized as regards the two false issues with which the office-holding 
 class and the party in power sought to perpetuate themselves : 
 
 1. The false issue with which they would enkindle sectarian strife in 
 respect to the public schools, of which the establishment and support 
 belong exclusively to the several states, and which the democratic party 
 has cherished from their foundation, and is resolved to maintain without 
 prejudice or preference for any class, sect, or creed, and without largesses 
 from the treasury to any. 
 
 2. The false issue by which they seek to light anew the dying embers 
 of sectional hate between kindred peoples once estranged, but now re- 
 united in one indivisible republic and a common destiny. 
 
 Civil service reform was emphatically indorsed, and the charge made 
 that promises falsified in the performance attested the inability of the 
 administration to work out salutary reform. The indictment against the 
 two administrations of General Grant was summed up in the following 
 language : 
 
 " When the annals of this republic show the disgrace and censure of a 
 vice-president ; a late speaker of the house of representatives marketing 
 his rulings as a presiding officer ; three senators profiting secretly by 
 their votes as law-makers ; five chairmen of the leading committees of 
 the late house of representatives exposed in jobbery ; a late secretary of 
 the treasury forcing balances in the public accounts ; a late attorney- 
 general misappropriating public funds ; a secretary of the navy enriched, 
 or enriching friends, by percentages levied off the profits of contractors 
 with his department ; an ambassador to England engaged in a dishonora- 
 ble speculation ; the president's private secretary barely escaping conviction 
 upon trial for guilty complicity in frauds upon the revenue ; a secretary 
 of war impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors — the demonstration 
 is complete, that the first step in reform must be the people's choice of 
 honest men from another party, lest the disease of one political organiza- 
 tion infect the body politic, and lest, bj making no change of men or 
 parties, we get no change of measures and no real reform. 
 
 " All these abuses, wrongs, and crimes, the product of sixteen years' 
 ascendency of the republican party, create a necessity for reform con- 
 fessed by republicans themselves ; but their reformers are voted down in 
 
GOV. tilden's letter of acceptance. 1583 
 
 convention and displaced from the cabinet. The party's mass of honest 
 voters is powerless to resist the eighty thousand office-holders, its leaders 
 and guides. 
 
 " Reform can only be had by a peaceful civic revolution. We demand 
 a change of system, a change of administration, a change of parties, that 
 we may have a change of measures and of men." 
 
 On the first ballot Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, received 403 votes, 
 one-half out of 817 cast, and before the result of the second ballot was 
 announced his nomination was made unanimous. His rivals for this 
 honor at the hands of the democratic party were Hon. Thomas F. Bay- 
 ard, United States senator from Delaware ; governor William S. Allen, 
 of Ohio ; Joel Parker, of New Jersey, and major-general Winfield Han- 
 cock, United States army. The special popularity of Mr. Tilden as a 
 representative of the reform element in the democratic party had been 
 the outgrowth of the last ten years. In 1866 he was made chairman of 
 the democratic state committee, and was perhaps the most distinguished 
 member of the state constitutional convention of 1867. He became an 
 indefatigable laborer in the cause of judicial and political reform. In 
 the contest against the members of the Tammany ring he was ardent 
 and indefatigable. He rendered invaluable services to the cause of jus- 
 tice and good government, by his famous analysis of the accounts of 
 the Broadway bank, showing conclusively that the alleged culprits had 
 shared their spoils and furnishing legal proof for their conviction. In 
 1874 he was elected governor of New York over general John A. Dix, 
 and during his term waged such war against the infamous canal ring as 
 overthrew that corrupt and firmly-seated organization. 
 
 Governor Tilden had signalized himself during his career as a public 
 man as a singularly lucid and practical thinker on questions of finance. 
 His letter of acceptance addressed to the president of the democratic 
 national convMition illustrated his ability as a political economist so sig- 
 nally as to mWt an extended quotation : 
 
 " Resumption of specie payments by the government of the United 
 States on its legal-tender notes would establish specie payments by all 
 the banks on all their notes. The official statement, made on the 12th 
 of May, shows that the amount of the bank notes was $300,000,000, 
 less $20,000,000 held by themselves. Against these $280,000,000 of 
 notes the banks held $141,000,000 of legal-tender notes, or a little more 
 than fifty per cent of their amount. But they also held on deposit in 
 the federal treasury, as security for these notes, bonds of the United 
 States worth in gold about $360,000,000, available and current in all 
 the foreign money-markets. In resuming, the banks, even if it were 
 possible for all their notes to be presented for payment, would have 
 
1584 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 $500,000,000 of specie funds to pay $280,000,000 of notes, without con- 
 tracting their loans to their customers, or calling on any private debtor 
 for payment. Suspended banks undertaking to resume have usually 
 been obliged to collect from needy borrowers the means to redeem 
 excessive issues and to provide reserves, A vague idea of distress is, 
 therefore, often associated with the process of resumption. But the 
 conditions which caused distress in those former instances do not 
 now exist. 
 
 " The government has only to make good its own promises, and the 
 banks can take care of themselves without distressing anybody. The 
 government is, therefore, the sole delinquent. J .MR 
 
 " The amount of the legal-tender notes of the United States now out- 
 standing is less than $370,000,000, besides $34,000,000 of fractional 
 currency. How shall the government make these notes at all times as 
 good as specie ? 
 
 " It has to provide, in reference to the mass which would be kept in 
 use by the wants of business, a central reservoir of coin, adequate to the 
 adjustment of the temporary jluctuations of international balances, and 
 as a guarantee against transient drains artificially created by panic or by 
 speculation. 
 
 " It has also to provide for the payment in coin of such fractional cur- 
 rency as may be pi-esented for redemption, and such inconsiderable por- 
 tions of the legal-tenders as individuals may from time to time desire to 
 convert for special use, or in order to lay by in coin their little stores of 
 money. 
 
 " To make the coin now in the treasury available for the objects of this 
 reserve, to gradually strengthen and enlarge that reserve, and to provide 
 for such other exceptional demands for coin as may arise, does not seem 
 to be a work of difhculty. If wisely planned and discreetly pursued, it 
 ought not to cost any sacrifice to the business of the countrv. It should 
 tend, on the contrary, to a revival of hope and c^nfidenM The coin 
 in the treasury on the 30th of June, including what is held against coin 
 certificates, amounted to nearly $74,000,000. The current of precious 
 metals which has flowed out of our country for the eleven years from 
 July 1, 1865, to June 30, 1876, averaging nearly $76,000,000 a year, 
 was $832,000,000 in the whole period, of which $617,000,000 were the 
 product of our own mines. 
 
 " To amass the requisite quantity, by intercepting from the current 
 flowing out of the country, and by acquiring from the stocks which exist 
 abroad without disturbing the equilibrium of foreign money markets, is 
 a result to be easily worked out by practical knowledge and judgment. 
 
 " With respect to whatever surplus of legal-tenders the wants of busi- 
 
GOV. tilden's acceptance continued. 1585 
 
 ness may fail to keep in use, and which, in order to save interest, will be 
 returned for redemption, they can either be paid or they can be fnnded. 
 Whether they continue as ciirrency or be absorbed into the vast mass of 
 securities held as investments, is merely a question of the rate of interest 
 they draw. Even if they were to remain in their present form, and the 
 government were to agree to pay on them a rate of interest making 
 them desirable as investments, they would cease to circulate, and take 
 their place with government, state, municipal, and other corporate and 
 private bonds, of which thousands of millions exist among us. In the 
 perfect ease with which they can be changed from currency into invest- 
 ments lies the only danger to be guarded against in the adoption of gen- 
 eral measures intended to remove a clearly-ascertained surplus — that is, 
 the withdrawal of any which are not a permanent excess beyond the 
 wants of business. Even more mischievous would be any measure 
 which affects the public imagination with the fear of an apprehended 
 scarcity. In a community where credit is so much used, fluctuations of 
 values and vicissitudes in business are largely caused by the temporary 
 beliefs of men, even before those beliefs can conform to ascertained re- 
 alities. 
 
 " The amount of the necessary currency, at a given time, cannot be de- 
 termined arbitrarily, and should not be assumed on conjecture. That 
 amount is subject to both permanent and temporary changes. An en- 
 largement of it, which seemed to be durable, happened at the beginning 
 of the civil war by a substituted use of currency in place of individual 
 credits. It varies with certain states of business. It fluctuates, with 
 considerable regularity, at different seasons of the year. In the autumn, 
 for instance, when buyers of grain and other agricultural products begin 
 their operations, they usually need to borrow capital or circulating credits 
 by which to make their purchases, and want these funds in currency 
 capable of being distributed in small sums among numerous sellers. The 
 additional need of currency at such times is five or more per cent of the 
 whole volume ; and if a surplus beyond what is required for ordinary 
 use does not happen to have been on hand at the money centres, a scar- 
 city of currency ensues, and also a stringency in the loan market. 
 
 " It was in reference to such experiences that, in a discussion of this 
 subject in my annual message to the New York legislature of January 
 5, 1875, the suggestion was made that " the federal government is bound 
 to redeem every portion of its issues which the public do not wish to 
 use. Having assumed to monopolize the supply of currency and en- 
 acted exclusions against everybody else, it is bound to furnish all which 
 the wants of business require. * * * The system should passively 
 allow the volume of circulating credits to ebb and flow, according to the 
 
1586 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 ever-changiTig -wants of business. It should imitate, as closely as possi- 
 ble, the natural laws of trade, which it has superseded by artificial con- 
 trivances." And in a similar discussion in my message of January 4, 
 1876, it was said that resumption should be effected " by such measures 
 as would keep the aggregate amount of the currency self-adjusting dur- 
 ing all the process, without creating at any time an artificial scarcity, 
 and without exciting the public imagination with alarms, which impair 
 confidence, contract the whole large machinery of credit, and disturb the 
 natural operations of business." 
 
 " Public economies, official retrenchments, and wise finance," are the 
 means which the St. Louis convention indicates as provision for reserves 
 and redemptions. 
 
 " The best resource is a reduction of the expenses of the government 
 below its income ; for that imposes no new charge on the people. If, 
 however, the improvidence and waste, which have conducted us to a 
 period of falling revenues, oblige us to supplement the results of econo- 
 mies and retrenchments by some resort to loans, we should not hesitate. 
 The government ought not to speculate on its own dishonor, in order to 
 save interest on its broken promises, which it still compels private dealers 
 to accept at a fictitious par. The highest national honor is not only right, 
 but would prove profitable. Of the public debt, $985,000,000 bear in- 
 terest at six^er cent in gold and $712,000,000 at five per cent in gold. 
 The average interest is 5.58 per cent. 
 
 " A financial policy which should secure the highest credit, wisely 
 availed of, ought gradually to obtain a reduction of one per cent in the 
 interest on most of the loans. A saving of one per cent on the average 
 would be $17,000,000 a year in gold. That saving, regularly invested 
 at four and a half per cent, would, in less than thirty-eight years, extin- 
 guish the principal. The whole $1,700,000,000 of funded debt might 
 be paid by this saving alone, without cost to the people. 
 
 " The proper time for resumption is the time when wise preparations 
 shall have ripened into a perfect ability to accomplish the object with a 
 certainty and ease that will inspire confidence and encourage the reviving 
 of business. The earliest time in which such a result can be brought 
 about is the best. Even when the preparations shall have been matured, 
 the exact date would have to be chosen with reference to the then exist- 
 ing state of trade and credit operations in our own country, the course 
 of foreign commerce, and the condition of the exchanges with other 
 nations. The specific measures and the actual date are mattere of detail 
 having reference to ever-changing conditions. They belong to the domain 
 of practical, administrative statesmanship. The captain of a steamer 
 about starting from New York to Liverpool does not assemble a council 
 
GOV. tilden's acceptance. 1587 
 
 over his ocean-chart and fix an angle by which to lash the rudder for the 
 whole voyage. A human intelligence must be at the helm to discern the 
 shifting forces of the waters and the winds ; a human hand must be on 
 the helm to feel the elements day by day, and guide to a mastery over 
 them. 
 
 " Such preparations are everything. Without them, a legislative com- 
 mand fixing a day, or official promise fixing a day, are shams. They 
 are worse : they are a snare and a delusion to all who trust them. They 
 destroy all confidence among thoughtful men, whose judgment will at 
 last sway public opinion. An attempt to act on such a command or such 
 a promise, without preparation, would end in a new suspension. It 
 would be a fresh calamity, prolific of confusion, distrust, and distress. 
 
 "The act of congress of the 14th of January, 1875, enacted that, on 
 and after the 1st of January, 1879, the secretary of the treasury shall 
 redeem in coin the legal-tender notes of the United States on presenta- 
 tion at the office of the assistant treasurer in the city of New York. It 
 authorized the secretary ' to prepare and provide for ' such redemption 
 of specie payments by the use of any surplus revenues not otherwise ap- 
 propriated ; and by issuing, in his discretion, certain classes of bonds. 
 
 " More than one and a half of the four years have passed. Congress 
 and the president have continued ever since to unite in acts which have 
 legislated out of existence every possible surplus applicable to this 
 purpose. 
 
 " The coin in the treasury claimed to belong to the government had on 
 the 30th of June, fallen to less than $45,000,000 as against $59,000,000 
 on the 1st of January, 1875, and the availability of a part of that sum is 
 said to be questionable. The revenues are falling faster than appropria- 
 tions and expenditures are reduced, leaving the treasury with diminishing 
 resources. The secretary has done nothing under his power to issue 
 bonds. 
 
 " The legislative command, the official promise, fixing a day for resump- 
 tion, have thus far been barren. No practical preparations toward re- 
 sumption have been made. There has been no progress. There have 
 been steps backward. 
 
 "There is no necromancy in the operations of government. The 
 homely maxims of every-day life are the best standards of its conduct. 
 A debtor who should promise to pay a loan out of surplus income, yet 
 be seen every day spending all he could lay his hands on in riotous liv- 
 ing, would lose all character for honesty and veracity. His after of a 
 new promise, and his profession as to the value of the old promise, would 
 alike provoke derision." 
 
 The political canvass in the north was perhaps characterized by less 
 
1588 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 fervor and excitement than that displayed in most of the presidential 
 battles preceding it. There was little in either standard-bearer of the 
 two great parties to inspire the masses of their adherents with any pro- 
 found interest and devotion, and on both sides many of the same public 
 evils were admitted, and similar resolutions of reform were adopted. 
 Governor Hayes as the republican candidate, while recognized as a pure, 
 able, and high-minded politician, had never held such a position before 
 the country as secured him any large party prominence. On the other 
 band governor Tilden, though known to be one of the most astute and 
 powerful statesmen of the nation, utterly lacked that magnetic warmth 
 and force which give a politician such mastery as a party leader. These 
 facts, and the character of the two platforms embodying the principles 
 of the two parties, are perhaps sufficient to account for the singular mod- 
 eration of the canvass. Steps were, however, taken early in the cam- 
 paign to prevent any disturbances in the southern states. 
 
 On August 15th, secretary of war Cameron, who had succeeded Mr. 
 Belknap, addressed a letter to general Sherman embodying the order of 
 the president, directing such a disposition of the available troops as would 
 prevent and punish fraud and disturbance at the polls on election day. 
 The attorney-general shortly afterward addressed a similar circular of in- 
 structions to the United States marshals. While the dictates of pru- 
 dence perhaps justified these precautionary measures, the results proved 
 as orderly and quiet an election as had ever been known in the political 
 history of the country. The election took place on the 7th of Novem- 
 ber, and the result was the following popular vote according to the offi- 
 cial returns: Hayes, 4,033,295; Tilden, 4,284,265; Cooper, 81,737; 
 Smith, 9,522 ; giving Mr. Tilden a popular majority over all others of 
 157,397 votes. Though the popular majority was generally acknowl- 
 edged to be in favor of Mr. Tilden, the electoral votes of the states 
 awarded to Mr. Hayes by the returning boards gave him a majority in 
 the electoral college. The votes of Florida, Louisiana, and South Caro- 
 lina were disputed by the friends of Mr. Tilden. As to Florida, excep- 
 tion was taken in the matter of the returns of five counties ; as to Louis- 
 iana objections were made that the returning board was not legally con- 
 stituted ; that it had no legal jurisdiction in counting the votes for the 
 presidential electors ; and that two of the republican candidates for presi- 
 dential electors were ineligible on account of their holding offices of 
 trust and profit under the United States. As to South Carolina the re- 
 turning board had held that their powers and duties were limited to ten 
 days. When this period had expired they issued certificates of elections 
 to presidential electors and state officers as also to members of congress 
 and the legislature. They then adjourned sine die, refusing to make any 
 
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION. 1589 
 
 determination or issue any certificates as to Edgefield and Laurens coun- 
 ties, on the ground of frauds, violence and irregularities. The figures 
 submitted from these counties gave large democratic majorities, which 
 would have changed the complexion of the aggregate state result. A 
 writ of mandamus had been issued by the Supreme Court of the state, 
 ordering the board of state canvassers to aggregate all the statements 
 forwarded to them, and declare the results of the same. The defiance of 
 this order, and the presumptive fact that the canvassing of tlie two 
 omitted counties before alluded to would have changed the result as re- 
 gards presidential electors, were the special grounds upon which the 
 democratic party disputed the result as declared by the state returning 
 board in South Carolina. 
 
 The constitution of the United States makes it the duty of congress 
 to canvass the electoral votes, and declare the name of the person elected ; 
 but as the house of representatives was largely democratic, and the sen- 
 ate republican, and as the democrats of the house denied the correctness 
 of the returns of the three states before mentioned, it became probable 
 that the two houses would not agree in declaring the result; therefore 
 neither candidate could hold the office of president under the constitu- 
 tional provision for counting' the electoral vote. To avoid the uncer- 
 tainties, and probable disturbances which seemed likely to ensue, both 
 parties in congress compromised in an arrangement which took shape 
 in a bill providing for an Electoral Commission. This act provided that 
 if more than one set of returns should be offered to the president of the 
 senate, the decision as to which was the lawful vote of the state should 
 be submitted to a commission constituted of five members from each 
 house of congress appointed by a viva voce vote, and the five associate 
 justices of the Supreme Court of the United States ; the fifth associate 
 justice being selected by the other four who were then assigned to the 
 first, third, eighth and ninth circuits, and one of the justices who had 
 been longest in commission to be president of the commission. The act 
 also declared that nothing in its provisions should be held to impair or 
 affect any right, then existing under the constitution to question by judi- 
 cial proceeding the legal title of the person declared elected. 
 
 The members of tfee electoral commission, as constituted under this 
 act, consisted of the following names : Associate Justices, Hon. Nathan 
 Clifford, Hon. William Strong, Hon. Samuel F. Miller, Hon. Stephen J. 
 Field, Hon. Joseph P. Bradley; U. S. senators, Hon. George F. 
 Edmunds, Hon. Oliver P. Morton, Hon. Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, 
 Hon. Allan Gr. Thurman, Hon. Thomas F. Bayard ; U. S. representa- 
 tives, Hon. Henry B. Paine, Hon. Eppa Hunter, Hon. Josiah Abbott, 
 Hon. James A. Garfield, Hon. George F. Hoar. 
 
1590 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 The political affiliations of the commission were eight republican, and 
 seven democratic. The character of the court would have been materi- 
 ally changed, had not associate-justice David Davis recently accepted 
 his election as U. S. senator from Illinois. It had been generally under- 
 stood that Judge Davis would be the fifth justice appointed, and he was 
 believed to favor the pretensions of Mr. Tilden. The substitution of 
 Justice Bradley in his place, and the fact that the vote of the commis- 
 sion on every disputed point was a strictly partisan count of eight to 
 seven, made it more than possible that the action of the Illinois legisla- 
 ture electing Justice Davis a senator of the United States, and thereby 
 making it inconsistent with etiquette for him to receive a place on the 
 commission, settled the disputed presidency of the United States. 
 
 The following counsel appeared before the commission : for Hayes, 
 Wm. M. Evarts, of New York; Stanley Matthews of Ohio; Edwin 
 B. Stoughton of New York; and Judge Shellabarger of Ohio; — for 
 Tilden, Charles O'Conor, of New York ; Judge Jeremiah Black of 
 Pennsylvania ; Lyman Trumbull of Illinois ; and Richard Merrick of the 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 On February 1st, the two houses met in joint session, and the votes of 
 Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, and Delaware 
 were read and counted. When the certificates from Florida were read 
 one of the votes of the Hayes college, another of the Tilden college and 
 a third certificate, received January 1st, were presented. Objections 
 were made to each of the papers, and they were all referred to the com- 
 mission, who proceeded to hear objectors and counsel. After several 
 orders had been submitted, and debated, Mr. Commissioner Garfield sub- 
 mitted a resolution that the four Hayes electors (naming them) were 
 legally appointed, and that the votes cast by them were the votes pro- 
 vided for by the constitution. This was agreed to by a decision of eight 
 to seven. The ground of the decision was briefly as follows: That it 
 was not ' competent under the constitution and the law to go into evi- 
 dence aliunde of the papers opened by the president of the senate to 
 prove that other persons than those regularly certified to by the gover- 
 nor of the state, according to the determination of the state board of 
 canvassers, prior to the time required for the performance of their duties, 
 had been appointed electors ; or to offer counter-proof growing out of 
 the proceedings of the courts, or acts of the legislature, or executive, 
 subsequent to the casting of the votes of electors on the prescribed day. 
 As to the democratic objection made to the eligibility of Mr. Humphreys, 
 one of the republican electors, the evidence did not show that he held 
 the office of shipping commissioner when he was appointed. The result 
 of this decision was announced in the joint session of the two houses of 
 
A.CTION OF THE COMMISSION. 1591 
 
 congress on February 12th, and the vote of Florida under the law was 
 counted for Hayes and Wheeler. 
 
 In the commission on February 15th, argument was heard on the cer- 
 tificates from Louisiana, two of the Hayes college and one of the Tilden. 
 The same course of proceedings occurred as in the case of Florida. Va- 
 rious resolutions were offered, respectively by the republican and demo- 
 cratic members of the court. That of Mr. Commissioner Morton was 
 finally adopted, to the effect that the persons named as the electors in 
 the first Hayes certificate were the legal appointees, and should be 
 counted as such. This resolution was agreed to again by a decision of 
 eight to seven. The brief ground of this decision was that it appeared 
 on such evidence as was warranted by the constitution and law, that the 
 republican electors above designated were lawfully appointed and that 
 they voted as such at the time and in the manner prescribed by the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 The commission also decided that it was not competent under the 
 constitution and law to go into evidence aliunde the papers opened by 
 the president of the senate to prove that other persons than those regu- 
 larly certified to by the governor of the state, were appointed, or by 
 counter-proof to show they had not or that the determination of said 
 officers was not in accordance with truth and fact ; and that the com- 
 mission believed it outside the jurisdiction of congress to enter into trial 
 upon such questions. The commission also was of the opinion that it 
 was not competent to prove that any of the said persons appointed 
 electors held an office of trust and profit under the United States at the 
 times of appointment, or that they were ineligible und^r the laws of the 
 state, or any other conditions offered to be proved aliunde the said cer- 
 tificates and papers. The opinion was also given that the returning 
 board of Louisiana who canvassed the votes were a legally constituted 
 body, and that a vacancy did not vitiate its proceedings. In accordance 
 with this decision the two houses of congress on February 20th counted 
 the vote of Louisiana for Hayes and Wheeler. 
 
 The next contest was on the Oregon vote, objections having been 
 made on the part of several senators and representatives to the counting 
 of either certificate. The circumstances of the Oregon case were briefly 
 these: W. H. Odell, J. W. Watts, and John 0. Cartwright received the 
 highest number of votes cast for electors, but Watts held an office of 
 trust and profit under the United States. He was therefore declared by 
 the governor of Oregon to be ineligible, and E. A. Cronin, a democratic 
 elector, who had received the next highest number of votes, was author- 
 ized under the certificate of the governor to act in his place. It was de- 
 cided by the court by the same party vote of eight to seven, that Odell, 
 
1592 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Watts, and Cartwright were legally appointed presidential electors for 
 Oregon ; that the refusal of the governor of the state to sign the certifi- 
 cate of election did not invalidate their appointment ; that the act of the 
 governor in giving Cronin a certificate of election instead of Watts, on 
 the ground that the latter was ineligible, was illegal and void ; and that 
 although the evidence proved that Watts was a postmaster at the time 
 of tlie election, the fact was rendered immaterial by his resignation both 
 as postmaster and elector and his subsequent appointment to fill the va- 
 cancy so made by the electoral college. On the i-eport of this decision 
 to the two houses the vote of Oregon was counted for the republican 
 candidates. 
 
 The South Carolina case was argued before the commission on Feb- 
 ruary 26th. Mr. Commissioner Morton offered the resolution that the 
 eight republican electors were lawfully appointed for the state, and their 
 vote should be counted. This was again agreed to by the vote of eight 
 to seven. The commission expressed the opinion that the electors re- 
 ferred to were legally appointed and had voted according to law. They 
 were of the opinion that the failure of the legislature to provide a system 
 for the registration of voters did not render elections nugatory ; other- 
 wise in such a state all government would be a usurpation and the social 
 compact at an end. At the time of the election there was a government 
 recognized by both the president and congress. The opinion was also 
 expressed, that the governor and secretary of the state having certified 
 that certain electors were lawfully appointed, this certificate by presump- 
 tion of law and collateral facts being based on the action of the state 
 canvassers, there existed no power either in the commission or in the 
 two houses of congress to inquire into the circnmstances under which 
 the primary vote for electors was given. On February 28th this decis- 
 ion was laid before the two houses in joint meeting. They separated 
 twice during the day, and violent debates occurred in both ends of the 
 capitol. Finally they met again at 6 p. m,, and the vote of South Caro- 
 Una was counted for Hayes and Wheeler. 
 
 The counting of the votes of states having been concluded the result 
 was announced as 185 for Hayes and Wheeler to 184 for Tilden and 
 Hendricks. The former were therefore declared by the presiding officer 
 the duly elected president and vice-president of the United States, fi'om 
 March 4th, 1877. 
 
 Thus was consummated one of the most remarkable political events in 
 the history of the country. Not unprecedented altogether in the pri- 
 mary fact of an election so close as to give each of the two leading par- 
 ties ground for dissatisfaction, but certainly without a parallel in the 
 plausible conviction of each that it was in the right. The public interest 
 
CONCLUSION. 1593 
 
 •was wound up to a very high pitch of excitement, which contrasted viv- 
 idly with the comparative apathy of the actual presidential canvass. Up 
 to the very time of the election the victory was conceded to the demo- 
 cratic ticket, and the announcement of the results seemed to indorse the 
 fact. When the work of the returning boards of South Carolina, Louis- 
 iana, and Florida was finally completed and these states given to Mr. 
 Hayes, wresting the fruits of success from the party to whom they had 
 seemed to belong, by a bare majority of one, the chagrin of the demo- 
 cratic party was deep seated and bitter to the last degree. It is not im- 
 possible that such a condition of affairs might have led to bloodshed, 
 had not the terrible experience of the recent war tempered the national 
 mind to a full appreciation of the virtues of peace and moderation in the 
 settlement of political disputes. The wisdom of congress found it ne- 
 cessary, however, to introduce a hitherto unknown factor in the ma- 
 chinery of election, an electoral commission, or board of judges, to de- 
 cide on the validity of the disputed returns. To this both parties agreed, 
 and though there was much reason for criticising the action of the com- 
 mission in the narrow limits of the evidence received as permissible, the 
 decision in favor of the republican candidate was acquiesced *in with a 
 quietness which gave a fresh proof of the essentially law-abiding nature 
 of the national character. 
 
 With the completion of the labors of the electoral commission, and the 
 assured victory of the republican party for another four years, this history, 
 as a record of political events, finds its fitting end, though at the time 
 of writing Mr. Hayes has clearly shaped a policy so full of significance 
 as to be a veritable new departure. Elected in the interest of a party 
 which had uniformly used vigorous and heroic remedies in dealing with 
 the troubles of southern reconstruction, the plan of the new president 
 early declared itself to be in the direction of mildness and conciliation. ' 
 This policy resulted, shortly after the inauguration of President Hayes, 
 in the withdrawal of United States troops from Columbia and New 
 Orleans, and advii;e to the putative governors Chamberlain and Packard 
 so authoritative as to eventuate in their resignations of their pretensions, 
 leaving the gubernational seats of South Carolina and Louisiana to Hamp- 
 ton and NichoUs. 
 
 The study of politics is one of the most useful and noble branches of 
 human thought. It comes home to men's hearts and interests in a pecu- 
 liar fashion, affecting the practical questions of business and society. Its 
 subtile ramifications influence all the relations of men from the interior 
 interests of the home circle to the most gigantic public enterprises. Prob- 
 ably no object which thought grapples with demands more intellectual 
 grasp, earnestness and devotion to insure its full and comprehensive under- 
 
1594 THE AMERICAN STATESMA.N. 
 
 standing, so extensive a sweep of detail, so clear an insight into princi- 
 ples. The greatest intellects have here found a congenial field for the 
 exercise of their fullest powers. The names of Burke, Chatham, Thiers, 
 and Webster stand side by side with those of Homer, Dante, Goethe, and 
 Shakespeare a,s exponents of human progress, and intellectual benefactors 
 of the race. History has been aptly termed philosophy teaching by 
 example. If this be so with the more palpable and prominent events, 
 how much more is it the case with the outcome of that vast body of sub 
 tile forces which we call politics. 
 
 It does not need here to dilate in terms of glittering generality on the 
 value of political study to the rising generation df America. In a 
 country like this the nature of our institutions makes every young man 
 a direct factor in government, a nascent politician if not in the larger 
 sense, at least so far as his sympathies are concerned. The village de- 
 bating society has often been the nursery, wherein were shaped the 
 powers and tastes, which after illustrated the splendor of the senate. 
 The American youth can turn his reading in no direction so useful as 
 the political history of his own, and after that of other countries. It is 
 to furnish a substantial and faithful record of the public life of America, 
 that the " American Statesman " has been written, and in- pursuance of 
 this aim presented a digest of facts and events in political life, rather 
 than mere philosophizing and generalization. Deductions have been for 
 the most part left to the mind of the individual reader, except in such 
 cases as the just treatment of the subject appeared to demand. That a 
 mote extended and careful study of political events on the part of the 
 voters of the country vpould purify public life and lift legislative action 
 both in the state and nation to a higher plane of statesmanship is unques- 
 tionable, for the ballot would carry with it a higher sense of responsi- 
 bility and insure the selection of such men as would best dignify the art 
 of self government. The government of the United States, pei'haps more 
 perfect than any other in its form and theory, has yet shown itself to be 
 charged with practical defects and dangers. The cry of excessive cor- 
 ruption has been freely hurled at us by other nations, and there has been 
 grave excuse for the indictment. In no way can the color of truth be so 
 surely removed from the charge, as by educating the people in an accu- 
 rate knowledge of political events ; not that exaggerated phase of opin- 
 ion reflected in the heated " stump " oration, from which so many get 
 their notions of current events, but the calm judgment, which comes of 
 thoughtful reading. With a body of electors, thus trained and warned 
 againt the evils of dernagoguery and mere political partisanship, there 
 would be rational ground for hope that a speedy reform would occur in 
 various directions, that now fret the minds of the thoughtful and patri- 
 otic with foreboding. 
 
A P P E N D II. 
 
 • ■■ » « « 
 
 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 
 
 JUIiY 4tli, 1776. 
 
 A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OB 
 
 AMERICA, IN [ffeneraf] congress assembled.* 
 
 When, in the course of human events, it becomes neces- 
 sary for one people to dissolve the political bands which 
 have connected them with another, and to assume, amon^ 
 the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to 
 which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle then . 
 a decent respect to the opinions of mankind, reijuires cuat 
 they should declare the causes which impel them to the 
 separation. 
 
 We hold these truths to be self-evident : that all men 
 are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Crea- 
 tor with [inherent awf/] unalienable rights; that amonw certain 
 these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that 
 to secure these rights, governments are instituted among 
 men, derivuig their just powers from the consent of the 
 governed; that whenever any form of government becomes 
 destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to 
 alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, lay- 
 ing its foundation on such principles, and organizing its 
 powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to 
 eflFtiCt their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will 
 dictate, that governments long established should not be 
 changed for light and transient causes ;> and accordingly 
 all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed . ■ 
 
 to suifer while evils are suiferable, than to right them- 
 selves, by abolishing the forms to which they are accns- 
 
 * This is a copy of the original draft of Jefferson, as reported to congre.is. The 
 parts struck out by congress are printed in italics, and enclosed in brackets ; 
 and the parts added are placed in the margin, or in a concurrent column. 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 tomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations 
 l^begun at a distinguished period and] pursuing invariably 
 the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under 
 absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to 
 throw off such government, and to provide new guards for 
 their future security. Such has been the patient suffer- 
 ance of these colonies : and such is now the necessity 
 alter which constrains them to [^expunge] their former systems 
 of government. The history of the present king of Great 
 repeated Britaiu, is a history of [unremitting] injuries and usurpa- 
 all having tions, [among which appears no solitary fact to contradict 
 the uniform tenor of the rest, but all have] in direct object 
 the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. 
 To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, 
 [for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied 
 hy falsehood.] 
 
 He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome, 
 and necessary for the public good. 
 
 He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immedi- 
 ate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their 
 operation, till his assent should be obtained; and when so 
 suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. 
 
 He has refused to pass other laws for the accommoda- 
 tion of large districts of people, unless those people 
 would relinquish the right of representation in the legis- 
 lature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to 
 tyrants only. 
 
 He has called together legislative bodies at places unu~ 
 sual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of 
 their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them 
 into compliance with his measures. 
 
 He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly [and 
 continually] for rpposing, with manly firmness, his inva- 
 sions on the rights of the people. 
 
 He has refused, for a long time after such dissolutions, 
 to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative 
 powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the 
 people at large for their exercise, the state remaining, in 
 the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasion from 
 without, and convulsions v.'ithin. 
 
 He has endeavored to prevent the population of these 
 states ; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturali- 
 zation of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage 
 their migration hither, and raising the conditions of neA7 
 appropriations of lands, 
 obstrtioted He has [sufferedT] the administration of justice, [totally 
 by to cease in some of these statesl^ refusing his assent to laws 
 
 for establishing judiciary powers. 
 
 He has made [otir] judges dependent on his will alone 
 for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and pay- 
 ment of their salaries. 
 
APPENDIX. 8 
 
 He has erected a multitude of new offices, [bi/ a, self- 
 assumed power^ and sent hither swarms of new officers, to 
 harass our people, and eat out their substance. 
 
 He has kept among us in times of peace, standing armies 
 latid ships of war'] without the consent of our legislatures. 
 
 He has affected to render the military independent of, 
 and superior to, the civil power. 
 
 He has combined with others, to subject us to a jurisdic- 
 tion foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by 
 our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended 
 legislation, for quartering large bodies of armed troops 
 among us ; for protecting them by a mock trial from pun- 
 ishment for any murders which they should commit on 
 the inhabitants of these states ; for cutting off our trade 
 with all parts of the world ; for imposing taxes on us with- 
 out our consent ; for depriving us [ ^ of the benefits of in many cases 
 trial by jury ; for transporting us beyond seas, to be tried 
 for pretended offenses ; for abolishing the free system of 
 English laws, in a neighboring province ; establishing 
 therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging Hs boun- 
 daries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instru- 
 ment for introducing the same absolute rule into these 
 [states ;] for taking away our charters, abolishing our most colonies 
 valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our 
 governments ; for suspending our own legislatures, and 
 declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for 
 us, in all cases whatsoever. 
 
 He has abdicated government here, [withdrawing his by declaring 
 governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and us out of his 
 protection.] protection. 
 
 He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt and waging 
 our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. war against 
 
 He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign us 
 mercenaries, to complete the works of death, desolation, 
 and tyrrany, already begun with circumstances of cruelty 
 and perfidy, [ ] unworthy the head of a civilized nation, scarcely pa- 
 He has constrained our fellow-citizens taken captive on ralleled in the 
 the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to be- most barbar- 
 come the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to ous ages, and 
 fall themselves by their hands. totally 
 
 He has [ ] endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of excited do- 
 our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known mestic insur- 
 rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all rections ar 
 ages, sexes, and conditions [of existence.] mong us, and 
 
 [He has incited treaso7iable insurrections of our fellow- has 
 citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture, and confisca- 
 tion of our prop&'ty. 
 
 He has waged cruel war against human nature itself 
 violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the 
 persons of a distant people, who never offended him, cap- 
 tivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemis- 
 
ik THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 pJiere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation 
 thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel 
 powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Ch-eat. 
 BritoAn. Determined to keep opr.n a market, where men 
 shotdd be bought a ad s''ld, h i has prorcitutid ys nefativ". 
 fo" suppress tng every legviatii e attempt to prohibit or co 
 restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assem- 
 blage of horrors might toant no fact of distinguished die, 
 he is now exciting those very peojile to rise in a?-ms 
 among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has 
 deprived them, by murdering the people on ichom he also 
 obtruded them : thus paying off former crimes ncmmitted 
 against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he 
 urges them to commit against the lives of another. '\ 
 
 In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned 
 for redress, in the most humble terms ; our repeated peti- 
 tions have been answered only by repeated injuries. 
 A prince whose character is thus marked by every act 
 free which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a [ ] 
 
 people, \wlio mean to be free. Future ages will scarcely 
 believe, that the hardiness of one man adventured, within 
 the short cctnpass of twelve years only, to lay a founda- 
 tion so broad and so undisguised for tyranny, over a 
 people fostered and fixed in prrinciples of freedom.^ 
 
 Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British 
 brethren. We have warned them from time to time of 
 an un warrant- attempts by their legislature, to extend [a] jurisdiction 
 able over \these our states.] We have reminded them of the 
 
 us circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. 
 
 [no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension : 
 that these were effected at the expense of our own blood ana 
 treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great 
 Britain : that in constituting indeed our several forms of 
 government, we had adopted one common king, thereby 
 laying a foundation for perpetual league and amity with 
 them, but that submissioji to their parliament, was no 
 part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may 
 have be credited, and] we [ ] appealed to their native justice and 
 and we have magnanimity, \as well as to] the ties of our common kin- 
 conjured dred to disavow these usurpations which [were likely to] in- 
 them by terrupt our connection and correspondence. They too have 
 would inevi- been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, 
 tably [and when occasions have been given them, by the regular 
 course of their laws, of removing from their councils the 
 disturbers of our har^nony, they have by their free election 
 reesiablishedthem in power. At this very time, too, they 
 are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only 
 soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mer- 
 cenaries, to invade o.nd destroy us. These facts have given 
 the last stab to agonizing affection, and nianly spirit bids 
 us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 endeavor toforget aur former love for them, and hold tkem 
 
 as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in toar, in peace 
 friends. We might have been a free and a great people 
 together • hut a commicnicatioii of granaeur and of free- 
 dom, it seems, is below their dignity. Be it so, since they 
 will have it. The road to happiness and to glory is open We mast 
 to us too. We will tread it apart from them, and] acqui- therefore 
 esce in the necessity which denounces our [eternal] sepa- 
 ration [ ]1 and hold them 
 
 as we hold the 
 rest of man- 
 kind, enemies 
 in war, in 
 peace friends. 
 
 "We therefore, the representatives 
 of the United States of America, in 
 general congress assembled, appeal- 
 ing to the Supreme Judge of the 
 world for the rectitude of our inten- 
 tions, do in the name, and by the 
 authority of the good people of these 
 colonies, solemnly publish and de- 
 clare, that these united colonies are, 
 and of right ought to be, free and 
 independent states ; that they are 
 absolved 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 dissolved ; and that, 
 as free and independent states, they 
 have full power to levy war, con- 
 clude peace, contract alliances, es- 
 tablish commerce, and to do all 
 other acts and things, which inde- 
 pendent states may of right do. 
 
 And for the support of this decla- 
 tion, with a firm reliance on the 
 protection of Divine Providence, we 
 mutually pledge to each other our 
 lives, our fortunes, and our sacred 
 honor. 
 The foregoing declaration was, by order of congress, engrossed and 
 signed by the following members : 
 
 JOHN HANCOCK. 
 
 IVeio Hampshire. — Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew 
 Thornton. 
 
 Massachn setts Bay — Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat 
 Paine, Elbridge Gerry. 
 
 Rhode Island. — Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery. 
 
 We therefore, the representatives 
 of the United States of America, in 
 general congress assembled, do in 
 the name, and by the authority of 
 the good people of these [states re- 
 ject and renounce all allegiance 
 and subjection to the kings of Great 
 Britain, and all others, who may 
 hereafter claim by, through, or un- 
 der them ; we utterly dissolve all 
 political connection which may here- 
 tofore have subsisted between lis and 
 the people or parliament of Grreat 
 Britain ; and finally toe do assert 
 and declare these colonies to he free 
 and independent states] and that, as 
 free and independent states, they 
 have full power to levy war, con- 
 clude peace, contract alliances, es- 
 tablish commerce, and to do all 
 other acts and things which inde- 
 pendent states may of right do. 
 And for the support of this declara- 
 tion, we mutually pledge to each 
 other our lives, our fortunes, and our 
 sacred honor. 
 
S THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 M^Z ^'°'*-^"«- ^?%d, PMip Livingston, Franeia Lewi,, Lewi, 
 
 kinfn%''r^,flt1,al'°^t™'"'°'° ^'"-P^. ^-™ Hop. 
 
 JoS:S:te»g^t;L^72e!\"^-tV^-^. Benjamin FraoHio, 
 son, Goorge Eos,. ^ ■>^°"''' •^"""^^ »»"">. Ge«ge Taylor, James Wil- 
 
 Carroll, of Carrollto," '"' ^'"'™ P^"'- Ttomas Stone, Charles 
 
 Be^rSn"'S-tS^:^\^'f "^^^^^^^^^ I.ee.. Thon,as Jeffersoo, 
 
 Braxton. . ^>eison, Jr., Francis Ligbtfoot Lee, Carter 
 
 iVb/^A Carolina. — William TT^^ t , ^ 
 
 I'J^ch, Jr., Arthur MTddlton ^'' ^^°"'' ^^-^^^^^^ J^" Thoma. 
 
 C?-.^-..~Button Gwinnett, Ly.an Hall, George Walton. 
 
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. 
 
 TO ALL TO "WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, WE, THE TTNDERSIGNED 
 DELEGATES OF THE STATES AFFIXED TO OUR NAMES, SEND GREETING. 
 
 Whereas, the delegates of the United States of America in congress 
 assembled did, on the fifteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord 
 one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven, and in the second year 
 of the independence of America, agree to certain articles of confedera- 
 tion and perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massa- 
 chusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, 
 New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 
 North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in the words following, 
 viz: 
 
 Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of 
 New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence 
 Plantations, Connecticut, Neiv YojJc, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
 and Gewgia. 
 
 Article 1. The style of this confederacy shall be, "the United 
 States of America." 
 
 Art. 2. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, 
 and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confede- 
 ration expressly delegated to the United States in congress assembled. 
 
 Art. 3. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of 
 friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their 
 liberties, and their mutual and general welfare ; binding themselves to 
 assist each other against all force oflPered to, or attacks made upon them, 
 or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other 
 pretence whatever. 
 
 Art. 4. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship, and 
 intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the 
 free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds, and fugi- 
 tives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immu- 
 nities of free citizens in the several states ; and the people of each state 
 shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall 
 enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the 
 same duties, impositions, and restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof 
 respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as 
 Ho prevent the removal of property imported into any state to any other 
 Bjiate, of which the owner is an inhabitant ; provided also, that no impo- 
 sition, duties, or restriction, shall be laid oy any state on the property 
 of the United States or either of them. 
 
 If any person guilty of or charged with treason, felony, or other high 
 rai&demeanor, in any state, shall flee from justice, and be found in any 
 
8 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the governor or execti- 
 tive power of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and removed 
 to the state having jurisdiction of his offense. 
 
 Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the 
 records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of 
 every other state. 
 
 Art. 5. For the more convenient management of the general interests 
 of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such man- 
 ner as the legislature of each state shall direct to meet in congress on 
 the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to 
 each state to recall its delegates or any of them, at any time within the 
 year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. 
 
 No state shall be represented in congress by less than two, nor by 
 more than seven members ; and no person shall be capable of being a 
 delegate for more than three years in any term of six years ; nor shall 
 any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the 
 United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any 
 salary, fees, or emoluments of any kind. 
 
 Each state shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, 
 and while they act as members of the committee of the states. 
 
 In determining questions in the United States in congress assembled, 
 each state shall have one vote. 
 
 Freedom of speech and debate in congress shall not be impeached or 
 questioned in any court or place out of congress ; and the members of 
 congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprison- 
 ments, during the time of their going to and from and attendance on 
 congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. 
 
 Art. 6. No state without the consent of the United States in con- 
 gress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy 
 from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance, or treaty, with 
 any king, prince or state ; nor shall any person holding any office of profit 
 or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept of any present, 
 emolument, office or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, 
 or foreign state ; nor shall the United States in congress assembled, or 
 any of them, grant any title of nobility. 
 
 No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or 
 alliance whatever, between them, without the consent of the United States 
 in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the 
 same is "to be entered into and how long it shall continue. 
 
 No state shall lay any imposts or duties which may interfere with 
 any stipulations in treaties entered into by the United States in con- 
 gress assembled, with any king, price, or state, in pursuance of any trea- 
 ties already proposed by congress to the courts of France and Spain. 
 
 No vessed-of-war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except 
 such number only as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in 
 congress assembled for the defense of such state or its trade ; nor shall 
 any body of forces be kept up by any state in time of peace, except sudi 
 number only as in the judgment of the United States in congress assem- 
 bled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the 
 defense of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well-regu- 
 lated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall 
 
APPENDIX. 9 
 
 provide and have constantly ready for use, in public stores, a due num- 
 ber of field-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammuni- 
 tion and camp equipage. 
 
 No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the United 
 States in congress assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by 
 enemies or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed 
 by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so 
 imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in congress 
 assembled c<iu be consulted ; nor shall any state grant commissions to any 
 ships or vessels-of-war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be 
 after a declaration of war by the United States in congress assembled, 
 and then only against the kingdom or state, and the subjects thereof, 
 against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as 
 shall be established by the United States in congress assembled, unless 
 such state be infested by pirates, in which case vessels-ofwar may be 
 fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, 
 or until the United States in congress assembled shall determine otherwise. 
 
 Art. 7. When land forces are raised by any state for the common 
 defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed 
 by the legislature of each state respectively, by whom such forces shall 
 be raised, or in such manner as such state shall direct, and all vacancies 
 shall be filled up by the state which first made the appointment. 
 
 Art. 8. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be 
 incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the 
 United States in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common 
 treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states tn proportion to 
 the value of all land within each state granted to or surveyed for any 
 person, as such laud and the buildings and improvements thereon shall 
 be estimated according to such mode as the United States in congress 
 assembled shall from time to time direct and appoint. 
 
 The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the 
 authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states, within 
 the time agreed upon by the United States in congress assembled. 
 
 Art. 9. The United States in congress assembled shall have the sole 
 and exclusive right and power of determining on peace or war, except 
 in the cases mentioned in the sixth article- -of sending and receiving 
 ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances ; provided, that no 
 treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the 
 respective states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and 
 duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from pro- 
 hibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or com- 
 modities whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, 
 what captures on laud or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes 
 taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall 
 be divided or appropriated*-of granting letters of marque and reprisal 
 in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felo- 
 nies committed on the high seas, and establishing courts for receiving 
 and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures : provided, that 
 no member of congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said 
 courts. 
 
 The United States in congress assembled shall also be the last resort 
 
10 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN, 
 
 on appeal in all disputes and diflferences now subsisting or that hereafteT 
 may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, 
 or any other cause whatever ; which authority shall always be exercised 
 in the manner following : whenever the legislative or executive authority 
 or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another shall present a 
 petition to congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a 
 hearing, notice thereof shall be given bj' order of congress to the legis- 
 lative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day 
 assigned for the appearance of the parties, by their lawful agents, who 
 shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent commissioners or 
 judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in 
 question ; but if tliey can not agree, congress shall name three person" 
 out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each 
 party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning until the 
 number shall be reduced to thirteen ; and from that number not less 
 than seven nor more than nine names, as congress shall direct shall, in 
 the presence of congress, be drawn out by lot ; and the persons whose 
 names shall be so drawn, or any five of tbem, shall be commissioners or 
 judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a 
 major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the 
 determination: and- if either party shall neglect to attend at the day 
 appointed, without showing reasons which congress shall judge sufficient, 
 or being present shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to 
 nominate three persons out of each state, and the secretary of congress 
 shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judg- 
 ment and sentence of the court to be appointed in the manner before 
 prescribed, shall be final and conclusive ; and if any of the parties shall 
 refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear, or defend 
 the claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce 
 sentence or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, 
 the judgment or sentence and other proceedings, being in either case 
 transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress for the 
 security of the parties concerned : provided, that every commissioner, 
 before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath, to be administered by one 
 of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the state, where the 
 cause shall be tried, " wcil and truly to hear and determine the matter 
 in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favor, affec- 
 tion, or hope of reward :" provided also, that no state shall be deprived 
 of territory for the benefit of the United States. 
 
 All controversies concerning the private right of soil, claimed under 
 different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdiction as they 
 may respect such lands and the states which passed such grants are 
 adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time 
 claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, 
 shall, on the petition of either party to tl^e congress of the United 
 States, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner aa 
 is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdic- 
 tion between different states. 
 
 The United States in congress assembled shall also have the sole and 
 exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coia 
 struck b}' their own authority, or by that of the respective states — 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 11 
 
 fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the United 
 States — regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians 
 not members of any of the states ; provided that the legislative right 
 of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated — estab- 
 lishing and regulating postoffices from one state to another throughout 
 all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing 
 through the same, as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said 
 office — appointing all officers of the land forces in the service of the 
 United States excepting regimental officers — appointing all the officers 
 of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the ser- 
 vice of the United States — making rules for the government and regu- 
 lation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations. 
 
 The United States in congress assembled shall have authority to 
 appoint a committee to sit iu the recess of congress, to be denominated 
 " a committee of the states," and to consist of one delegate from each 
 state ; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may 
 be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States, under 
 their direction — to appoint one of their number to preside, provided that 
 no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one 
 year in any term of three years — to ascertain the necessary sums of 
 money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appro- 
 priate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses — to borrow 
 money or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting 
 every half year to the respective states an account of the sums of money 
 so borrowed or emitted — to build and equip a navy — to agree upon the 
 Dumber of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its 
 quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state ; 
 which refjuisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each 
 state shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, 
 arm, and equip them, in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the 
 United States ; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equip- 
 ped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on 
 by the United States in congress assembled : but if the United States 
 in congress assembled, shall, on consideration of circumstances, judge 
 proper that any state should not raise men or should raise a smaller 
 number than its quota, and that any other state should raise a greater 
 number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be 
 raised, officered, clothed, armed, and equipped, in the same manner as 
 the quota of such state, unless the legislature of such state shall judge 
 that such extra number can not safely be spared out of the same; in 
 which case they shall raise, officer, clothe, arm, and equip, as many of 
 such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers 
 and men so clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place 
 appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in con- 
 gress assembled. 
 
 The United States in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, 
 nor grant letters of manque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into 
 any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, 
 nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and wel- 
 fare of the United States or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow 
 money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor 
 
I'a' THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 agree upon the number of vessels-of-war to be built or purchased, or tbc 
 number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander-in- 
 chief of the army or uav}^ unless nine states assent to the same; nor 
 shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day tc 
 day, be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the United 
 States in congress assembled. 
 
 The congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any 
 time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that 
 no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than fhe space of six 
 mouths; and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, 
 except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military ope- 
 rations, as in their judgment require secresy; and the yeas and nays of 
 the delegates of each state on any question shall be entered on the jour- 
 nal, when it is desired by any delegate ; and the delegates of a state, or 
 any of them, at his or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript 
 of the said journal, except such parts aa are above excepted, to lay 
 before the legislatures of the several states. 
 
 Art. 10. The coiAmittee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be 
 authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of 
 congress as the United States in congress assembled, by the consent of 
 nine states, shall from time to time, think expedient to vest them with; 
 provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exer- 
 cise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states 
 in the congress of the United States assembled is requisite. 
 
 Art. 11. Canada, acceding to this confederation, and joining in the 
 measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to, 
 all the advantages of this Union ; but no other colony shall be admitted 
 into the same unless such admission be agreed to by nine states. 
 
 Art. 12. All bills of credit emitted, moneys borrowed, and debts 
 contracted, by or under the authority of congress, before the assembling 
 of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall 
 be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, foi 
 payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States and the public 
 faith are hereby solemnly pledged. 
 
 Art. 1 3. Every state shall abide by the decision of the United States 
 in congress assembled, on all questions which, by this confederation, are 
 submitted to them. And the articles of this confederation shall be inviola- 
 bly observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall 
 any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless 
 such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the United States, and he 
 afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every state. 
 
 And whereas it has pleased the great Governor of the world to incline 
 the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to 
 approve of and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confedera- 
 tion aiid perpetual union : know ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, 
 by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, 
 by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective cons^titu- 
 ents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said 
 articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the 
 matters and things therein contained; and we do further solenily pl'gl:t 
 and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide 
 
APPENDIX. 13 
 
 by the determinations of the United States in congress assembled, on all 
 questions which, by the said confederation, are submitted to them ; and 
 that the articles thereof snail be inviolably observed by the states we 
 respectively represent; and that the union be perpetual. 
 
 In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in congress. 
 Done at Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, the ninth day of 
 July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy- 
 eight, and in the third year of the independence of America. 
 
 New Hampshire. — Josiah Bartlett, John Wentworth, Jr. 
 
 Massachusetts Bay. — John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Ger- 
 ry, Francis Dana, James Lovell, Samuel Holten. 
 
 R/wde Island. — William EUery, Henry Marchant, John Collins. 
 
 Connecticut. — Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, Oliver Wolcott, 
 Titus Hosmer, Andrew Adams. 
 
 New York. — James Duane, Francis Lewis, William Duer, Grouver- 
 neur Morris. 
 
 New Jersey. — John Witherspoon, Nath. Scudder. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Robert Morris, Daniel Roberdeau, Jonathan Bayard 
 Smith, William Clingan, Joseph Reed. 
 
 Delaware. — Thomas M'Kean, John Dickinson, Nicholas Van Dyke. 
 
 Maryland. — John Hanson, Daniel Carroll. 
 
 Virginia. — Richard Henry Lee, John Banister, Thomas Adams, 
 John Harvie, Francis Lightfoot Lee. 
 
 North Carolina. — John Penn, Constable Harnett, John Williams. 
 
 South Carolina. — Henry Laurens, William Henry Drayton, John 
 Matthews, Richard Hudson, Thomas Heyward, Jr. 
 
 Georgia. — John Walton, Edward Telfair, Edward Langworthy. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect 
 union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the com- 
 mon defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of 
 liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Con- 
 stitution for the United States of America. 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
 congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house 
 of representatives. 
 
 Sec. 2. The house of representatives shall be composed of members 
 chosen every second year, by the people of the several states ; and the 
 electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of 
 the most numerous branch of the state legislature. 
 
 No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the 
 age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United 
 States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in 
 which he shall be chosen. 
 
 Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the sev- 
 eral states which may be included within this union, according to their 
 respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole 
 number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of 
 years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. 
 The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first 
 meeting of the congress of the United States, and within every subsequent 
 term of ten years, in sucli manner as they shall by law direct. The num- 
 ber of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but- 
 each state shall have at least one representative; and until such enumer- 
 ation shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to 
 choose th?-ee ; Massachusetts, eiirA^; ,• Rhode Island and Providence Plan- 
 tations, one; Connecticut, yzve; New York, six; New Jersey, four , 
 Pennsylvania, eight ; Delaware, one ; Maryland, six ; Virginia, ten , 
 North Carolina, Jive ; South Carolina, Jive ; and Georgia, three. 
 
 When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the 
 executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such 
 vacancies. 
 
 The house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other 
 officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment. 
 
 Sec. 3. The senate of the United States shall be composed of two 
 eenators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years* 
 and each senator shall have one vote. 
 
APPENDIX. 15 
 
 Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first 
 election, they shall be divided as equally as may be, into three classes. 
 The seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expira- 
 tion of the second year ; of the second class at the expiration of the 
 fourth year ; and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year ; 
 80 that one-third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies Uap- 
 pon, by resignation or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of 
 any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments, until 
 the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. 
 
 No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age 
 of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and 
 who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he 
 shall be chosen. 
 
 The vice-president of the United States shall be president of the 
 senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. 
 
 The senate shall choose their other officers, and also a president pro 
 tempore, in the absence of the vice-president, or when he shall exercise 
 the office of president of the United States. 
 
 The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments ; when 
 Bitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath of affirmation. When the 
 president of the United States is tried, the chief-justice shall preside ; 
 and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds 
 of the members present. 
 
 Judgment, in cases of impeachment, shall not extend further than to 
 removal from office, and dist^ualifieation to hold and enjoy any office of 
 honor, trust, or profit, under the United States; but the party convicted 
 shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, 
 and punishment, according to law. 
 
 Sec. 4. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for sena- 
 tors and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legisla- 
 ture thereof ; but the congress may at any time, by law, make or alter 
 such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators. 
 
 The congress shall assemble at least once in every year ; and such 
 meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by 
 law appoint a different day. 
 
 Sec. 5. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and 
 qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall consti- 
 tute a quorum to do business ; but a smaller number may adjourn from 
 day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent 
 members, in such manner and under such penalties, as each house may 
 provide. 
 
 Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its 
 members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two- 
 thirds, expel a member. 
 
 Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to 
 time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, 
 require secrecy ; and the yeas and nays of the members of either house, 
 on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be 
 entered on the journaL 
 
 Neither house, during the session of congress, shall, without the con- 
 pent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other 
 place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting. 
 
16 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Sec. 6 The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation 
 for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury 
 of the United States. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, 
 and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attend- 
 ance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and return- 
 ing from the same ; and for any speech or debate in either house, they 
 shall not be questioned in any other place. 
 
 No senator or representative shall, during the time for •which he was 
 elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United 
 States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall 
 have been increased, during such time ; and no person holding any office 
 under the United States, shall be a member of eiiher house during his 
 contiuuauce in office. 
 
 Sec. 7 All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of 
 representatives ; but the senate may propose, or concur with, amend- 
 ments, as on other bills. 
 
 Every bill which shall have passed the house of representatives and 
 the senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of 
 the United States ; if he approve, he shall sign it ; but if not, he shall 
 return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have origi- 
 nated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and pro- 
 ceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that 
 house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the 
 objections, to the other hotiae, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, 
 and, if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. 
 But, in all such cases, the votes of both houses shall be determined by 
 yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the 
 bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any 
 bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays 
 excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a 
 law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the congress, by their 
 adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. 
 
 Every order, resolution or vote, to which the concurrence of the sen- 
 ate and house of representatives may be necessary, (except on a question 
 of adjournment,) shall be presented to the president of the United States, 
 and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being 
 disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the senate and 
 house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed 
 in the case of a bill. 
 
 Sec. 8. The congress shall have power : 
 
 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts 
 and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United 
 States ; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout 
 the United States : 
 
 To borrow money on the credit of the United States : 
 
 To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several 
 states, and with the Indian tribes : 
 
 To oatablish a uniform rate of naturalization, and uniform laws on the 
 subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States : 
 
 To eoin money ; to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin ; 
 and Ax the standard of weights and measures : 
 
APPENDIX. IT 
 
 To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and 
 current coin of the United States : 
 
 To establish post offices and post roads : 
 
 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for 
 limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to thoir 
 respective writings and discoveries : 
 
 To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court : 
 
 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, 
 and offenses against the law of nations : 
 
 To declare war ; grant letters of marque and reprisal ; and make 
 rules concerning captures on land and water : 
 
 To raise and support armies ; but no appropriation of money to that 
 use shall be for a longer term than two years : 
 
 To provide and maintain a navy : 
 
 To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and 
 naval forces : 
 
 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the 
 union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions : 
 
 To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and 
 for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of 
 the United States; reserving to the states respectively, 'the appointment 
 of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the 
 discipline prescribed by congress : 
 
 To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such 
 district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular 
 states, and the acceptance of congi-ess, become the seat of the government 
 of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places pur- 
 chased by the consent of the legislature of the state in whicli the same 
 shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and 
 other needful buildings : And, 
 
 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 government of the United States, or in any depart- 
 ment or officer thereof. 
 
 Sec. 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the 
 states now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited 
 by the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight ; 
 but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding 
 ten dollars for such person : 
 
 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended 
 unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may 
 require it. 
 
 No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. 
 
 No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to 
 the census or enumeratton, herein before directed to be taken. 
 
 No tax or duty shall, be laid on articles exported from any state. 
 No preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or rev- 
 enue, to the ports of one state, over those of another ; nor shall vessels 
 bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in 
 another. 
 
 No money shall be drawa from the treasury, but in consequence of 
 
18 
 
 THE AMERICAN STATESMAIT, 
 
 time to time, f'™""""' "' '^^ P'-Wio money shall be publisliea from 
 
 perlVh'wCrof i'LS'if:"'"\^^ J^ U-W States; and no 
 consent of the^ongrefs acceS of an> n ""f" ","" "''='"■ "'"'»"' ">« 
 
 sv prranTi^?rofa?£3'i ™r -^'" -- - 
 
 Bary for executing its inspeetL?iaws "^L^ tl, "? '"' "''^■'''"o'y neeea- 
 and imposts laid by any state oV.nTl' f """ P'""*""'' "f aH duties 
 
 of the treasury ofYhe lofted s. J" 7'" '''"-"'! ''''" ^^ ^'" "" "'" 
 to the revision'and control of t etoLLs No" tit"??f " '? '"''''" 
 consent of congress, lav anv d„t\r „f?„ , "'^ ^''a"> without the 
 
 war in time ofleaee eifter fnto aU „ '™°''S<=: '«'<=P "-oops or ships of 
 Btate, or with aVreL power or eL^''"'"™ "" f"'?""' "■"■ auo'W 
 or in such imminentln^rls ^rfSIdmirjf dd^ '°'"""^ »™^«'' 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 untdTates o'n'::tT.Zit^i\''r 'V p'«^-' °f «■« 
 
 four years, and toirether with ttl • ™ "^oe during the term of 
 
 term, be ekcted as follows ™<'-pre«.<ient, chosen for the same 
 
 -y t:t': ntn:L:Ts:;rt„,rto° rt-hr '^^i^'"'"' '■^--f 
 w?n?rrre:Stfr^^^^^^^^^ 
 ^th?£oSsh"i=^^^^^^^^^^^ '™' " 
 
 for twoTer s, rf'lhZ „:: a iLTTm" f f^' ""^ ™'<= ^^ Fallot 
 same state with themseres And tl,",,""' ?' '"'. '"'■abitant of the 
 sons voted for and of the t-b ',^"''^11 '°ake a list of all the per- 
 sign and cerSyand ransSt, 1 T^^ '^ ""''''■ "''"'='" "«' '1«J shall 
 United States direotld to ,1 'e „ "j t "/'f "^ ""^ government of the 
 of the senate'hJl iulhep senrof u'l''r™ff- ^'^ f^'"™' 
 tatives,open all the certiEra„°d tt " ^ sWlt 1 "'"T."- 
 Ibe person Lav no- the frrpaf^af ,i„.„k /"'^^ suau tlaen be counted. 
 
 if such number be\ maforTtvof thTl^ ""T t^^^ ^' *^« P^^«id«°t, 
 and if there be moreThan one who ^^^^^ T""^'' «^ '^^^^^ors appointed 
 number of voterthen the house of'' "'^ T^'"^^' '^^ ^^^^^» ^^1^^ 
 choose by ballot one of thtTfor 'p Ef ^^^ .^^^ ^^-^'f ^ 
 a majority, then, from the five hio-hest on the 1-'^ tl ''•'. f ''"" '^"^" 
 m like manner, choose the president ^, f • ' '^"^, ^'^^'^ ''^^"' 
 
 "aw:r:uett^:^;;^HS^^~ 
 
 or members from .l-Sl^/t ^l^l^^,-:^ ff 1:^^ 
 
APPENDIX. 19 
 
 shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of tho 
 president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors, 
 shall be the vice-president. But if there should remain two or more 
 who have equal votes, the senate shall choose from them, by ballot, the 
 vice-president. 
 
 [By the 12th article of amendment, the above clause has been 
 repealed.] 
 
 The congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the 
 day on which they shall give their votes, which day shall be the same 
 throughout the United States. 
 
 No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United 
 States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible 
 to the office of president ; neither shall any person be eligible to that 
 office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been 
 fourteen years a resident within the United States. 
 
 In case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death, 
 resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said 
 office, the same shall devolve on the vice-president, and the congress may, 
 by law, provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, 
 both of the president and vice-president, declaring what officer shall then 
 act as president; and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disabil- 
 ity be removed, or a president shall be elected. 
 
 The president shall, at stated times, receive for his services a com- 
 pensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the 
 period for which he shall have been elected ; and he shall not receive, 
 within that period, any other emolument from the United States, or any 
 of them. 
 
 Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the follow- 
 ing oath or affirmation : 
 
 " I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the 
 otfice of President of the United States ; and will, to the best of my 
 ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United 
 States." 
 
 Sec. 2. The president shall be commander-in-chief of the army and 
 navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when 
 called into the actual service of the United States ; he may require the 
 opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executi-ye depart- 
 ments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices ; 
 and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons foT offenses 
 against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. 
 
 He shall have power by, and with the advice and consent of the sen- 
 ate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur : 
 and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the 
 senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, 
 judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, 
 whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which 
 shall be established by law : but the congress may, by law, vest the 
 appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the presi- 
 dent alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. 
 
 The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may hap- 
 pen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall 
 expire at tho end of their next session. 
 
20 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 Sec. 3. He 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. He may, on 
 extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them ; and, in 
 case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjourn- 
 ment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper. He 
 shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers. He shall take 
 care that the laws be faithfully executed ; and shall commission all the 
 ofl&cers of the United States. 
 
 Sec. 4. The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the 
 United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and 
 conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 Section 1. 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 establish. The judges both of the supreme 
 and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior ; and 
 shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which 
 shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. 
 
 Sec. 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, 
 arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties 
 made, or which shall be made, under their authority ; to all cases affect- 
 ing ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls ; to all cases of 
 admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the 
 United States shall be a party, to controversies between two or more 
 states ; between a state and citizens of another state ; between citizens 
 of different states ; between citizens of the same state claiming lands 
 under grants of different states ; and between a state, or the citizens 
 thereof; and foreign states, citizens or subjects. 
 
 In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, 
 and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have 
 original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme 
 court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with 
 such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make. 
 
 The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by 
 jury ; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes 
 shall have been committed ; but when not committed within any state, 
 the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law 
 have directed 
 
 Sec. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levy- 
 ing war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid 
 and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the 
 testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open 
 court. 
 
 The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason ■ 
 but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeituro, 
 oaoept during the life of the person attainted. 
 
APPENDIX. 21 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 Section 1 . Full faith and credit shall be given, in each state, to the 
 public acts, records, and jirtlicial proceedings of every other state. And 
 the congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such 
 acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. 
 
 Sec. 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privi- 
 leges and immunities of citizens in the several states. 
 
 A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, 
 who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand 
 of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered 
 up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. 
 
 No person 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 from such service or labor ; but shall be delivered 
 up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. 
 
 Sec. 3. New states may be admitted by the congress into this union ; 
 but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any 
 other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more 
 states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the 
 states concerned, as well as of the congress. n j • i 
 
 The congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needtul 
 rules aud regulations respecting the territory or other property belong- 
 ing to the United States ; and nothing in this constitution shall bo- so 
 construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any 
 particular state. • i- 
 
 Sec. 4. The United States shall guaranty to every state in this union, 
 a republican form of government ; and shall protect each of them against 
 invasion, and on application of the legislature, or ofthe executive (when 
 the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. 
 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 The congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it neces- 
 sary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the applica- 
 tion of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shaJ call a 
 convention for proposing amendments ; which, in either case, shall be 
 valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when rati- 
 fied by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by con- 
 ventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratifi- 
 cation may be proposed by the congress : Provided, that no amendment 
 which may be made prior to the vear one thousand eight hundred and 
 eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth 
 section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall 
 be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate. 
 
 ARTICLE VL 
 
 All debts contracted, and engagements entered into, before the adop- 
 tion of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under 
 this constitution, as under the confederation. 
 
22 THE AMEPaCAN STATES.UAA\ 
 
 This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be 
 made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be mado 
 under the authority of the United States, sh#ll be the supreme law of 
 the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing 
 in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members 
 of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial oflScers, 
 both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound, by 
 oath or affirmation, to support this constitution ; but no religious test 
 shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under 
 the United States. 
 
 ARTICLE VII. 
 
 The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient 
 for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying 
 the same. 
 
 Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the states present, the 
 seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the 
 United States of America, the twelfth. In witness whereof we have 
 hereunto subscribed our names. 
 
 GEORGE WASHINGTON, 
 President, and Deputy from Virginia. 
 
 New Hampshire. — John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman. 
 
 Massachusetts. — Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King. 
 
 Connecticut. — Wm. Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman. 
 
 Neic York. — Alexander Hamilton. 
 
 New Jersey. — William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, 
 Jonathan Dayton. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, Thomas Fitz- 
 simmons, James Wilson, Thomas Mifflin, George Clymer, Jared Inger- 
 Boll, Gouverneur Morris. 
 
 Delawojre. — George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, 
 Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom. 
 
 Maryland. — James M'Henry, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Daniel 
 Carroll. 
 
 Virginia. — John Blair, James Madison, Jr. 
 
 North Carolina. — William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh 
 Williamson. 
 
 South Carolina. — John Rutledge, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler 
 Charles Cotcsworth Pinckney. 
 
 Georgia. — William Few, Abraham Baldwin. 
 
 Attest: Wii.LxAM Jackson, Secretary. 
 
ArrENDix. 23 
 
 AMENDMENTS. 
 
 Article I. Congress shall make no law respecting an esiablishnient 
 of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the 
 freedom of speech or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to 
 assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 
 
 Art. II. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of 
 a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be 
 infringed. 
 
 Art. III. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any 
 house without the consent of the owner, nor in a time of.war,but in a man- 
 ner to be prescribed by law. 
 
 Art. IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
 houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 
 shall not be violated ; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable 
 cause, supported by oath or aflBrniation, and particularly describing the 
 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 
 
 Art. V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise 
 infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictme'.it of a grand jury, 
 except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when 
 in actual service, in time of war or public danger ; nor shall any person 
 be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or 
 limb, nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against 
 himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due pro- 
 cess of law ; Dor shall private property be taken for public use, without 
 just compensation. 
 
 Art. VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 
 right to a >;peedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and 
 district wlierein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall 
 have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature 
 and cause of the accusation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against 
 him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, 
 and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 
 
 Art. VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy 
 shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, 
 and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court 
 of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. 
 
 Art. VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines 
 imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 
 
 Art. IX. The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall 
 not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 
 
 Art. X. The powers not delegated to the United States, by the con- 
 stitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states 
 respectively, or to the people. 
 
 Art. XL The judicial power of the United States shall not be con- 
 strued to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted 
 against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by 
 citizens or subjects of any foreign state. 
 
 Art. XII. The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote 
 
24 THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 by ballot for president and vice-president, one of whom, at least, shall 
 not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves ; they shall name 
 in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots 
 the person voted for as vice-president, and they shall make distinct lists 
 of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as 
 vice-president, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall 
 sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of 
 the United States, directed to the president of the senate ; — the president 
 of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of represen- 
 tatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted ;— 
 the person having the greatest number of votes for president, shall be 
 the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of 
 electors appointed* and if no person have such majority, then, from the 
 persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of 
 those voted for as president, the house of representation shall choose 
 immediately, by ballot, the president. But in choosing the president, 
 the votes shall be taken by states, the representatives fi*om each state 
 having one vote ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member 
 or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the 
 states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the house of representa- 
 tives shall not choose a president whenever the right of choice shall 
 devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then 
 the vice-president shall act as president, as in the case of the death or other 
 constitutional disability of the president. The person having the greatest 
 number of votes as vice-president, shall be the vice-president, if such 
 number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and 
 if no person have a majority, then, from the two highest numbers on the 
 list, the senate shall choose the vice-president ; a quorum for the pui*- 
 pose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of senators, and u 
 majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no 
 person constitutionally ineligible to the oflSce of president shall be eligi- 
 gible to that of vice-president of the United States. 
 
 Art. XIII. § 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a 
 punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, 
 shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their juris- 
 diction. 
 
 § 2. Congress shall have power to enftn-ce this article by appropriate 
 legislation. 
 
 Art. XIV. § 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, 
 and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 
 and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce 
 any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of 
 the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, lib- 
 erty, <<r property without due process of law, nor deny to any person 
 within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 
 
 § 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states ac- 
 cording to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of per- 
 sons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to 
 vote at any election for choice of electors for president and vice-presi- 
 dent of the United States, representatives in congress, the executive and 
 judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is 
 
APPiiNbix. 25 
 
 denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one 
 years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, 
 except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of repre- 
 sentation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number 
 of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 
 twenty-one years of age in such state. 
 
 § 3. No person shall be a senator or representative in congress, or 
 elector of president and vice-president, or hold any ofBce, civil or mili- 
 tary, under the United States or under any state, who, having previously 
 taken an oath as a member of congress, or as an officer of the United 
 States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or ju- 
 dicial officer of any state, to support the constitution of the United 
 States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, 
 or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, but congress may, by a 
 vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability, 
 
 § 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States authorized 
 by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties 
 for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be ques- 
 tioned. DSft- neither theUnited States nor any state shall assume or pay 
 any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against 
 the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any 
 slave ; but all such debts, obligations, and claims, shall be held illegal 
 and void. 
 
 § 5. The congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legis- 
 lation, the provisions of this article. 
 
 Art. XV. § 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall 
 not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on ac- 
 count of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 
 
 § 2. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro- 
 priate legislation. 
 
26 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 Note A. — Page 92. 
 
 The following is a statement of the number and amount of the issues 
 of continental money during the revolutionary war, designating each 
 issue, and its amount, as the same appears in the journals of the conti- 
 nental congress. 
 
 WHEN AUTHORIZED. 
 
 1775, June 22 
 
 July 25 
 
 Nov. 29 
 
 1776, Feb. 27 
 
 May 9 and 27 
 
 July 22, and Aug. 13 
 Nov. 2 and Dec. 28. 
 
 1777, Feb. 26 
 
 May 20 
 
 Aug. 15 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 22. 
 16. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Dec. 
 1778, Jan. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Fob. 
 
 March 5. 
 
 April 4 , 
 
 11. 
 
 18. 
 
 1778, May 22. 
 
 June 20. 
 
 ,$2,000,000 
 . 1,000,000 
 , 3,000,000 
 , 4,000,000 
 5,000,000 
 5,000,000 
 , 5,000,000 
 5,000,000 
 . 5,000,000 
 . 1,000,000 
 , 1,000,000 
 . 1,000,000 
 . 1,000,000 
 . 2,000,000 
 . 2,000,000 
 . 2,000,000 
 . 1,000,000 
 . 5,000,000 
 . 5,000,000 
 . 5,000,000 
 . 6,000,000 
 
 WHEN AUTHORIZED. AMOUNT. 
 
 1778, July 30 $5,000,000 
 
 Sept. 5 5,000,000 
 
 26 10,000.000 
 
 Nov. 4 W0,000,000 
 
 Dec. 14 .1*10.000,000 
 
 1779, Feb. 3 5,000,160 
 
 19 6,000,160 
 
 April 1 5,000,160 
 
 May 5 10,000.000 
 
 Jan. 14, and May 7 . . . 60,000,400 
 
 June 4 10,000,100 
 
 July 17 5,000,100 
 
 do 10.000,100 
 
 Sept. 17 5,000,180 
 
 do 10,000,180 
 
 Oct. 14 6,000,180 
 
 Nov. 17 5,000,040 
 
 do 6,050,500 
 
 Nov. 29 10,000,140 
 
 $246,052,400 
 
 Note 'B.—Page 146. 
 
 To readers unacquainted with the rules of proceeding in legislative 
 assemblies, it may be of service to explain the diflference between the 
 forms of deliberation and action in committees of the whole and those 
 observed in the house. While sitting as a committee of the whole, the 
 body is not called the house, or the senate. The members, on motion, 
 resolve themselves, by vote, into a committee of the whole; and the pre- 
 siding officer calls to the chair another member, who is not addressed as 
 speaker or president, but as chairman. Important measures are usually 
 referred to the committee of the whole to be considered and amended 
 before they are disposed of by the house. The one object of instituting 
 euch committee is to afford greater freedom of discussion, as members, 
 in committee speak as often as they please, provided they can obtain the 
 floor. AVhen a bill has been duly considered and amended, the speaker 
 resumes tlie chair, and the chairman of the committee of the whole 
 rej)orts the bill to the house, or to the senate, as the case may be. 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 27 
 
 Note C. — Page 202. 
 
 " Essex Junto" was the name given to certain ultra federalists, op- 
 posed to John Adams, and entertaining, as was alleged, strong par- 
 tialities for England. Among them were the members of the cabinet 
 who were dissatisfied with his mildness towards France. Some of the 
 leading ones resided in Essex county, Massachusetts : Hence the name. 
 
 Note ^.—Page 420. 
 
 During the excitement caused by the passage of the tariff act of 1828, 
 which was so vehemently denounced at the south, as both unconstitu- 
 tional and impolitic^ Mr. Madison addressed to Joseph C. Cabell, Esq., 
 in September and October of that year, two letters in vindication of the 
 protective system ; one on its constitutionality, and the other on ita 
 expediency. Extracts from the&u letters are here given ; 
 
 " The constitution vests in congress, expressly, ' the power to lay and 
 collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;' and * the power to regulate 
 trade.' 
 
 " That the former power, if not particularly expressed, would have 
 been included in the latter as one of the objects of a general power to 
 regulate trade, is not necessarily impugned by its being so expressed. 
 .Tlxamples of this sort can not sometimes be easily avoided, and are to be 
 seen elsewhere in the constitutfon. Thus the power ' to define and pun- 
 ish oftensos against the law of nations,' includes the power, afterwards 
 particularly expi*essed, ' to make rules concerning captures,' &e., from 
 ofiiending neutrals. So also a power ' to coin money' would doubtless 
 include that of ' regulating its value,' had not the latter power been 
 expressly inserted. The term taxes, if standing alone, would certainly 
 have included duties, imposts and excises. In another clause it is said, 
 'no tax or duties shall be laid on exports,' &c. Here, the two terms are 
 used as synonymous. And in another clause, where it is said ' no state 
 shall lay any imposts or duties,' &c., the terms imposts and duties are 
 synonymous. 
 
 " It is a simple question under the constitution of the United States, 
 whether ' the power to regulate trade with foreign nations' as a distinct 
 and substantive item in the enumerated powers, embraces the object of 
 encouraging by duties, restrictions, and prohibitions, the manufactures 
 and products of the country ? And the affirmative must be inferred 
 from the following considerations : 
 
 " 1. The meaning of the phrase ' to regulate trade,' must be sought in 
 the general use of it; in other words, in the objects to which the power 
 was generally understood to be applicable, when the phrase was inserted 
 in the constitution. 
 
 " 2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial and 
 manufacturing nations, as embracing the object of encouraging manufac- 
 tures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named. 
 
 " 3. This had been particularly the case with Great Britain, whose 
 
 commercial vocabulary is the parent of ours. A primary object of her 
 
 commercial regulations is well known to have been the protection and 
 
 uncourairement of her manufactures. 
 
 " 4. Such was understood to be a proper use of the power by the states 
 
28 APPENDIX. 
 
 most prepared for manufacturing industry, whilst retaining the power 
 over their foreign trade. 
 
 " 5. Such a use of the power, by congress, accords with the intention 
 and expectation of the states, in transferring the power over trade from 
 themselves to the government of the United States. This was emphati- 
 cally the case in the eastern, the more manufacturing members of the 
 confederacy. Hear the language held in the convention of Massachusetts. 
 
 " 6. If congress have not the power, it is annihilated for the nation • 
 a policy without example in any other nation. 
 
 " 7. If revenue be the sole object of a legitimate impost, and the 
 encouragement of domestic articles be not within the power of regulating 
 trade, it would follow that no monopolizing or unequal regulations of 
 foreign nations could be counteracted ; that neithei the staple articles of 
 subsistence, nor the essential implements for the public safety, could, 
 under any circumstances, be insured or fostered at home, by regulations 
 of commerce, the usual and most convenient mode of providing for both, 
 and that the American navigation, though the source of naval defense, 
 of a cheapening competition in carrying our valuable and bulky articles 
 to market, and of an independent carriage of them during foreign wars, 
 when a foreign navigation might be withdrawn, must be at once abau- 
 doued, or speedily destroyed ; it being evident that a tonnage duty in 
 foreign ports against our vessels, and an exemption from such a duty in 
 our ports, in favor of foreign vessels, muet have the inevitable efiect of 
 banishing ours from the ocean. 
 
 " To assume a power to protect our navigation, and the cultivaiion 
 and fabrication of all articles requisite for the public safety, as incident 
 to the war power, would be a more latitudinary construction of the text of 
 the constitution, than to consider it as embraced by the specified power to 
 regulate trade; a power which has been exercised by all nations for 
 those purposes, and which effects those purposes with less of interference 
 with the authority and conveniency of the states, than might result froa 
 internal and direct modes of encouraging the articles, any of which modes 
 would be authorized, as far as deemed * necessary and proper,' by con- 
 sidering the power as an incidental power. 
 
 " 8. That the encouragement of manufactures was an object of the 
 power to regulate trade, as proved by the use made of the power for that 
 object, in the first session of the first congress under the constitution ; 
 when among the members present were so many who had been members 
 of the federal convention which framed the constitution, and of the state 
 conventions which ratified it ; each of these classes consisting of mem- 
 bers who had opposed and who had espoused the constitution in its actual 
 form. It does not appear from the printed proceedings of congress on 
 that occasion, that the power was denied by any of them, and it may be 
 remarked, that members from Virginia, in particular, as well of the 
 anti-federal as the federal party, the names then distinguishing those 
 who had opposed and those who had approved the constitution, did not 
 hesitate to propose duties, and suggest prohibitions in favor of several 
 articles of her production. By one a duty was proposed on mineral 
 coal in favor of Virginia coal-pits; by another, a duty on hemp was pro 
 posed, to encourage the growth of that article ; and by a third, a prohi- 
 ciiion of even foreign beef was suggested, as a measure of sound policy. 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 29 
 
 •' A farther evidence in support of the constitutional power to protect 
 and foster manufactures by regulations of trade, an evidence that ought, 
 of itself, to settle the question, is the uniform and practical sanction 
 given to the power, by the general government, for nearly forty years* 
 with a concurrence or acquiescence of every state government, throughout 
 the same period ; and, it may be added, through all the vicissitudes of 
 party which marked the period. No novel construction, however inge- 
 niously devised, or however respectable and patriotic its patrons, can 
 withstand the weight of such authority, or the unbroken current of so 
 prolonged and universal a practice." 
 
 Having thus endeavored to establish the constitutionality of the 
 power of congress to protect and encourage manufactures, he discusses 
 in the second letter, the expediency ^i exercising the power for this pur- 
 pose. The following are extracts from this letter: 
 
 " 1. The theory of 'Let us alone' supposes that all nations concur in 
 a perfect freedom of commercial intercourse. Were this the case, they 
 would, in a commercial view, be but one nation, as much as the several 
 districts composing a particular nation ; and the theory would be as 
 applicable to the former as to the latter. But this golden ago of free 
 trade has not yet arrived : nor is there a single nation that has set the 
 example. No nation can, indeed, safely do so, until a reciprocity, at 
 least, be insured to it. Take, for a proof, the familiar case of the navi- 
 gation employed in foreign commerce. If a nation, adhering to the rule 
 of never interposing a countervailing protection of its vessels, admits 
 foreign vessels into its ports free of duty, whilst its own vessels are sub- 
 ject to a duty in foreign ports, the ruinous effect is so obvious, that the 
 warmest advocate for the theory in question must shrink from a univer- 
 sal application of it. 
 
 " A nation leaving its foreign trade, in all cases, to regulate itself, 
 might soon find it regulated, by other nations, into a subserviency to a 
 foreign interest. In the interval between the peace of 1 783 and the 
 establishment of the present constitution of the United States, the want 
 of a general authority to regulate trade is known to have had this con- 
 sequence. * # » 
 
 " 2. The theory supposes, moreover, a perpetual peace ; a supposition 
 it is to be feared, not less chimerical than a universal freedom of com- 
 merce. * * * In order to determine a question of economy, 
 between depending on foreign supplies, and encouraging domestic substi- 
 tuies, it is necessary to compare the probable periods of war with the 
 probable periods of peace, and the cost of the domestic encouragement 
 in times of peace, with the cost added to foreign articles in times.of war. 
 * * * * It cannot be said that the manufactories which could 
 not support themselves against foreign competition in periods of peace, 
 would spring up of themselves at the recurrence of war prices. It 
 must be obvious to every one, that, apart from the difficulty of great and 
 sudden changes in employment, no prudent capitalists would engage in 
 expensive establishments of any sort, at the commencement of a war of 
 uncertain duration with a certainty of having them crushed by the 
 return of peace. * # * 
 
 " 3. It is an opinion in which all must agree, that no nation ought to bo 
 unnecessarily dependent on others for the munitions of public defense 
 
30 APPENDIX. 
 
 or for the materials essential to a naval force, where the nation has a 
 maritime frontier or a foreign commerce to protect. To this class of 
 exceptions to the theory, may be added the instruments of agriculture, 
 and of the mechanic arts which supply the other primary wants of the 
 f.omrt. unity. * * » 
 
 " 4. Tnere are cases where a nation may be so far advanced in the 
 prerequisites for a particular branch of manufactures, that this, if once 
 brought into existence, would support itself; and yet, unless aided in its 
 nascent and infant state, by public encouragement and a confidence in 
 public protection, might remain, if not altogether, for a long time unat- 
 tempted, or attempted without success. Is not our cotton manufacture 
 a fair example ? However favored by an advantageous command of the 
 raw material, and a machinery which dispenses in so extraordinary a 
 proportion with manual labor, it is quite probable, that without the 
 impulse given by a war, cutting oflF foreign supplies, and the patronage 
 of an early tarifi", it might not even yet have established itself; and 
 pretty certain, that it would be far short of the prosperous condition 
 which enables it to face, in foreign markets, the fabrics of a nation that 
 defies all other competitors. The number must be small, that would now 
 pronounce this manufacturing boon not to have been cheaply purchased 
 by the tarifi" which nursed it into its present maturity. 
 
 "5. Should it happen, as has been suspected, to be an object, though 
 not of a foreign government itself, of its great manufacturing capitalists, 
 to strangle in the cradle the infant manufactures of an extensive cus 
 tomer, or an anticipated rival, it would surely, in such a cause, be incum- 
 bent on the sufi'ering party, so far to make an exception of the ' Let 
 alone' policy, as to parry the evil by apposite regulations of its foreign 
 commerce." 
 
 Note ^.—Page 493. 
 
 The exposition, by Mr. Madison, of his Virginia resolutions, does not 
 authorize the construction given to them by Mr. Hayne and others. 
 And in letters written at the time of, or soon after the debate in which 
 his authority was claimed in support of nullification, he unequivocally 
 disclaimed the doctrine. [See Niles' llegister of May 30, and Oct. 16, 
 !830.] 
 
 Note F.—Page 499. 
 
 In the convention of the framers of the constitution, there was much 
 opposition to the change of the government from the confederation of 
 independent and sovereign states, to a national government, or govern- 
 ment of the people; and the same opposition was made in some of the 
 state conventions to which it was submitted for adoption. The concur- 
 rence of its opponents and advocates in considering it a government of 
 the people of the states, and not a mere league or union of states, would 
 seem to afi"ord ample confirmation of the exposition of Mr. Livingston 
 and Mr. Webster. In the convention of Virginia, Patrick Henry, who 
 was opposed to this feature of the constitution, said : 
 
 " The members of the federal convention were, I am sure, impressed 
 with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead 
 of a confederation ; — that this is a consolidated government is demon 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 
 
 31 
 
 strably clear; and the danger, to my mind, is very striking. I have 
 the highest veneration for those gentlemen ; but, sir, give me leave to 
 demand, what right they had to say, ^ we the people ?^ My political 
 curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads 
 me to ask, who authorized them to speak the language of ' we the peo. 
 pie ' instead of ' we the states .?' States are the characteristic and soul 
 of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it 
 must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all 
 the states." 
 
 To this, it was replied, first by Mr. Edmund Pendleton, the president 
 of the convention, thus : 
 
 " But an objection is made to the form : the expression, we the people, 
 is thought improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman, who made this 
 objection, who but the people can delegate power ? who but the people 
 have a right to form a government ? The expression is a common one 
 and a favorite one with me ; — the representatives of the people, by their 
 authority, is a mode wholly unessential. If the objection be, that the 
 union ought to be not of the people, but of the state governments, then 
 I think the choice of the former very happy and proper. What have 
 the state governments to do with it ? Were they to determine, the 
 people could not, in that case, be the judge upon what terms it was 
 adopted." 
 
 On the same head, Mr. Lee, of Westmoreland, thus spoke : 
 
 " He (Mr. Henry) had adverted to the state of the government, and 
 asked wiiat authority they had to use the expression, '■we the people^ 
 and not we the states ? This expression was introduced into that paper 
 with great propriety ; this system is submitted to the people for their 
 consideration, because on them it is to operate, if adopted. It is not 
 binding on the people, until it becomes their act. It is now submitted 
 to the people of Virginia. If we do not adopt it, it will be always null 
 and void as to us. Suppose it was found proper for an adoption', in 
 becoming the government of the people of Virginia, by what style should 
 it be done ? Ought we not to make use of the name of the people ? 
 No other style would be proper." 
 
 Mr. Madison, another member of the convention, who was also one 
 of the delegates that framed the constitution, thus expressed himself, as 
 to the mixed nature of the federal government : 
 
 " The principal question is, whether it be a federal or consolidated 
 government. In order to judge properly of the question before us, we 
 must consider it minutely in its principal parts. I conceive myself that 
 it is of a mixed nature — it is in a manner unprecedented ; we can not 
 find one express example in the experience of the world ; it stands by 
 itself. In some respects it is a government of a federal nature: in 
 others it is of a consolidated nature. Even if we attend to the manner 
 in which the constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of 
 the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable 
 gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consoli- 
 dated — nor is it entirely federal. Who are parties to it ? The people 
 — but not the people as composing thirteen sovereignties ; were it, as 
 the gentleman asserts, a consolidated govei'nment, the assent of a 
 majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment ; and aa 
 
32 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 a majority have adopted it already, the remaining states would be bound 
 by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it. 
 Was it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on 
 the people of this state without their having had the privilege of deliberat- 
 ing on it ; but, sir, no state is bound by it, as it is, without its own 
 consent. Should all the states adopt it, it will be then a government 
 established by the thirteen states of America, not through the interven- 
 tion of the legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular 
 respect, the distinction between the existing and the proposed govern- 
 ment is very material. The existing system has been derived from the 
 dependent derivative authority of the legislature of the states ; whereas 
 this is derived from the superior power of the people. If we look at 
 the manner in which alterations are to be made in it, the same idea is 
 in some degree attended to. By the new system, a majority of the 
 states can not introduce amendments ; nor are all the states required 
 for that purpose ; three-fourths of them must concur in alterations ; in 
 this, there is a departure from the federal idea : the members to the 
 national house of representatives are to be chosen by the people at large, 
 in proportion to the numbers in the respective districts. When we come 
 to the senate, its members are elected by the states in their equal and 
 political capacity ; but had the government been completely consolidated, 
 the senate would have been chosen by the people in their individual 
 capacity, in the same manner as the members of the other house. Thus 
 it is of a complicated nature, and this complication, I trust, will be 
 found to exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well as of a 
 mere confederacy." 
 
 Mr. Nicholas, on the same side, remarked : 
 
 " In my opinion, the expression ' we the people,' is highly proper — it 
 is submitted to the people, because on them it is to operate. Till 
 adopted, it is a dead letter and not binding upon any one; when adopted 
 it 'becomes binding upon the people who adopt it. It is proper on 
 another account. We are under great obligations to the federal con- 
 vention for recurring to the people, the source of all power. The gen- 
 tleman's argument militates against himself; he says that persons in 
 power never relinquish power willingly. If, then, the state legislatures 
 would not relinquish part of the powers they now possess, to enable a 
 general government to support the union, reference to the people is 
 necessary." 
 
 Note G.—Page 568. 
 
 In regard to the force of judicial decisions in controlling the action 
 of other branches of the government, president Jackson says : 
 
 " Each public officer who takes an oath to support the constitution, 
 swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is 
 understood by others. It is as much the duty of the house of represen- 
 tatives, of the senate, and of the president, to decide upon the constitu- 
 tionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for 
 passage or approval, as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought 
 before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no 
 more authority over congress than the opinion of congress has over the 
 judges, and on that point the president is independent of both. Tho 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 33 
 
 authority of the supreme court must not, therefore, be permitted to con- 
 trol the congress or the executive, when acting in their legislative 
 capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning 
 may deserve." 
 
 Tne following are the vie-ws of Mr, Madison, communicated in a letter 
 to Charles J. IngersoU, June 25, 1831 : 
 
 " The case in question has its true analogy in the obligation arising 
 from judicial expositions of the law on succeeding judges; the consti- 
 tution being a law of the legislator, as the law is a rule of decision to 
 the judge. 
 
 " And why are judicial precedents, when formed on due discussion 
 and consideration, and deliberately sanctioned by reviews and repeti- 
 tions, regarded as oi binding injluence, or rather of authoritative force, 
 in settling the meaning of a law ? It must be answered, 1st, because it 
 is a reasonable and established axiom, that the good of society requires 
 that the rules of conduct of its members should be certain and known, 
 which would not be the case if any judge, disregarding the decisions of 
 his predecessors, should vary the rule of law according to his individual 
 interpretation of it. Misera est servitus rebi jus est aut vagum aret 
 incognitum. 2d, because an exposition of the law publicly made and 
 repeatedly confirmed by the constituted authority, carries with it, by fair 
 inference, the sanction of those who, having made the law through tie 
 legislative organ, appear under such circumstances, to have determined 
 its meaning through their judiciary organ. 
 
 " Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of the constitution 
 should be fixed and known, than that the meaning of a law should be 
 so ? Can indeed a law be fixed in its meaning and its operation, unless 
 the constitution be so ? On the contrary, if a particular legislature, 
 differing in the construction of the constitution from a series of preced- 
 ing constructions, proceeding to act on that difference, they not only 
 introduce uncertainty and instability in the constitution, but in the laws 
 themselves ; inasmuch as all laws, preceding the new construction, and 
 inconsistent with it, are not annulled for the future, but virtually pro- 
 nounced nullities from the beginning. 
 
 *• But it is said that the legislator having sworn to support the consti- 
 tution, must support it in his own construction of it, however different 
 from that put on it by his predecessors, or whatever be the consequence 
 of the construction. And is not the judge under the same oath to sup- 
 port the law ? yet has it ever been supposed that he was required, or 
 at liberty to disregard all precedents, however solemnly repeated and 
 regularly observed ; and, by giving effect to his own abstract and indivi- 
 dual opinions, to disturb the established course of practice in the busi- 
 ness of the community ? Has the wisest and most conscientious judge 
 ever scrupled to acquiesce in decisions in which he has been overruled 
 by the matured opinions of the majority of his colleagues ; and subse- 
 quently to conform himself thereto, as to authoritative expositions of 
 the law? And is it not reasonable that the same view of the ofiicial 
 oath should be taken by a legislator, acting under the constitution, which 
 is his guide, as is taken bj a judge, acting under the law, "^hich is his ? 
 
 " There is in fact and in common understanding, a necessity of regard- 
 ing a course of practice, as above characterised, in the light of a legal 
 
34 APPENDIX. 
 
 nile of interpreting a law ; aud there is a like necessity of considering 
 it a constitutional rule of interpreting a constitution. 
 
 " That there may be extraordinary and peculiar circumstances con- 
 trolling the rule in both cases, may be admitted ; but, with such excep- 
 tions, che rule will force itselc on the praccical judgmeat of the "most 
 ardent theorist. He will find it impossible to adhere to, and act oiScial- 
 ly upon, his solitary opinions as to the meaning of the law or constitu- 
 tion, in opposition to a construction, reduced to practice, during a rea- 
 sonable period of time ; more especially where no prospect existed of a 
 change of construction by the public as its agents. And if a reasonable 
 period of time, marked with the usual sanctions, would not bar the indi 
 vidual prerogative, there could be no limitation to its exercise, although 
 the danger of error must increase with the increasing oblivion of ex- 
 planatory circumstances, and with the continual changes in the import 
 of words and phrases. 
 
 " Let it then be left to the decision of every intelligent and candid 
 judge, which, on the whole, is most to be relied on for the true and safe 
 construction of a constitution, that which has the uniform sanction of 
 successive legislative bodies through a period of years, aud under the 
 varied ascendency of parties ; or that which depends upon the opinions 
 of every new legislature, heated as it may be by the spirit of party, 
 eager in the pursuit of some favorite object, or led astray by the elo- 
 quence and address of popular statesmen, themselves, perhaps, under the 
 influence of the same misleading causes. 
 
 " It was in conformity with the view here taken on the respect due to 
 deliberate and reiterated precedents, that the bank of the United States, 
 though on the original question held to be unconstitutional, received the 
 executive signature in the year 1817. The act of originally establishing 
 a bdtjk, had undergone ample discussions in its passage through the 
 several branches of government. It had been carried into execution 
 throughout a period of twenty years with annual legislative recogni- 
 tions ; in one instance, indeed, with a positive ramification of it into a 
 new state ; and with the entire acquiescence of all the local authorities 
 as well as of the nation at large ; to all of which may be added, a de- 
 creasing prospect of any change in the public opinion adverse to the 
 constitutionality of such an institution. A veto from the executive 
 under these circu?nstances, with an admission of the expediency and 
 almost necessity of the measure, would have been a defiance of all the 
 obligations derived from a course of precedents amounting to the 
 requisite evidence of the national judgment and intention. 
 
 " It has been contended that the authority of precedents was in that 
 case invalidated by the consideration that they proved only a respect 
 for the stipulated duration of the bank, with a toleration of it until the 
 law should expire, and by the casting vote given in the senate by the 
 vice-president in the year 1811, against a bill for establishing a national 
 bank, the vote being expressly given on the ground of unconstitu- 
 tionality. But if the law itself was unconstitutional, the stipulation 
 was void, and could not be constitutionally fulfilled or tolerated. And 
 as to the negative of the senate by the casting vote of the presiding 
 officer, it is a fact well understood at the time, that it resulted not from 
 an equality of opinions in that assembly on the power of congress to 
 
THK AMERICAN STATESMAN. 35 
 
 establish a bank, but from a junction of those who admitted the power, 
 but disapproved the plan, with those who denied the power. On a sim- 
 ple question of constitutionality, there was a decided majority in favor 
 of it." 
 
 Note H.— Pa^e 611. 
 
 The case referred to is that of Samuel Gwinn, a clerk in the post 
 office at Washington, who had been appointed by president Jackson, in 
 1831, during the recess of the senate, to the office of register in a land 
 office in Mississippi. On the meeting of congress in December, Mr. 
 Gwinn was nominated to the senate for the office to which he had been 
 appointed. In consequence of a standing rule of the senate, not to 
 appoint a person of one state to an office in another, the nomination was 
 negatived; ayes, 13; noes, 25. At the same session, June 12, 1832, 
 the name of Gwinn was again communicated to the senate ; and the 
 message was ordered to lie on the table. On the 10th of July, it was 
 taken up, and the nomination was ngain laid on the table, 27 to 17. 
 
 On the 16th of July, during the. last night's sitting, when many 
 senators had left the city, a small majority only remaining, another 
 attempt was made to get the nomination acted on, but it was resolved, 
 that the president be informed that the senate would take no proceed- 
 ings on the nomination, which was again ordered to lie on the table. 
 Mr. Ellis, senator from Mississippi, called up the nomination, saying 
 the president had declared that he would make no other nomination. 
 But the senate resolved, that.the president be informed, that no proceed- 
 ings would be taken on the nomination, which was again laid on the 
 table. This attempt of the president to induce the senate to recede from 
 their determination was regarded as arbitrary. 
 
 It became a question, whether the vacancy occurring by the presi- 
 dent's refusal to nominate another person, could be constitutionally 
 filled by a new appointment by the president. The constitution provides 
 that the commissions of persons appointed to fill vacancies happening 
 during the recess of the senate, shall not hold beyond the next session. 
 But if the president could make a new appointment after the adjourn- 
 ment, there was nothing to prevent his keeping a person in office at 
 pleasure, without the consent of the senate. The question was referred 
 to the attorney-general, Mr. Taney, who gave it as his opinion, that the 
 president had power to reappoint after the adjournment of the senate. 
 
 Note I.— Page 622. 
 
 The " right of instruction," as it is called, has afiTorded to politicians 
 a fruitful topic of discussion. It is a question upon which opposite 
 opinions have been entertained by eminent statesmen. Tbe doctrine is 
 this : The representative is bound in all cases to act in accordance with 
 the wishes of his constituents, whatever may be his own ideas of the 
 effects of a particular measure upon which he may be called to act ; or 
 to resign his office, in order to allow them to substitute one who will 
 conform to their views. 
 
 It is urged in favor of this doctrine, that it is in conformity with the 
 
g^ : APPENDIX. 
 
 republican principle, which requires the representative to do what a 
 majority of the people would do if they were to act in person ; and 
 hence, to do otherwise is virtually to substitute the will of one, or of a 
 minority, for that of the majority. This, certainly, is a plausible argu- 
 ment, and one which, upon a bare statement of it, would almost seem to 
 be incontrovertible; as no true republican would contend for a govern- 
 ment by a minority. 
 
 Tlie following arguments against the doctrine in question, are entitled 
 to consideration : 
 
 If the right of instruction exists at all, it must be unlimited ; and 
 must app^y not only to representatives in congress, but to representa- 
 tives in state legislatures, who might be found to disagree with their 
 constituents in the several districts they represent. And it must extend 
 also to governors, judges, and other officers. The consequences of car- 
 rying out the principle to its full extent, would unsettle the government, 
 multiply our elections indefinitely, and keep the public mind in a state 
 of perpetual agitation. But as such an extension of the principle wo^ld 
 not, it is presumed, find many advocates, we will suppose it to be con- 
 fined to representative officers, and particularly to senators and repre- 
 sentatives in congress, whose cases have, for the most part, given rise to 
 the discussion. 
 
 A representative may, and in most cases probably does, possess means 
 of iufornjation which are not accessible to the great body of his consti- 
 tuents, in relation to the particular measure upon which he differs with 
 them. It may appear to him not only decidedly detrimental to the 
 general welfare, but unconstitutional. Having sworn to support the 
 constitution, he could not conscientiously vote for the measure. And 
 if he believes it to be unconstitutional, ought he to give place to another 
 who will aid in violating the constitution ? Would he be inexcusable 
 for thus consenting to the infraction of that instrument of which he has, 
 for a specific period of time, been made one of its constitutional guard- 
 ians ? 
 
 So in regard to the expediency of a measure. He may, from careful 
 and laborious investigation, and from infallible data, have come to a 
 firm conviction that the adoption of a particular measure would be 
 highly detrimental to the public interest ; should he surrender his post to 
 one who he has the strongest reason to believe would aid in inflicting 
 the injury upon the community ? 
 
 Again : how ia the representative to know the will of his constituents ? 
 They may never have expressed their opinions on the particjilar mea- 
 sure upon which the legislative instruction is given ; and therefore the 
 legislature itself has not the means of knowing what would be the ex- 
 pression of the people upon this question if submitted to them separate 
 and distinct from all others. In electing the state legislatures, other 
 questions have their influence in determining the votes of the mass of 
 the electors ; and it may be that the legislature, in their instructions, 
 actually misrepresent the wishes of the majority of their constituents. 
 There have been instances in which senators have been instructed upon 
 questions which did not enter at all into the election of representatives 
 in the state legislature. The legislature of a state, having been chosen 
 principally for purposes of state legislation can not be presumed tu 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 317 
 
 sxpress the will of the people on a question foreign to such purposes; 
 but the instructions, if the right exists at all, must come in a more direct 
 manner, which shall leave no doubt as to the wishes of the majority. 
 The constitution has made no provision for displacing a reyreseutative 
 fov a n:iere misrepresentation of a majority of his con'jtitucnts. Under 
 the oid confederation, the delegates, though chosen for a year only, 
 might at any time be recalled by the state legislatures, and their places 
 filled by new appointments; but the constitution, while it has doubled 
 the term of office of a representative, and has given to senators a term 
 of six years, has made no provision for their recall or displacement for 
 any political opinion whatever. 
 
 Nor is the silence of the constitution on this subject the result of 
 inadvertence. The framers, on the contrary, seem to have contemplated 
 the contingency which the advocates of the right of instruction regard 
 as an evil, and which they would adopt extra constitutional means to 
 prevent. This is inferred from the reasons which governed the conven- 
 tion^n fixing the oflficial terms of the different officers of the government. 
 While, on the one hand, they intended to make the term so short as 
 to insure a due degree of responsibility on the part of the representa- 
 tive ; they deemed it important, on the other, to make it so long as 
 eflFectually to guard against the evils of changeable legislation. This 
 was deemed so essential, that propositions were made for a senate for 
 life, or during good behavior, and for terms of from three to nine years 
 But as a mean between the longest and the shortest terms proposed, the 
 term of six years was adopted. And what were the arguments of the 
 framors in favor of so long a term for one of the branches of the legis- 
 lature ? 
 
 In reference to the evils of an unstable policy, which is the natural 
 result of a too frequent change of those intrusted with the powers of 
 legislating; and in view of those sudden popular excitements which 
 demagogues well know how to produce; Mr. Madison, in defending a 
 durable senate, says, in the 63d number of the Federalist: "As the 
 cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, 
 and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the 
 views of its rulers ; so there are particular moments in public affairs, 
 when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit 
 advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, 
 may call for measures which they themselves will afterward be the most 
 ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary 
 will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of 
 citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow 
 meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and 
 truth, can regain their authority over the public mind ! What bitter 
 anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped, if their 
 government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny 
 of their own passions ! Popular liberty might then have escaped the 
 indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on ono 
 day, and statues on the next." 
 
 In the above extract are noticed more particularly the liability to 
 fluctuating legislation, in consequence of sudden popular convulsions, 
 and the necessity of a senate like that provided by the constitution to 
 
88 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 prevent the evil. In the preceding number, speaking more particularly 
 of the " mutability of the public councils, arising from a rapid succes- 
 sion of new members," he says: " From this change of men must pro- 
 ceed a change of opinions ; and from a change of opinions, a change of 
 measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent 
 with every rule of prudence. * * * It will be of little avail to 
 
 the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice if 
 
 they are repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo 
 such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, 
 can guess what it will be to-morrow. * * * What prudent mer- 
 chant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce, when he 
 knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can 
 be executed ? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for 
 the encouragement of any particular cultivation or establishment, when 
 he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will 
 not render him a victim to an inconstant government ?" 
 
 In answering the objection, that the appointment of senators by Jho 
 state legislatures, instead of a direct election by the people, and for so 
 long a term as six years, would render that body too independent of the 
 people, and induce its members to abuse their power, Mr. Madison 
 says : " Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as 
 by the abuses of power;" and then proceeds to give examples proving 
 the safety of a permanent senate where it is counteracted by a popular 
 branch elected for a short term. The practical effect of the doctrine in 
 question would be to destroy the stability of the senate ; to subject the 
 country to the evils of a fluctuating policy, and thus defeat the very 
 object of the constitution itself. 
 
 But it is affirmed that the contrary doctrine, instead of being anti- 
 republican, because opposed to the will of the people, is really in ac- 
 cordance with the popular will, as expressed in the only way in which 
 it can be constitutionally done, through the constitution itself. The 
 constitution, presuming a senatorial term of six years to be preferable, 
 on the whole, to a shorter one, fixed it at that period, without any pro- 
 vision against the contingency of a senator's opinions coming into con- 
 flict with those of the people of the state he is chosen to represent ; and 
 the act of the people in adopting the constitution with this provision, is 
 to be taken as the true expression of their will, so long as that instru- 
 ment shall remain unaltered. In adopting this provision, they have 
 deliberately chosen to run the hazard of a temporary raisrepreseutation, 
 in order to guard against the far greater evil of unstable legislation. To 
 the constitution, therefore, we are to look for the legitimate expression 
 of the will of the people. Even if their wishes could be infallibly as- 
 certained in cases as they arise, the instructions, it is held, would not 
 bind the representative to yield either his place or his opinions. 
 
 Note J. — Page 690. 
 
 Allusion was here made to a mob in the city of New York in Febru- 
 B"f7, 1837, instigated by a meeting held in pursuance of a notice pub- 
 lished in some of the papers, and placarded through the city. It was 
 at a time of high prices of provisions, fuel, rent, &c. The notice 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 39 
 
 doclarod, that " high prices must come down ! The voice of tte people 
 shall be heard and will prevail !" The object of the meeting, which 
 was announced to be held in the Park, " rain or shine," was " to inquire 
 into the cause of the present unexampled distress, and to devise a suit- 
 able remedy." 
 
 About 5,000 persons assembled at the time and place appointed, and 
 were addressed by several persons in an inflammatory style ; after which 
 a large body of the meeting proceeded to some flour stores, and destroyed 
 wheat and flour, with other property, to the amount of about $10,000 
 
 Note K.—Page 702. 
 
 It is not the strangest fact in our political history, that the constitutional 
 opinions of the leading statesmen of South Carolina, underwent, in the 
 course of a few years, an entire change from the widest latitudinarianism 
 to the most rigid strict construction. Nor is it the only instance of a 
 tofal revolution of opinion in the history of our public men. It may, 
 notwithstanding, be gratifying to the reader to notice the contrast be- 
 tween the former views of the nullifiers of that state, and their state 
 rights doctrines at a subsequent period. 
 
 From a reply to a certain series of "radical " essays published in the 
 state of Georgia, in 1821, is the following extract, ascribed to the pen 
 of Mr. M'Duffie, of South Carolina : 
 
 " What security, then, did the convention, or, in other words, the 
 people of the United States, provide to restrain their functionaries from 
 usurping powers not delegated, and from abusing those with which they 
 are really invested ? * * * The constitution will tell you tliat it is the 
 real security they have provided. It is the responsibility of the ofiicers 
 of the general government, not to the state authorities, but to them- 
 selves, the people. This, and this only, is the great conservative prin- 
 ciple, which lies at the foundation of all our political institutions, and 
 sustains the great and glorious fabric of our liberty. This great truth 
 ought to be kept in constant and lively remembrance by every American. 
 
 " Tlie states, as political bodies, have no original, inherent rights. 
 That they have such rights is a false, dangerous, and anti-republican 
 assumption, which lurks at the bottom of all the reasonings in favor of 
 state rights. 
 
 " As far as I can collect any distinct propositions from the medly of 
 unconnected quotations you have made on these very important sub- 
 jects, I understand you to afErm, that in expounding the federal conf-ti- 
 tution, we should be " tieddoivn to the strict letter ''"' of that instrument, 
 and that the general government ' was not made the exclusive or final 
 judge of the extent of the powers to be delegated to itself; but that, as 
 in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, 
 each party had a right to judge for itself; — these may be considered 
 the concentrated essence of all the wild and destructive principles that 
 have ever been advanced in relation to the subjects under consideration I 
 
 " I should suppose, therefore, that no professional man could hesitate 
 in saying, that a forcible opposition to the judgment of the federal 
 court, founded upon an act of congress by whatever state authority 
 that opposition might be authorized, would be the very case which the 
 
40 APPENDIX. 
 
 convention had in view, when they made provision for calling forth the 
 luilitla to execute the laws of the union." 
 
 Mr. M'Duffie, in ):is essays, claims the authority of Mr. Calhoun, 
 Baying : " He (Mr. C.) was from the first a decided advocate of the 
 navy, the bank, internal improvements, internal taxes when necessary, 
 and liberal principles in construing the constitution for great, useful, 
 and safe national purposes." 
 
 In a speech on the direct tax, in 1816, Mr. Calhoun said: "Let U3 
 make great permanent roads, not like the Romans, with the view of 
 Kubjecting and ruling provinces, but for the more honorable purposes of 
 defense ; and connecting more closely the interests of various sections 
 of this great country. Let any one look at the vast cost of transporta- 
 tion during the war, much of. which is chargeable to the want of good 
 roads and canals, and he will not deny the vast importance of a due 
 attention to this object. 
 
 " Mr. C. proceeded to another topic — the encouragement proper to be 
 afforded to the industry of the country. In regard to the question how 
 far manufactures ought to be fostered, Mr. C. said it was the duty of 
 this country, as a means of defense, to encourage the domestic industry 
 of the country, more especially that part of it which provides the neces- 
 sary materials for clothing and defense. Let us look at the nature of 
 the war most likely to occur. England is in possession of the ocean ; 
 no man, however sanguine, can believe that we can deprive her soon of 
 her predominance there. That control deprives us of the means of 
 maintaining our army and navy cheaply clad. The question relating to 
 manufactures must not depend upon the abstract principle that industry, 
 left to pursue its own course, will find in its own interest all the en- 
 couragement that is necessary. 1 lay the claims of the manufacturers 
 entirely out of view, said Mr. C. ; but on general principles, without 
 regard to their interest, a certain encouragement should be extended, at 
 least to our woolen and cotton manufacturers." 
 
 Note L. — Fage 707. 
 
 Mr. Adams having stated, in the course of a debate in congress, that 
 the Florida treaty had been approved by Gen. Jackson, and the state- 
 ment having been questioned by the Globe, he repeated the declaration, 
 and exculpated himself. His remarks are reported thus : 
 
 " Mr. Adams repeated, in substance, that he was himself opposed to 
 the relinquishment of Texas, and that no other n-an in the cabinet of 
 Mr. Monroe sustained him. He negotiated the treaty with Don Onis, 
 under the immediate direction of the president, (Mr. Monroe,) and never 
 exchanged any communications with that minister which Mr. Mcnroe 
 did not see. He (Mr. A.) was the last man in the administration who 
 assented to the treaty. The treaty was concluded on the 22d of July, 
 1819. At that time Gen. Jackson was in the city, attending the pro- 
 ceedings of congress on the Seminole question. After the treaty had 
 been agreed to, and before it was signed, Mr. Monroe requested him 
 (Mr. A.) to submit it to Gen. Jackson, and obtain his opinion upon it. 
 It was accordingly submitted to him, not as a military commander, but 
 AS a distinguished citizen. He called upon Gen. Jackson at the hotel 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 41 
 
 then kept by Strother, now Fuller's, and handed him the treaty, direct- 
 ing his attention particularly to the boundary. General Jackson kept 
 it a day or two, and then returned it with his approbation." 
 
 Note M. — Page 7i7 
 
 The number of defaulters was said to be not less than forty, whose 
 defalcations amounted to about two millions of dollars. That of Samuel 
 Swartwout, collector of the port of New York, alone, was about one 
 million and a quarter. 
 
 Note l^.—Page 799. 
 
 The following, having been inadvertently omitted in its regular place 
 in the bodv of the work, is here inserted as a supplement to Chapter 
 LXIV : 
 
 At the time of the passage of the act of June 25, 1842, for the appor- 
 tionment of representatives according to the census of LS40, r(;presenta- 
 tives were not in all the states chosen in single districts. The second 
 section of the act nbove mentioned, required every state entitled to more 
 thnn one representative, " to elect representatives by districts composed 
 of contiguous territory, equal in number to the number of its representa- 
 tives, no one district to elect more than one representative." In many 
 of the states, there were some districts in each of which two or more 
 were elected ; and in some others, they were elected by general ticket. 
 Such were the states of New Hampshire, G-eorgia, Mississippi, and 
 Missouri. These states, electing twenty representatives, refused to 
 comply with this provision of the above mentioned law; and when, on 
 the assembling of tlie next congre|p, (December, 1843,) these representa- 
 tives appeared to take their seats, their right to them was disputed on 
 the ground that their election was illegal. Before proceeding to the 
 election of a speaker, Mr. Barnard, of New York, arose to read a paper; 
 but the reading was objected to; and leave to read the same was re- 
 fused, 124 to GO. The paper was a trotest, signed by fifty-three mem- 
 bers of the house, declaring the election of the persons appearing as 
 representatives from these states to have been unconstitutional and 
 illegal, and protesting against their participating in the election of 
 speaker. 
 
 The speaker was elected viva voce. JohnW. Jones, of Virginia, was 
 chosen, by 128 votes against .59 for John White, of Kentucky, and 1 for 
 William VVilkins. 
 
 The subject of the election of the representatives from the states non- 
 complying with the act of 1842, was referred to the committee on elec- 
 tions ; and on the 22d of January, 1844, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, in 
 behalf of the committee, made a report, concluding with two resolutions, 
 declaring the act of congress of 1842, " not a law made in pursuance ol 
 the constitution of the United States," and that all the members fi"om 
 the above named states were constitutionally and lawfully elected. 
 
 The authority for adopting that section of the apportionment law 
 which nullified the state laws under which the elections had been held, 
 the committee said, was supposed by its advocates to be derived fronj 
 the 4th section of the 1st article of the constitution, which says : " The 
 
42 APPENDIX, 
 
 times, places, and aianner of holding elections for senators and representa- 
 tives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but 
 the congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, 
 except as to the places of choosing senators." The committee argued, 
 that the first part of this clause commanded the state legislatures to 
 act ; the other permitted, congress to act. An imperative duty rested 
 upon the former ; while to the latter only a privilege was granted. From 
 this the committee appear to have drawn the inference, that the power 
 here granted to congress was intended only as a conservative power, to 
 be exercised in case a state legislature should fail or refuse to act, or 
 should act in such a manner as to subvert the rights of the people and 
 the principles of the constitution. 
 
 To support this construction, the report referred to the debates of the 
 convention to form the constitution. When Gen. Pinckney proposed that 
 representatives " should be elected in such manner as the legislature of 
 each state should direct," he urged " that this liberty would give more 
 satisfaction, as the legislature could then accommodate the mode to the 
 convenience and opinions of the people.'''' And the latter part of the 
 clause was agreed to with an explanation, that " this was meant to give 
 to the national legislature a power, not only to alter the provisions of 
 the states, but to make regulations in case the states should fail or re- 
 fuse altogether.'''' And Gen. Hamilton, in the Federalist, defended this 
 provision upon the same principle : " Its propriety rests upon the evi- 
 dence of this plain proposition, that every government ought to contain 
 within itself the means of its own preservation." 
 
 Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, from the minority of the committee, made 
 a counter report. This report noticed a doctrine which had been lately 
 assumed, that the clause under consideration established the general 
 ticket system as the mode by which members are to be elected. This 
 strange doctrine was deduced from the mode of electing senators and 
 representatives. And the argument was, that the members of the state 
 legislati^.res could not be divided into two classes, and the election of a 
 senator be assigned to each. And, farther, as the people of the states 
 were to elect their representatives, they could not be divided into dis- 
 tricts, and those residing in a district be restricter* to vote for a single 
 representative ; but all had the right to vote for all the representatives 
 of a state. But the minority said, the position that the house of repre- 
 s^Matives must be chosen by all the people of the several states^ proved 
 too much for the purposes of its advocates. It went even beyond the 
 general ticket, and required not only that cdl the people of a state must 
 vote for as many persons as it had representatives, but each represenla- 
 tive must be chosen by the tvhole people. The absurdity of the argument 
 did not stop here. All the people of every state would be bound to 
 " choose the house of representatives ;" that is, the entire aggregate of 
 representatives from all the states ! 
 
 But the minority contended that the provisions of the constitution 
 which require, that " the house of representatives shall be conipo^'cd of 
 members elected every second year by the joeople of the several states ;" 
 and that " the senate of the United States shall be composed of two 
 senators from each state;"' did not admit of the above construction. 
 The plain object of them was to establish the body of electors of the two 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. . ^^ 
 
 houses, and not to pi escribe the manuer of choosing their members. 
 The phraseology must be received as it was universally understood 
 when the constitution was formed. The people of the states then elected, 
 as now, the most numerous branch of their legislatures; and it was 
 therefore obvious, that, when the constitution, after saying, as above, 
 that the representatives shall be elected " by the people of the several 
 states," immediately adds, " and the electors in each state shall have 
 the qualifications requisite for electing the most numerous branch of the 
 state legislature," the object was, as already stated, to determine who 
 should constitute the body of electors ; in other words, what should be 
 the qualifications of the electors of representatives. 
 
 The minority differed also in their construction of the clause of the 
 4th section, which says : " The times, places, and manner of holding 
 elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each 
 state by the legislature thereof; but the congress may, at any time, by 
 law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing 
 senators." If this does not confer the power to determine whether 
 members of the house shall be elected by districts or by general ticket, 
 then the state legislatures have no jurisdiction over that part of the 
 matter ; and they have, from the origin of the government, usurped 
 power in establishing the one mode or the other, at their pleasure. The 
 report maintained that tliis power was vested both in the state legisla- 
 tures and in congress. Mr. Madison, in the convention, when this clause 
 was under consideration, said : '' This view of the question seems to 
 decide that the legislatures of the states ought not to have the uncon- 
 trolled right of regulating the times, places, and manner of holding 
 elections. These are words of great latitude. It is impossible to fore- 
 see all the abuse that may be made of the discretionary j^oioer. 
 Whether the elections should be by ballot, or viva voce ; whether the 
 electors should assemble at this place or at that place ; should be 
 divided into districts or all meet at one place; should all vote for ali 
 the representatives, or all in a district vote for a member allotted to that 
 district ; — these and many other points would depend upon the legisla- 
 tures, and might materially affect the appointments." " It seemed to 
 
 be as improper in principle, to give to the state legislatures this 
 
 great authority over the elections of the people in the general legislature, 
 as it would be to give to the latter a like power over the election of 
 their representatives in the state legislatures." 
 
 Mr. Hamilton, in the Federalist, says : "They have submitted the 
 regulations of elections of the federal government, in the first instance, 
 to the local administrations ; which, in ordinary cases, and where no 
 improper views prevail, may be both more convenient and more satis- 
 factory. But they have reserved to the national authority a right to 
 interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might 'render that in- 
 terposition necessary to its safety. # * * jjut there remains a posi- 
 tive advantage which will accrue to this disposition ; I allude to 
 
 the circumstance of uniformity in the time of elections for the federal 
 house of representatives." And in the New York convention which 
 adopted the constitution, he said : " The natural and proper mode of 
 holding elections will be to divide the states into districts in proportion 
 to the number to be elected." 
 
44 , APPENDIX. 
 
 The jrropriety of the single district system was argued from the fact, 
 that, by general ticket, six of the largest states could, by a bare majori- 
 ty of their votes, forming about one-fourth of the freemen of the United 
 States, elect 119 members, and thus control the popular branch of the 
 government. 
 
 The minority continue their argument at length, and conclude with 
 a resolution, that the sitting members of the four states, " not having 
 been elected in pursuance of the constitution and law, their seats, 
 severally, are declared vacant." 
 
 NoTK 0, Page 152. 
 
 After the death of Alexander Hamilton, there was found among his 
 papers a manuscript copy of Washington's Farewell Address ; informa- 
 tion of which was communicated by Richsyd Peters to John Jay, in a 
 letter of the 14th of February, ISl 1. The letter stated also that a cer- 
 tain gentleman had also a copy of it, in the same hand writing. From 
 these facts it was presumed, that Gen. Hamilton was the real^ and Gen. 
 Washington only the reputed author of this address which had contri- 
 buted so much to exalt his character and endear his name to the Ameri- 
 can people. 
 
 The answer of Judge Jay to this letter disclosed an interesting cir- 
 cumstance connected with the preparation of the address, which, but for 
 Mr. Jay, would probably never have been made public : and that 
 " monument of human excellence," as he appropriately terms it, might 
 have carried with it doubts as to its real authorship through all future 
 time. The whole letter of Mr. Jay would be read with interest. Ho 
 bears testimony, from personal knowledge, not only to the moral worth, 
 but to the " political talents and wisdom " of Washington, and to his 
 ample ability to write such an address. He then gives what might be 
 reasonably supposed to be evidence of its having been written by him ; 
 and concludes his letter as follows : 
 
 '• They who knew president Washington and his various endowments, 
 qualifications, and virtues, know that, (aggregately considered,) they 
 formed a tout ensemble which has rarely been equaled, and perhaps 
 never excelled. 
 
 " Thus much for presumptive evidence, I will now turn your atten- 
 tion to some that is direct. 
 
 " The history, (if it may be so called,) of the address is not unknown 
 to me ; but as I came to the knowledge of it under implied confidence, 
 I doubted when I first received your letter, whether I ought to disclose * 
 it. On more mature reflection I became convinced that, if president 
 Washiugtou were now alive, and informed of the facts in question, he 
 would not only "authorize, but also desire me to reduce it to writing, 
 that, when necessary, it might be used to invalidate the imputatioue to 
 which those facts give color. 
 
 " This consideration terminated my doubts. I do not think that a 
 disclosure is necessary at this time ; but I fear such a moment will 
 arrive. Whether I shall then be alive, or in capacity to give testimony, 
 is so uncertain, that, in ordsr to avoid the risk of either, I shall now 
 reduce it to writing, and commit it to your care and discretion, ' de bene 
 esse,' as the lawyers say 
 
THE AMERICAN STATESMAN. 45 
 
 « Some time before the address appeared, colonel (afterwards general) 
 Hamiltou informed me that he had received a letter from president 
 Washington, and with it the draft of a farewell address, which the 
 president had prepared, and on which he requested our opinion. He 
 then proposed to fix on a day for an interview at my house on the sub- 
 ject. A day was accordingly appointed ; and on that day Col. Hamil- 
 ton attended. He observed to me in words to this effect, that, after 
 having read and examined the draft, it appeared to him to be suscepti- 
 ble of improvement. That the easiest and best way was to leave the 
 draft untouched, and in its fair state ; and to write the whole over with 
 such amendments, alterations, and corrections, as he thought were advisa- 
 ble; and that he had done so. He then proposed to read it ; and we 
 proceeded deliberately to discuss and consider It, paragraph by para- 
 graph, until the whole met ourmutual approbation. Some amendments 
 were made during the interview, but none of much importance. 
 
 " Although this business had not been hastily despatched, yet aware 
 of the consequence of such a paper, I suggested the giving it a further 
 critical examination ; but he declined it, saying he was pressed for time, 
 and was anxious to return the draft to the president without delay. 
 
 " It afterwards occurred to me, that a certain proposition was ex- 
 pressed in terms too general and unqualified ; and I hinted it in a letter 
 10 the president. As the business took the course above mentioned, a 
 recurrence to the draft was unnecessary, and it was not read. There 
 was this advantage in the course pursued : the president's draft remained, 
 (as delicacy required,) fair and not obscured by interlineacions, &t 
 By couiparing it with the paper sent with it, he would immediately 
 observe the particular emendations and corrections that were proposed, 
 and would find them standing in their intended places. Hence he was 
 enabled to review, and to decide the whole matter, with much greater 
 clearness and facility, than if he had received them in separate and de- 
 tached notes, and with detailed references to the pages and lines where 
 they were advised to be introduced." 
 
 This letter appears in Niles' Register of October 21, 1826, about 
 three years before Mr. Jay's death. Whether it had been in print pre- 
 vious' to that time, or not, or what was the immediate cause of its 
 publication, we are not informed. 
 
 In 1836, after the death of Mr. Madison, which occurred the same 
 year, remarks appeared in several papers, ascribing to him the author- 
 ship of Washington's valedictory address, and tending to produce an 
 erroneous impression. Mr. Sparks, editor of the writings of Washington, 
 in anticipation of their publication, caused to be published the corres- 
 pondence between Washington and Madison on the subject. 
 
 In a letter to Mr. Madison, dated May 20, 1792, Washington, not 
 having determined to be a candidate for reelection, requested hira to 
 draw up an address, to be used in case he should conclude to retire, and 
 mentioned the principal topics which he wished it to contain. Mr. 
 Madison, in compliance with the request, prepared a paper, and subse- 
 quently delivered it to him in person. Having consented to a reelection, 
 he had no occasion to use it. Compared with the address published 
 four years after, it will be found to bear but a slight resemblance to it, 
 while it is evident that it was consulted in preparing the final address. 
 
46 APPENDIX. 
 
 The draft of Mr. Madison, it is unnecessary to say, was an able one, 
 about one-fourth of the length of the last ; and is said to have met 
 Washington's entire approbation at the time. 
 
 Note P, Page 557. 
 
 The following, from the Intelligencer, contains little more than the 
 conclusions of the court on the main points involved in the controversy. 
 
 " The opinion of the chief justice was very elaborate and clear. He 
 took a review of the origin of the European title to lauds in America, 
 upon the ground of discovery. He established that this riglit was 
 merely conventional among the European governments themselves, and 
 for their own guidance, and the regulation of their own claims in regard 
 to each other, and in no respect changed, or aflfected to change the rights 
 i)f the Irdians in respect to the soil. That the only eiFect of the Euro- 
 pean title was, as between European nations, to recognize an exclusive 
 right of trade and intercourse with the Indians, and of ultimate dominion 
 in the territories occupied by the Indians in favor of the nation or gov- 
 ernment whose subjects were the first discoverers. That all the Euro- 
 pean governments, France, Spain, and especially Great Britain, had 
 uniformly recognized the Indian tribes and nations as distinct commu- 
 nities, capable of, and entitled to, self-government, as states, and in no 
 respect, except as to their right of intercourse with other European 
 nations, and the right of preemption in the discoverers to purchase their 
 soil, as under the control or power of the Europeans. They were treated 
 as nations capable of holding and ceding their territories, capable of 
 making treaties and compacts, and entitled to all the powers of peace 
 and war, and not as conquered and enslaved communities. He demon- 
 strated this from various historical facts, and shovved that when upon 
 the revolution the United Colonies succeeded to the rights and claims 
 of the mother country, the American congress uniformly adopted and 
 adhered to the same doctrine, both before and after the confederation ; 
 that, since the adoption of the constitution, the same doctrine had as 
 uniformly prevailed in all tlie departments of the government ; and that 
 the treaties were obligatory in the same sense as treaties between Euro- 
 pean sovereigns. He showed also that this had been the established 
 course of things, recognized by Georgia herself, from the adoption of 
 the constitution down to the year 18'29, as evinced by her solemn acts, 
 compacts and laws. He then showed that, by the constitution, the ex- 
 clusive power belonged to the United States to regulate intercourse with 
 the Indians, and to receive cessions of their lands ; and to make treaties 
 with them. That their independence of the state governments had been 
 constantly upheld; that the right of possession to their land was 
 solemnly guaranteed by the United States, and by treaties with them, 
 until tliat title should, with their own consent, be extinguished; and 
 that the laws passed by congress had regulated the trade and intercourse 
 with them accordingly. He now reviewed the laws of Georgia in ques- 
 tion, and pronounced them repugnant to the constitution, treaties and 
 laws of the United States. And he concluded by maintaining that the 
 party defendant in the present indictment was entitled to the protection 
 of the constitution, treaties and laws of the United States; and that 
 
APPENDIX. 47 
 
 GeoTg-ia had no authority to extend her laws over the Cherokee coun- 
 try, or to punish the defendant for disobedience to those laws in the 
 Cherokee country." 
 
 Note R, — Page 174 
 
 That part of the resolutions which declar 's nnUifimtion of ads of 
 congress by a state to be the right remedy, was in the resolutions as drawn 
 up by Mr. Jefferson ; but the language appearing' too strong-, or too 
 broad, these expressions were struck out before the adoption i^f the 
 resolutions by the Kentucky leg-islature. If, liowr-ver, as is affirmed, 
 there is no common judge, and each state has an eqionl right to judge for 
 itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress, nullifi- 
 cation would seem to be one of the " modes of redress" which a state 
 mig'ht adopt. By referring- to the great debate in the senate in 1830, 
 it will be seen [pp. 492, 493] that, although the words above alluded 
 to were not retained, the Kentucky legislature, in their proceedings 
 on n afiSrniing these resolutions, the next year, [see p. 493.] did ex- 
 plicitly assert " nullification to be the right remedy," And the de- 
 claration to that effect by Mr. Hayue seems to have received the 
 tacit assent of tiie administration senutcM-s. That there was, in the 
 general government, " no conmion judge" of infractions of the consti- 
 tution ; in other words, that the supreme court of the United States 
 was not the tribunal designed by the constitution to decide ultimately 
 upon the validity of acts of the general government, was explicitly 
 denied by administration senators who participated in the debate. 
 It is believed Edward Livingston, of Louisiana, was the only one oi 
 them who maintained the affirmative. 
 
 Note S. 
 
 Memorandum of absences of the Presidents of the United States from the 
 national capital during each of the several administrations, and of 
 public and executive acts performed during the time of such absences. 
 
 PRESIDENT WASHINGTON 
 
 was frequently absent from the capital ; he appears to have been thus 
 absent at least one hundred and eighty-one days during his term. 
 
 During his several absences he discharged official and executive duties, 
 among them : 
 
 In March, 1791, he issued a proclamation, dated at Georgetown, in 
 reference to running the boundary for the territory of the permanent 
 seat of the government. 
 
 From Mount Vernon he signed an official letter to the Emperor of 
 Morocco, and from the same place the commission yf Oliver Wolcott as 
 controller of the treasury, and the proclamation respecting- the whisky in- 
 surrection in Pennsylvania ; also, various sea-letters, the proclamation of 
 the treaty of l79o between the United States and Spain, the executive 
 order of August 4, 1792, relative to the duties on distilled spirits, etc. 
 
48 APPENDIX. 
 
 When at Germantown, lie signed the commission of John Brecken- 
 ridge as attorney of the United States for Kentucky, and that of engineer 
 of the United States Mint. 
 
 He proposed to have Mr. Trujo officially presented, as envoy extraor- 
 dinary and minister plenipotentiary from Spain, to him at Mount Ver- 
 non ; but, although Mr. Trujo went there for the purpose, the ceremony 
 of presentation was prevented by Mr. Trujo having accidentally left his 
 credentials. 
 
 PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS 
 
 was absent from the capital during his term of four years, on various, oc- 
 casions, three hundred and eighty-five days. 
 
 He discharged official duties and performed the most solemn public 
 acts at Quincy, in the same manner as when at the seat of government. 
 
 In Il9l (August 25th) he forwarded to the secretary of state a num- 
 ber of passports which he had signed at Quincy. 
 
 He issued at Quincy commissions to numerous officers of various 
 grades, civil and military. 
 
 On the 28th of September, 1797, he forwarded to the secretary of 
 state a commission for a justice of the supreme court, signed in blank at 
 Quincy, instructing the secretary to fill it with the name of John Mar- 
 shall if he would accept, and if not, Bushrod Washington. He issued a 
 proclamation opening trade with certain ports of Saint Domingo, and 
 signed warrants for the execution of two soldiers, and for a pardon. 
 
 PRESIDENT JEFFERSON 
 
 was absent from the seat of government, during his two terms of office, 
 seven hundred and ninety-six days, more than one-fourth of the whole 
 official period. 
 
 During his absence he signed and isued from Monticello seventy-five 
 commissions, one letter to the Emperor of Russia, and nine letters of 
 credence to diplomatic agents of the United States, accredited to other 
 governments. 
 
 PRESIDENT MADISON 
 
 was absent from the seat of government, during his two presidential 
 terms, six hundred and thirty-seven days. 
 
 He signed and issued from Montpelier, during his absence from the 
 capital, seventy-one commissibns, one proclamation, and nine letters of 
 credence to ministers, accrediting them to foreign governments, and, as 
 it appears, transacted generally all the necessary routine business incident 
 to the executive office. 
 
 PRESIDENT MONROE 
 
 was absent from the capital, during his presidential service of eight years, 
 seven hundred and 5ight days, independent of the year 1824, and the 
 two months of 1825, for which period no data are found. 
 
 He transacted public business wherever he happened- to be, sometimes 
 at his farm in Virginia, again at his summer resort on the Chesapeake, 
 and sometimes while traveling. He signed and issued from these several 
 
APPENDIX. 49 
 
 places, away from the capital, numerous commissions to civil officers of 
 the government, exequaturs to foreign consuls, letters of credence, two 
 letters to sovereigns, and thirty-seven pardons. 
 
 PRESIDENT JOHN Q. ADAMS 
 
 was absent from the capital, during his presidential term of four years, 
 two hundred and twenty-two days. 
 
 During such absence he performed official and public acts, signing and 
 issuing commissions, exequaturs, pardons, proclamations, etc. 
 
 Referring to his absence in August and September, 1827, Mr. Adams, 
 in his "Memoirs," vol. viii., p. 75, says: "I left with him (the chief 
 clerk) some blank signatures to be used when necessary for proclama- 
 tions, remission of penalties, and commissions of consuls, taking of him 
 a receipt for the number and kind of blanks left with him, with direc- 
 tions to return me, when I came back, all the signed blanks remaining 
 unused, and to keep and give me an account of all those that shall have 
 been disposed of. This has been my constant practice with respect to 
 signed blanks of this description. I do the same with regard to patents 
 and land-gTants." 
 
 PRESIDENT JACKSON 
 
 was absent from the capital, during his presidential service of eight years, 
 five hundred and two days. 
 
 He also perforuied executive duties and public acts while absent. 
 
 He appears to have signed and issued, while absent from the capital, 
 very many public papers, embracing commissions, letters of credence, 
 exequaturs, pardons, and among them four executive proclamations. 
 
 On the 26th of June, 1833, he addressed a letter from Boston to Mr. 
 Duane, secretary of the treasury, giving his views at large on the re- 
 moval of the " deposits " from the United States bank and placing them 
 in the state banks, directing that the change with all its arrangements 
 should be, if possible, completed by the 15th of September following, 
 and recommending that Amos Kendall should be appointed an agent of 
 the treasury department to make the necessary arrangements with the 
 state banks. Soon after, September 23d, a paper signed by the presi- 
 dent, and purporting to have been read to the cabinet, was published in 
 the newspapers of the day. Early in the next session of congress a reso- 
 lution passed the senate, inquiring of the president whether the paper 
 was genuine or not, and if it Avas published by his authority, and re- 
 questing that a copy be laid before that body. 
 
 The president replied, avowing the genuineness of the paper, and that 
 it was published by his authority and after consultation with the cabinet. 
 He refused access to the files, books, papers, etc., of the departments, for 
 such purpose would interfere with the discharge of public duties devolv- 
 ing upon the heads of the diiferent departments, and necessarily disar- 
 range and retard the public business. 
 
 PRESIDENT VAN BUREN 
 
 was absent from the capital, during his presidential term, one hundred 
 and thirty-one days. 
 
60 APPENDIX. 
 
 He discliarged executive duties and performed oflScial and public acts 
 during these absences. 
 
 Among the papers signed by president Van Buren, during his absence 
 from the seat of government, are commissions, one of these being for a 
 United States judge of a district court, pardons, etc. 
 
 PEESIDENT TYLER 
 
 was absent from the capital, during his presidential term, one hundred 
 and sixty-three days, and performed public acts and duties during such 
 absences, signing public papers and documents to the number of twenty- 
 eight, in which were included commissions, exequaturs, letters of cre- 
 dence, pardons, and one proclamation making public the treaty of 1 842 
 between the United States and Ecuador. 
 
 PRESIDENT POLK 
 
 was absent from the capital, during his presidential term, thirty-seven 
 days, and appears to have signed but two official public papers during 
 such absence. 
 
 PRESIDENT TAYLOR 
 
 was absent from the capital, during the time he served as president, thir- 
 ty-one days, and while absent signed two commissions, three "full pow- 
 ers," two exequaturs, and the proclamation of August 11, 1849, relative 
 to a threatened invasion of Cuba, or some of the provinces of Mexico. 
 
 PRESIDENT FILLMORE 
 
 was absent from the capital, during the time he served as president, six- 
 ty days. During such absence he signed pardons, commissions, exequa- 
 turs, etc. 
 
 PRESIDENT PIERCE 
 
 was absent from the capital in all, during his presidential term, fifty- 
 seven days. The several periods of absence which make up this aggre- 
 gate Avere each brief, and it does not appear that during these absences 
 the president signed any public official documents, except one pardon. 
 
 PRESIDENT BUCHANAN 
 
 was absent from the capital, during his presidential term, fifty-seven 
 days, and the official papers which he is shown to have signed during 
 such absence are three exequaturs and one letter of credence. 
 
 In addition to the public documents and papers executed by the several 
 presidents during their absences from the seat of government, constant 
 official correspondence was maintained by each with the heads of the 
 different executive departments. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, petitions for, in Congress, 468, 648-9, 653; general 
 anti-slavery movcmout, liistory of, 640, etc.; opposition meetings at the North, northern press, 
 rewards for aljolilionists, 641-3; secession and non-intercourse suggested,; violation of the 
 mails, 643-5; anti-slavery address, 645-8; action if congress on petitions, 648-50; hill to pro- 
 hibit the mailing of anti-slavery papers, 650-3; Athertou's resolutions against petitions, 653; 
 abolition of political distinction on account of color, bill relating to, 1240. 
 
 Act of neutrality in respect to the European war, 133. 
 
 Act constituting eight hours a day's work, 129!). 
 
 Act empowering military commanders to fill civil vacancies, 1242. 
 
 Acts providing tor more efficient government of seceded States, joint resolution to carry into effect 
 the appropriation of $1,000,000 for, 1254. 
 
 Acts ,f navigation, of Great Britain, 35; of the United States, 238. 
 
 Adams, John, on right of colonial taxation, .34; minister to Holland, 52; to England, 55; elected vice- 
 president. 75, 106; elected president, and inaugurated, 150-7; his cabinet, 180-9; his administra- 
 tion opposed by Hamilton and others, 188-9. 
 
 Adams, John Quincy, opinions of alien and sedition laws, in liis eulogy on Madison, 175; peace com- 
 missioner to Ghe;it, and to St. Petersburg, 264; secretary of state, 288: elected president, and 
 iuauguiat'jd, 34.3-4 ; charged with a coalition with Clay, 345, etc.; controversy with Giles. 429-41; 
 charge against the federalists, challenged for specifications, 442; his reply, 443-9; federalists' 
 appeal, and Gov. Plumer's testimony, 455; his charge against Hamilton, 456; Judge Gould's reply 
 to Mr. Adams; J. A. Hamilton's statement, 456-8; speech of, on annexation of Texas, 709-11; on 
 the McLeod case, 721 ; presents a petition from Georsria against his being chainnan of a commit- 
 tee, 7.56. and a petition from Mass. for a peaceable dissolution of the Union, 7.57; resolutions of 
 censure and expulsion, debate on, 758-76; on emancipation as a war measure, 1144-5. 
 
 Adams. Charles Francis, president of the Buffalo convention in 1S48, and nominated for vice-presi- 
 dent of the U. S., 881; speech of, on report of the committee of thirty-three, 1107, U08-10; 
 appointed minister to England by Lincoln. 
 
 Adet, French minister, presents the colors of France, 141; interference of in the election, and orders 
 the tri-colorod cockade worn, 153. 
 
 Administration of Washington, parties and dissensions in, 95-104. 
 
 Administration of John Q. Adams, union of the friends of Jackson, Crawford, and Calhoun, to over- 
 throw, 427. 
 
 Aid societies, emigrant. Kansas, 954, 956, 961. 
 
 Algiers, naval force against, 129, 130; treaty with, 140. 
 
 Allen, Wm., of Ohio, on reconstruction of rebel States, 1178-9. 
 
 Alliance with France, 50-1; of Prance and Spain, 146-7. (See Prance.) 
 
 Alien and sedition acts, 170-2 ; opinions on, by John Q. Adams, Washington, and Patrick Henry, 175-6. 
 
 Altoona. meeting of loyal governors at, 1146. 
 
 Ambrister and Arbuthnot, trial and execution of, by order of Gen. Jackson, 292-3. 
 
 Amendment^ of the constitution. Appendix, 22-25; how amendments are made, Cons., Art. V. 
 
 Amendment abolishing slavery, proposed, 12C6; since ratified. 
 
 Amistad, sla\e schooner, capture of, trial of captives, 723-7; correspondence between secretary 
 Forsyth and the British minister, 727. 
 
 American Knights, order of, during the rebellion, 1192. 
 
 American citizens in foreign States, act concerning the rights of, 1800. 
 
 Amnesty, proclamation of. by Lincoln, 1157; second proclamation, 1214. 
 
 Anderson. Maj. Robert, withdraws from Fort Moultrie to Sumter, 1081-2; act approved by the house, 
 lOfil; surrenders Sumter, 11.34. 
 
 Andros, Edmund, colonial governor of New York, 30. 
 
 Annexation of Texas (see Texas), remonstrances against. 688. 
 
 (51) 
 
52 mDEX. 
 
 Anti-masoiiry, rise and progress of, 463-fi; presidential candidates, RBi. 
 
 Apportionment of representatives, how made, Cons., Art. 11., Sec. 1, Appendix, 14; h\\\ for, vetoed by 
 
 Wasliiugton, 93; under second census, 202; under fifth census, 563; joint resolutions con- 
 
 ceruins, 1227. 
 Appropriation proposed of two millions, to aid the president in negotiation with Mexico (containing 
 
 the " Wilmot proviso "), action on, and lost, S39; bill of 1835, lost, 632-3. 
 Archer, Wni. .'>., of Va., remarks of, on " woolens bill," 410. 
 Arkansas, territory of, formed, ; State of, admitted, C5R-61 ; representatives from, apply for seats 
 
 in congress, 1173 ; hill to admit the representation in congress of the reconstructed State of, 1264. 
 Armistice with Great Britain proposed and declined, 260-1. 
 Atherton, C. G., of N. H., rdfeolution of, against abolition petitions, 653. 
 Aurora newspaper, denunciations of, against Washington, 149, 152, 165-6. 
 Awa.d of the Geneva tribunal, bill to divide the, 1177, 1478. 
 
 Bache, B. F., editor of Advertiser newspaper, 115; of the Aurora newspaper, 149. 
 
 Badger, Geo. E., secretary of the navy, 744; resignation of, and testimony concerning Tyler's veto, 
 749, 752 ; speech of, in senate, on Nebraska bill, 0.">1. 
 
 Baker, Edward D., senator from Oregon, reply of, to Benjamin, 10S5. 
 
 Bancroft, George, secretary of the navy, 832. 
 
 Bank of North Am^'rica, when and by whom originated, 92. 
 
 Bank of the United States, incorporation of, 88-91; new proposed, 272; two bills defeated, 273; char- 
 tered, 281; affairs of, investigated, 304; decided constitutional, 3%, etc.; Maryland and Ohio 
 branches taxed. H05. etc.; attack on, by Jackson, and his message on, 481 ; McDuffie'sand Smith's 
 report,;, on, 503-506; re-charter applied for, Dallas' and McLUiffle's reports on, passed, and vetoed, 
 568-7; charges against, invested, 569-71; Adams' report on, 571-5; deposits removed from, 591-5; 
 Jackson's charges against, 592; controversy with directors, 595-600; alleged reduction of 
 loans, secret drafts on, 601; reports on, 011-12; dispute concerning pension agency; nomina- 
 tion of directors rejected, 613-15; report of committee on the conduct of the bank, 619-20; bills 
 for, passed, vetoes of Tyler, 748-9; further account of, 749-55. 
 
 Tanking law, recommended by Lincoln, and passed, 1146-7; amendment of, 1159-60 (see Currency). 
 
 Bankrupt ants of 1841, 756. 
 
 Bankrupt and insolvent laws, constitutionality of, afBrmed, 308-9. 
 
 Barbary powers, act to protect our commerce against, 210. 
 
 Barlov^, Joel, minister of United States to Prance, 250. 
 
 Barton, David, of Missouri, senator, on removals from office, 484-5. 
 
 Barry, VVm. T., appointed postmaster-general by Jackson, 477; minister to Spain, 548. 
 
 Battle of New Orleans, picture of, proposed, 467. 
 
 Bayard. -James A., and the election of 1801, 192-5; a commission to negotiate peace with Great 
 Britain, 264. 
 
 Beamau, of Michigan, on reconstruction of the seceded States, 1176-8. 
 
 Belknap, secretary of war, malfeasance in office, 1541 ; impeachment of, 1542. 
 
 Bell, John, of Tennessee, nominated for president, 1046. 
 
 Benjamin, Judah P., senator from Louisiana, on secession, 1034; retirement of, 1112. 
 
 Benton, 'I'homas H., of Missouri, senator, report on executive patronage, retrenchment, etc., 348-9; 
 on Foot's resolutions, 4116; expunging resolution, 621, 623-7; on Calhoun's report on executive 
 patronage and distribution, 621-5; on branch mints, 630; propositions for defense against France, 
 635; his account of action on anti-abolition bill, 653; Boonville speech on annexation of Texas, 
 825-6; on compromise of 1850, 896; on Texas boundary, 905. 
 
 Berkeley, Sir William, governor of Virginia colony, 2S. 
 
 Berlin and Milan decrees, 2-J6-8; conditional revocation of, 235; repealed, 258. 
 
 Berrien, John M , attorney-general, 477; resignation of, 548; his account of the cause of the cabinet 
 rupture, 550-1. 
 
 Beverly, Carter, letter of, accusing Clay, .394. 
 
 Bibb, George M., senator from Kentucky, on power of removal, 4S5-6. 
 
 Bill admitting North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida to rep- 
 resentation, 1265. 
 
 Bialer. senator from Pa., on the John Brown investigation, 1006. 
 
 Biuney, Horace, speech of, on th',- removal of the deposits, 604-6. 
 
 Birney, James G., nominated for president. 735. 
 
 Bosion. liots at, in revolution, tea destroyed, port bill, etc., 43-5. 
 
 Black, Jeremiah, attorney-general, opinion of, on coercion, 1062-4. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 53 
 
 Blaine, Hon. James P.. speaks on Jefferson Davis and Andersonville, 1563-1565; his proposed amend- 
 ment to the constitution on the school question, 1569; proposed as a presidential candidate in the 
 republican convention of 1870, loTO-loSO. 
 
 Blair, Montgomery, postmaster-general, resignation of, 1201. 
 
 Bliss, of Ohio, on reconstruction of the seceded States, 116S-9. ^ 
 
 Border State committee, appointment and report of, 1U88. 
 
 Border slaves States and Tennessee, position of. 10!S7. i 
 
 Boteler, of Va., moves a committee of thirty-three, 1007. 
 
 Botts, John M.. of Va., letter of, on Tyler's bank veto, 753. 
 
 Bouliguy, «f Louisiana, loyal speech of, 1114.' 
 
 Boundary, treaty of, with Grea' Britain, 211-12; north-eastern boundary question settled, 1784-6. 
 
 Boundary, treaty of, with Spain, east and west of the Mississippi river, 301. 
 
 Boundaries of Texas, debate on, in senate, 9115-7, 910-11. 
 
 Bounty to volunteers in the war, resolution to continue, 1161. 
 
 Bourbons in France, restoration of, 267. 
 
 Boutwell, George S.. of Mass., on confiscation, 1169; on reconstruction of seceded States, 1184-5; 
 secretary of the treasury, 
 
 Bradford, William, attoney-general. appointment of, 124; death of, 140. 
 
 Branch. John, secretary of the navy, 477; resignation of, and statement concerning the cabinet diffi- 
 culty, 518. 
 
 Bristow, secretary of treasury, re<igna',ion of, 1541. 
 
 Brown, Bedford, of N. C, on Van Buren's nomination as minister to England, 555; on Benton's ex- 
 punging resolutions, 621. 
 
 Brown, Wm. J., of Ind., voted for as speaker, under pledge, 803. 
 
 Brown, governor of Georgia, orders seizure of northern vessels, 1010. 1129. 
 
 Brown. B. Gratz, of Mo., on reconstruction of seceded States. 1184-5. 
 
 Brown, John, his invasion of Virginia, action c^n, pending the election of speaker, in 1859; Clark's 
 resolution, 1000; Mason's resolution of investigation in the senate, debate on, adopted, 1001-10; 
 Pugh's defense of nothern democrats, 1010-11; Gwin's reply, 1012; Gilmer's sub^titute for Clark's 
 resolu'iou, and debate on slavery, 1012-18; President Buchanan's message, and debate continued, 
 lOlS-20; combination against election by plurality, 1021; election of Wm. Pennington, of N. J.; 
 reports on the Brown insurrection, 1042-3. 
 Buchanan, James, in lelation to the alleged " coalition " of Adams and Clay, 396, etc. ; on the "woolens 
 bill," 409; on French indemnity. 034; on postponing fourth installment of depo-it money, 633; 
 appointed secretary of state, 832; nominated for pnsident, his antecedents, and election, 872-4; 
 his inauguration; abandons popular sovereignty. 978; cabinet, '.I81; appoints Walker irovernor, 
 and Stanton secretary, of Kansas, 981; approves the Lecomptonconstitvttion, 984; re i.oves Stan- 
 ton, and appoints Denver, 984; first annual message of, 981; his instructions to Gov. Walker, 
 980; sends Lecompton constitution to congress, with message, 988-9; his second annual message, 
 994-5; vetoes land grants ro seminaries, 990; protests against investigation of his conduct, 1036; 
 letter of, to Pittsburg celebration committee, on oflicial corruption, 1040; message of, on secession 
 and coercion, 1057-01; justifies transmission of Lecompton constitution to congress, 106B; reply 
 of, to South Carolina commissioners, 1083-4; nominates revenue collector for Charleston. 1088; 
 transmits to congress correspondence with Sonth Carolina commissioners, 1091; transmits Vir- 
 ginia resolutions for a convention, 1104. (See Kansas.) 
 Birr, Aaron, character of, described by Hamilton ; is elected vice-president, 191-2. 
 Butler, Benj. F., of New York., appointed attorney-general, 617; opinion of, on the admiiision of 
 
 Arkansas, 6.56. 
 Butler, civil rights bill, 1.506-1510. 
 Butler, Wm. O., candidate for vice-president in 1848. 
 
 Cabinet officers, lists of, Appendix. 
 
 Cabinets, ruptures of, John Adams's, 188-9 ; Jackson's 548 ; Tyler's 749. 
 
 Calhoun, John C, war report of, 2.V2 ; advocates the tariff of 1816, 280 ; controversy with Jackson on 
 the Seminole war in Florida; his charges against Jackson, 536 ; crimination and counter-crimi- 
 nation, .537, etc. ; reports a deposit bill, 020 ; on executive patronage and distribution of surplus 
 revenue, 6M ; on French indemnity, 034 ; on the postponement of the fourth installment of dis- 
 tribution money, 684 ; on the compromise measures of 1850, 896-9 ; views on internal improve-. 
 ment and protection. Appendix, 39 ; his death, 937. 
 
 California, territory of, bill to organize, 880-7 ; admission of, as a State, r02-5, 912 ; Seward's speecli 
 in favor of, 912. 
 
54 INDEX. 
 
 Callender, Thomas, publisher of " Prospect Before Us," aud " The Examiner,'' 185. 
 Campbell, J. A., confederate peace commissioner, 1206. 
 Canvass of 1876 for the presidency, ISIG-IST". 
 
 Capitol, at Washington, the burning of, by the British, in 1814, 268. 
 Carolina, early se»tlemont and government of, as a colony, 31. 
 
 Cass, Lewis, secretary of war, 548 ; nominated for president, proceedings of convention, 876-7 ; letter 
 r-f, to Nicholson, SSl-2 ; remarks on compromise in 185U, 930-7; on Nebraska bill, 951-2 ; secre- 
 tary of state, resigns, 1078-9. 
 Caucuses, congressional. 282, 341 ; history of, 342. 
 Censns, provision for taking. Appendix, 14. (Cons., Art. I., Sec. 2, clause 3 ;) apportionment of 
 
 representatives under the several censuses. 
 Centennial cekbration, bill providing for, l-^32 ; bill making appropriation for, 1566-1568. 
 Central American question and the '■ Monroe doctrine," in congress, 970. (See Monroe doctrine.) 
 Charter governments, description and settlement of, 22-26. 
 
 Chambers, E. F., ol" iVld., senator, on Van Buren's nomination as minister to England. 553. 
 Chandler, Z., of Mich., senator, on the John Brown investigation, 1004. 
 Charleston national nominating convention, in 1860, proceedings of, 1043, etc. ; secession convention 
 
 declarations in, 1055. 
 Charter of Washington, bill to amend, 1254. 
 Chase, Salmon P., otOliio, speech of, in senate, on Nebraska bill, 944-50; secretary of the treasury, 
 
 1133 ; resigns, and is appointed chief-jnstice of the supreme court, 1201. 
 Cherokee Indians ; attempt of Georgia to subject them to the laws of the State ; and Cheroke*. 
 memorial to congress, 511-12 ; opinion of attorney-general, 512-14 ; bills for their removal, and 
 debate on senate bill and proposed amendments, and passage of, 514-21 ; appeal of the Cherokees, 
 523 ; case carried. to the supreme court, and decision of the court, 526, 527 ; mi-sionaries arrested, 
 and discharged on wiit of habeas corpus ; new arrests ; Worcester aud Butler sentenced to four 
 years' imprisonment, 5.i6 ; Worcester applies to the supreme court for relief ; the laws of Geor- 
 gia decided invalid ; mandate of the supreme court for their discharge disregarded, and they are 
 kept in prison; cause of their discharge, 557; course of the president, 557-8; treaty lor the 
 remov;.! of the Cherokees, 5r;8-9. 
 Ches ipeakc, frigate, aflair ol, pending our difHculties with Great Britain, 223-5. 
 Che'^tnut, of S. C, speech of, in the senate, on John Brown investigation, 1004. 
 Chicago republican national convention in ISOO, l('46-8. 
 Choctaw Indi.'uis. treaty with, for their removal, 524. 
 
 Civil service reform, act looking to, 1376; report of commissi >■ era relating to, 1377. 
 Claims of States for interest on moneys advanced during the w-ar of lsi2, 561-2; bill vetoed. 
 Clark, H. E., of N. T., on pending election of speaker, 1013. 
 Clark, J. P., of Mo., resoluiii^n of. in relation to "Helper's Crisis," aud election of speaker, 1000 ; 
 
 Gilmer's substitute, and debate on slavery, 1012-18. 
 Clay, C. C, of Ala., in senate, on the John Brown investigation, 1006-7. 
 Clay, C. C, Jr., and others, propose a peace negotiation, 1189. 
 
 Clay, Hem-}', commissioni-r to Ghent, 264, 267 ; on the bank of the United States, 281 ; speech on the 
 tariff of 1"^24 ; candidate for president, .341, 343 ; is charged with coalition, and challenges Kre :-:er, 
 345; explains his course to his constituents, 347 ; on Van Buren's nomination as minister to 
 England. 554 ; nominated for president, 564 ; his resolution on the removal of the deposits, 603 ; 
 his letters on annexation of Texas, 749, 802, 810 ; nominated for president, 809 ; his position, 810 ; 
 resolnnon on compromise of 1850, 895 ; his death, 937. 
 Clayton. John M., of Del., on Van Buren's nomination, 554: secretary of state, 892 ; motion of, to 
 
 disallow foreigners to vote in Nebraska and Kansas, 952. 
 Clingraan, T. L., N. C, in defence of the secessionists, 1067 ; on the southern question, 1112-18 ; 
 
 replied to by John P. Hale, 1113. 
 Clinton. George, of N. Y., elected vice-president, 212 ; defeats a national bank by his casting vote, in 
 
 1811, 2>1. 
 Clinton, De Witt, candidate for president in 1812, 250. 
 
 Coalition, alleged, between Adams and Clay, and investigation of, in congress, 345-6. 
 Cobb, Howell, of Georgia, secretary of the treasury, resigns. 1078; corruption of, 1128. 
 Cobbett, William (Peter Porcupine), editor of Porcupine's Gazette, 185. 
 
 Cochrane, John, of N. Y., of committee of five, report of, 1127, u minated for vice-president, 11&4. 
 Cockade, tri-colored, worn by Frenchmen, 153; black, 1()8. 
 
 Coercion, opinion concerning, by Buchanan and attorney-gene. ul Black, 1060-04: by Gov. Horatio 
 Seymour, 1140. 
 
INDEX. 55 
 
 Coffroth, of Pa., on constitutional amendment, 1206. 
 
 Coles, Edward, of Ind., publishes Jefferson's opinions of Adams and Jackson, 428-9. 
 
 Colfax, Scliuyler, Ind., on election of speaker, 1021 ; elected speaker, 1156 (served three terms, see 
 list of speakers in the Appendix). 
 
 Collamer, Jacob, Vt., in senate, on Kansas bill, 1027. 
 
 Colorado, territory of. organized, 1030-1 ; act enabling, to form a constitution, 1207. , 
 
 Colored national convention, 1443. 
 
 Columbia. District of. ceded for a seat of Rovernment, 85-6. 
 
 Columbia river, on Pacific, occupation of, 377, etc. 
 
 Commerce, power of congress to regulate, Appendix, 19. 
 
 Compensiiiiou of members of congress, executive officers, judicial officers, and foreign ministers, 
 
 Compromises, constitutional, on slavery; see debates in the convention, chap. iv. of this work; 
 Constitution, Art. I., sec. 2, clause 3 ; sec. 9 ; and Art. IV., sec. 2. 
 
 Compromise measures: admission of Missouri, 313, etc.; measure* of 1850, proposed by Clay's 
 resolutions, 895-912. 
 
 Condition of the Southern States, resolution for an investigation into, 1333; debate on the question 
 of, 1333-1338; President Grant's message relating to, 1338. 
 
 Confederation of colonies in New England, 25 ; articles of, their nature, 48-9 ; their defects, 52-4 ; 
 the articles, S-13. 
 
 Congress, compensation of members of, 2?2 ; special sessions of, called, 970, 1135. 
 
 Connecticut, colony of, settlement and government of. 23-4. 
 
 Confiscation, acts authorizing, 1139, 1! 4.3-4 ; proclamation of, 1143 ; resolution concerning, and debate 
 on. 1165-73. 
 
 C'onkling. Roscoe, of N.Y., on rebellion, 1106. 
 
 Conspiracy, Great Western, 1192^. 
 
 Conspiiators against Lincoln and Seward tried and punished, 1210. 
 
 Constitution for K.iusas, free State, formed at Topeka, 958-9; formed at Lecompton, pro-slavery not 
 to be fairly submitted to the people, 982-3. 
 
 Constitution of the, United States, history of: the confederation formed during the war, and its 
 nature, -18-9 ; its defects, 52-4, 57; meetings of commissioners to devise a remedy. 57 ; convention 
 called, and plans of government proposed— the " Virginia plan," and the " New Jersey plan," 
 60-62 
 
 Constitutions of Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas, submitted to a vote of the people, 1.308. 
 
 Convention.- constitutional, preliminary measures for, 57; meeting and proceedings of, 60, etc. 
 
 Conventions, national nominating. 
 
 Correspondence between Johnson and Grant, 126.3. 
 
 Cotton exempted from internal tax, 1299; crop of 1868, 1309. 
 
 Counting electoral votes, joint resolution relative to, 1227. 
 
 Covode, John, Pa., resolutions of, for investigating frauds, 1035; president's protest, 1036; commit- 
 tee's report, 10.37-41. 
 
 Cox, Jacob D., of Ohio, on repeal of fugitive slave laws, 1162-3; on confiscation, 1167. 
 
 Craig, Sir James H., and the British plot, 248-9. 
 
 Crawford, A. J., letter to, from Gen. Jackson, 1073. 
 
 Crawford, Wm. H., on bank of United States, 501; minister to France, 264; secretary of war, March, 
 1815; secretary of the treasury, 2S8. 
 
 Credentials of .Mr. Butler objected to, 1257. 
 
 Credentials of Joseph Segar, presentation of, 1228. 
 
 Credit Mobilier, 1479; investigation into the charges against representatives Ames and Brooks, 1479- 
 1482; representative Poland's attack, 1481, 1482; defense of the accused congressmen, 1483.. 
 
 Creek Indians and Georgia, controversy between, 361-74; alleged fraudulent treaty for their removal, 
 Feb. 12, 1S25, 362; the tribe unwilling to remove, 3')3; controversy between Georgia and the 
 general government, 863-74. (See Indians.) 
 
 Cherokee Indians: law of Georgia of December, 1829, to subject them to the laws of the State after 
 June 1. 1830; Cherokee memorial to congress, 511-12; opinion of attorney-general Berrien 
 512-14; l3i!ls for their removal, and debate thereon; senate bill and proposed amendments, and 
 passage of, 514-24; appeal of the Cherokees to the people of the United States. .525; case carried 
 to the supreme court of U. S.; its decision, the court disclaiming jurisdiction in the case, 527; 
 new act of Georgia, December, 1830, 355; missionaries arrested, and discharged on writ n't habeas 
 corpus ; a number again arrested and imprisoned, 356; the supreme court decides the imprison- 
 msnt unconstitutional, and orders their discharge: the mandate disregarded by the State court ; 
 snbeequeutly discharged, 557 ; course of the president, 557-8 ; treaty for their removal, 558-9. 
 
56 INDEX. 
 
 Creole affair, resolutions of Mr. Giddings, 768-70. (See Giddinars.) 
 
 Crittenden, John J., of.Ky., on admifssion of Kansas, 991 ; on John Brown's invasion, 1002; reply of, 
 
 to Cliugman, 1068; compromise propositions of, 1073-4, 1086, 1090; against disunion, 1080, 1099; 
 
 his compromise resolutions defeated, 1125. 
 Cuba, bill to provide means f .r the purchase of, 996. 
 Cumberland road, construction authorized, 220; bill for the preservation and repair of, vetoed by 
 
 Monroe, Si 1-12. 
 Currency, national, act to provide, 1159-60. 
 Curry, of Ala., speech of, on slavery, 1015-17. 
 Cuthbert, Alfred, of Geo., senator, on French indemnity, 624. 
 
 Dacotah territory, organization of, 1030-.31. 
 
 Dallas, Alexander, secretary of the treasury, 233; proposes a bank, 272 ; report of, on tariff, 280. 
 
 Dallas, George M., senator, report of, on bank, 566; elected vice-president in 1844, 814. 
 
 Davie, William R., envoy to France, 179. 
 
 Davis, Henry Winter, of Md., proposition of, that States revise their laws hindering the execution of 
 the fugitive slave law, 1079; on naional currency, 1160; on confiscation, 1167-8; on reconstruc- 
 tion ot seceded States, 1174-6, 1186; resnlutioa of, in relation to France in Mexico, 1188. 
 
 Davis, Jefferson, Miss., senator, on the John Brown investigation, 1002; secessicn speech of, on retir- 
 ing. 1101; chosen president of the southern confederacy, till; interview with, by Gilmore and 
 Jacques, 1190-1; despairing message, 1208; capture of, 1210-11. 
 
 Davis, R., Miss., speech of, in vindication of the south, 1013. ^ 
 
 Debt, public. (See Public Debt). 
 
 Debts due British subjects, payment of, 203. 
 
 Declaration of Independence, 47; Appendix, 1. 
 
 Decrees. French, Berlin, 227-8; Rambouillet, 234; repeal decree, 258 
 
 Democratic national convention of 1872, 1447. 
 
 Democratic national convention of 1868, 1304; principles enunciated in the platform of, 1304. 
 
 Democratic societies, 116; opposition to, by Washington, 135. 
 
 Democnts divided on Lecompton constitution, 900-1; northern, sentiments of, 1139-40; oppose the 
 administration and the war, 1149-52. 
 
 Dcnnison, Wm., of Ohio, appointed postmaster-general, 1201. 
 
 Denver, J. W., appointed secretary of Kansas, 984; resigns, 998. 
 
 Department of the Interior established, 891. 
 
 Deposits, public, removal of, from bank, meditated, 591; inquiry into their security, appointment of 
 Duane, secretary of the treasury, Jackson's charges, and appointment ot Amos Kendall, to nego- 
 tiate with State banks to receive the deposits, 592 ; Duane refuses to remove the deposits, assigns 
 his reasons, and is removed from office, 594: the act disapproved, 595; president's controversy 
 with the directors, 596-600; meeting in Philadelpliia, and effect of removal, 600; reduction of 
 bank loans, and large drafts on the bank, 001 ; debate in the house on the removal, 602-5; Clay's 
 resolution, 605 ; the president refuses to answer a call; Clay's two resolutions, 6UiJ; president's 
 protest, 607; Poindester's reply, 608; president's explanatory message,G09; Poiudexter"s resolu- 
 tions, and debate on, 610-11; Calhoun's deposit bill, 620; Benton's expunging resolution, 621-2. 
 
 Detroit custom-house, fraud in building, 1041. 
 
 Dickerson, Mahlon, of N. J., senator, speech of, on the occupation of Oregon, 379-81; plan of, to dis- 
 tribute proceeds of land sales, 472-4; secretary of the navy, 617. 
 Distribution of proceeds of land sales, Dickcrson's plan, 472-4; a house report on, 475; Clay's report 
 and bill, 5.'j9-60 ; and passed; returned next session with a veto, 587; provisions of the bill, 588; 
 debate on the course of the president, 5S8; a new bill introduced, not decisively acted on, 599; 
 Ckiy's new plan, 654-6; bill for conditional distribution, passed, 756; and a bill vetoed by 
 Tyler, 784. 
 District of Columbia, bill providing for the territorial government of, 1332. 
 
 Disunion, attempt at, charged, 459; prayed for, 756, 766; threatened by southern statesmen, 1051-5. 
 Dix, John A., of N. Y., appointed secretary of the treasury, 1098; efficiency of, 1129. 
 Doolittle, James R., Wis., senator, on John Brown investigation, 1004, 1007; reply to southern sena- 
 tors, 1075-7; on proposed amendment of the Constitution, 1124. 
 Douglas, Stephen A., 111., report of, to organize Nebraska territory, and speech on, 941-4; report of, 
 on Kansas affairs, 962-;j; reports a bill for authorizing a constitutional conveniion,>9U5; re-elected 
 senator, 993-4; resolution of, on the invasion of States, 1023-4; nominated for president, 1048-9; 
 on slavery question, 1080 ; charges republicans with disunionism, 1086. 
 Drafts of troops authorized, 1187. 
 
INDEX. 5'T 
 
 Dred Scctt. case of, 970-81 ; decision reviewed by senator DooliUle, 1075-6. 
 
 Dunn, of Ind., proposition of, to amend Kansas bill, 968; proposes to revive the Missouri compr.> 
 
 mise. 959. 
 Diiane, James, editor of Aurora newspaper (successor to Bache), 185. 
 Duane. Wm. J., secretary of the treasury, 744; refuses to remove deposits, and is removed from offic ■ 
 
 his r 'asons for refusal, 594. 
 Duties, act to lay, 1788, 75-6; increased, 86-7, 94 ; internal duties repealed, 203; act imposing inierni.' 
 
 duties, 264-5. 
 
 Eaton, John H., of Tenn., secretary of war, 477; resignation of, correspondence with Inghan:, ar. 
 
 challenge, 548-9. 
 Electorr' of president, how chosen (see Constitution, Art. ii., sec. 1, clause 2); when and where cas-! 
 
 their votes, Art. ii., sec. 1, clause .3; law for a uaiform day for electing, 831. 
 Election of president in 1876 disputed, 1588; points of doubts involved, 1588. 
 Electoral liill, debate on the, 1553-1562; passage in the senate. 1562. 
 Electoral commission. 1589; arguments by respective counsel on Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, an.> 
 
 South Carolina, and decision by the commission in favor of Hayes, 1.5S9-1592. 
 Ellmaker, Amos, of Pa., anti-masonic candidate for vice-president, 564. 
 Ellsworth, Oliver, envoy to France, 179 ; chief-justice of the supreme court (see Appendix). 
 Emancipation, proclamation of. by Lincoln, and effect of, 1143-4, 1309. 
 Emancipation by war power, views on, by Patrick Henry and John Quincy Adams, 1144-6; gradual 
 
 recommended by Lincoln, 1146. 
 Embargo, act of 1807, 228; effects of, and repeal, 232-3. 
 EmiL'raiit aid societies (see aid societies). 
 Enforcement of the rights of citizens to vote, act for the, 1417; opposition to bills of this character, 
 
 1417. 
 England and France, our relations with, in 1864, 1187-8. 
 English, of Ind., proposition of, for admission of Kansas, 991-2. 
 Everett. Edward, nominated for vice-president, 1046; death of, 1201. 
 Ewing, Thomas, of Ohio, secretary of the treasury, 744; resignation of, 749; secretary of tlie 
 
 interior, 892. 
 E.fecutive department, plans of, proposed in the convention, 71-2. 
 Executive patronage, Benton's report on, 348-9; Calhoun's, and debate on, 624-9. 
 Executive power to grant amnesty, 1.301. 
 Expunging resolution of Benton, 621-2 ; renewed, debated, and passed, 674-6. 
 
 Federalists and anti-federalists, origin of their names, 73. 
 
 Fenno, editor of United Stales Gazette, 97. 
 
 Ferry, senator, financial bill proposed by, 149.5-6. 
 
 Fessenden, Wm. P., of Maine, senator, on John Brown investigation, 1004; reply of, to Douglas, oj 
 
 State invasion, 1034-5; secretary of the treasury, 1201. 
 Fiftcimth amendment, joint resolution proposing, 1302. 
 Fillmore, Millard, elected vice-president, 882; became president on the death of president Taylor, 
 
 9!0; candidate for president, 972. 
 Fiscal year ending 1872, receipts of, 1449. 
 
 Flairs of Prance and the United States, reciprocal presentation of, 141. 
 Florida, cession of, by Spain to the United states, 301-2. 
 Florida war, 28:^, etc. (see Seminole war). 
 Florida, State of, admitted into the union, 831. 
 
 Floyd, John B., secretary of war. treachery and corruption of, 1078, 1128. 
 F rce-bill, to enforce the collection of duties in South Carolina, 583, .585. 
 Force-bill, providing to raise laud and naval forces to suppress the rebellion, action on, 1119. 
 Forney, John W., testiinmy of, against Buchanan. 1038. 
 Forty-second congress, president's third message to the, 14.i5. 
 Forty-third congress, first session of the, 1491 ; president's message to, 1491-1495. 
 Foot, Samuel A., of Conn., resolutions of, on the public lauds, 4S7 ; debate on, by Hayne, Webster, 
 
 Benton, and others, 488-500. 
 Foote, Henry S., Miss., proposition of, for territorial governments, 894. 
 Forsyth, John, of Ga., on Indian bill, 517-21 : secretary of state, 617. 
 Fortification bill, with the three million amendment, 635-40. 
 Fourteenth amendment, provisions of, 1303; bill for the enforcement of, 1-338. 
 
58 INDEX. 
 
 France, treaty of alliance with, 50 ; revolution in, and our relations with, 109-10 ; Genet, the French 
 minister, 119-18 ; G. Morrio. minister to, recalled, and Monroe appointed, 119 ; colors of, presented, 
 1-tl ; dissatisfied with Jay treaty, 14G ; unlawful decree of, 1(5') ; envoys to, novel negotiation, 
 non-intercourse act against, 161-5 ; negotiation with, resumed, 178 ; government of, again 
 changed, 181 ; treaty with, negotiated, lS2-:3 ; ratified, 184 ; aggressions of, 216-18 ; Berlin and 
 Milan decrees, 226-8 ; Ramhouillet decree, '231 ; conditional repeal of decrees, 235; continues re- 
 strictions, 241-2 ; decrees repealed, 258-9 ; Bourbons restored, 267 ; refuses to pay the stipulated 
 indi'mnity, 1)30-2; reprisals suggested by the president, 630; and retaliation, 633; debate in 
 sena'c, 634-5; payment of indemnity, 640. 
 
 Fraiikinir privilege, bill to abolish, 1457. 
 
 Franklin. Benj., deputed to England with petitions, 39 ; commissioner to treat of peace, 51, 52. 
 
 Frauds of government oflicers (see Covode's report). 
 
 Freedmen's Bureau, 1214 ; committee of conference concerning, 1229 ; acts for the continuance of, 
 1290. 
 
 Frelinehuysen, Theodore, of N. J., on Indian bill, 514-17 ; candidate for vke-president in 1S44, 809. 
 
 Fremont. John ('., nomination of, for president, '.(73 ; again in 1864, 1194; acceptance of, 1197 ; with- 
 draws, 119S. 
 
 French spoliations, claims of American citizens for ; nature of the claims, and bill presented for ;' 
 passed the senate, 623; claims of our government against France for Indemnity under the treaty 
 of 1831 ; reports of committees, 630-1 ; Mr. Adams' proposition, 631 ; resentment of the French 
 government, and Mr. Livingston's return, 632 ; president asks for reprisals ; debate on the mes- 
 sage, and proposition of defe se, 633-5. 
 
 Freneau, Phihp, editor of the National Gazette, 97, 105, 115. 
 
 Fries opposes tax- law in Pennsylvania, 186-7. 
 
 Funding the debt by the colonial congress, defeated, 53 (see public debt). 
 
 Fugitives from slavery, constitutional provision for their delivery to legal claimants (see Constitu- 
 tion, Art. iv., Sec. 2, cl. 3). 
 
 Fugitive slave law, passage of, 912 ; bill to amend, 1121 ; passed the house, 1121 ; repeal of, 1161^. 
 
 Fugitives from justice, act concerning, bill to amend, 1121. 
 
 Fugitive slaves in Canada, attempt to effect their surrender, 468. 
 
 Gallatin, Alb'.-rl, secretary of the treasury, 198 ; commissioner to Ghent, 264, 267 ; minister to Eng- 
 land, 3S4 ; reports in favor of a bank, 281 ; favors renewal, 501. 
 
 Geary, John W., appointed governor of Kansas. 976 ; policy of, displeases pro-slavery men, 976-7 ; 
 resigns, 978. 
 
 Genet, Edmund C, French minister, arrival of, his conduct and recall, 112-10. 
 
 Geneva tribunal of arbitration, conclusion of the labors of, 1427 ; early negotiations between the two 
 countries, 1427-1431 ; debate in Euglisu parliament, 1428-29-30; rejection of the first treaty by the 
 Senate, 1431 ; the second treaty of Washington, 1431-1436 ; meeting of the conference at Geneva, 
 1437 ; work of the commission, 1437-1439 ; charges of the leading London jotirnals, 1439 ; Ameri- 
 can argument, 1440; the British argument, 1440.; the decision of the tribunal, 1441 ; Bancroft 
 Davis on Sir Alexander Cockburn, 144J. 
 
 Georgia, colony of, its government, 20. 
 
 Georgia, State of, sued by South Carolina, causing the 11th amendment of the Constitution, 108. 
 
 Georgia, the State of, act to settle limits with, 169 ; controversy with, concerning the removal of the 
 Indians ; special messages of Mr. Monroe, SOI ; relations between the State, the Unit d States, 
 and tho Indians, the numbers and the lands of the different tribes, 302 ; treaty with the Creek 
 chiefs, to which the tribe would not assent, 362-3 ; legislature convened. by Gov. Troup, to pro- 
 vide for the survey and appropriation of the lands, 363 ; report of a committee, 364 ; Troup's 
 second message, 364-5 ; survey resisted by the Creeks ; President Adams orders the survey post- 
 poned, and Gen. Gaines sent to quell disturbances, 3()5; Gov. Troup resolves to continue the sur- 
 vey and distribution of the lands, 365-6 ; the war department to the governor, and his reply ; 
 correspondence between Gaines and Troup ; question of authority discussed, the treaty objected 
 to as fraudulent, .366-7 ; the survey again forbidden by the president, 367 ; altercation between 
 Gaines and Troup, 368; treaty to be presented to congress, 368; Troup defers the execution of 
 the treaty, 368; effect of the controversy abroad, 36il ; new treaty made and ratified, 8ij:)-70; pro- 
 test against, by Georgia members of congress, the governor orders the survey, action of congress, 
 370: threatens to resist the general government by force, but yields, 371; a treaty to purchase 
 the remaining strip of land settles the controversy, 372; a bill for the preservation and civilization 
 of the Indians, with a report, 372-3: provisions of the bill, and action thereon, 3T4. 
 
 Georgia, act to perfect the organization of, 1308 ; ratifies the fifteenth amendment, 1312. 
 
INDEX. 69 
 
 Geor^a, controversy of, with the Cherokees. (See Cherokee Indians). 
 
 Georfifia rifles, seizure of, at New York, lllO-H, 1129. 
 
 Gorrj, Eldridse, joint envoy to France, 162 ; vice-president, 202. 
 
 Giddiuss. Joshua R., of Ohio, presents a petition for division of the union, 766; resolutions of, rc- 
 latiai to the Creole afl'air, is censured, resigns, and is re-elected, 768-70 , on the Oregon question, 
 in favor of "notice," 859. 
 
 Giles, V\ m. B., of Virginia, controversy'with John Q, Adams, 429-41. 
 
 Gilmer, of N. C, on the election of speaker, 1012. 
 
 Gilmore. visit of, to Jefferson Davis, 1! 90-91. 
 
 Gold, bill to prohibit certain sales of, 1160-61. 
 
 Goodrich, Eliznr, removal of, by Jefferson, 190. 
 
 Gordon, Wm. F., of Virginia, proposes the sub-treasury, 620. 
 
 Gould, Ju'ige, of Conn., participator in the controversy of Adams and the Boston federalistB, 456-8. 
 
 Governments, colonial, description and settlement of. 22-32; of States, during the revolution, 49, 
 
 Graham, Wm. A., of N. C, secretary of the navy, 910; candidate for vice-president, 938. 
 
 Granger, Gideon, letter of Jefferson to, 201 ; appointed postmaster-general, 744. 
 
 Granger, Francis, candidate for lieut.-governor of New York, and for govern ir, 456 ; for vice-presi- 
 dent, 677 ; potitmaster-general, 744. 
 
 Grant, President Ulysses S., inauguratiim of, 1307 ; first annual message of, 1310 ; proclamation an- 
 nouncing ratification of the fifteenth amendment, 1313 ; special message to congress on the same, 
 1313; second annual message of, 1315 ; action relative to San Domingo, see title San Domingo; 
 special message relating to southern disturbances, 1338 ; assault by democratic members of con- 
 gress on the administration of, 1379 ; third annual message of, 13'.'2-'i394; called on by the house 
 to explain under what provisions of the ku-klux bill he had suspended the laws in the southern 
 states, 1394; renomination of, 1447; re-election of, 1448; special message on Louisiana affairs, 
 1478 ; recommendations in regard to the finances, 14'.)3-14il5; veto of bill inflating the currency, 
 1505: message to the forty-third congress, 1518-1519; the third term question, 1539 ; the presi- 
 dent's letter to Gen. White defining his position, 1539 ; his position on the school question, 
 1540; causes tending to make the Grant administration unpopular, 1539-1540 ; seventh annual 
 message, 1512-1,545 ; reply to the resolution culling on the president for .information in regard 
 to his absences from Washington, 1.569. 
 
 Great Britain, instructions of, on trade with the colonies, 35 ; attempts at conciliation, 50 ; difficul- 
 ties with, 55 ; policy of, 1211; treaty with, of amity, commerce, and navigation, 137; treaty of 
 boundary with, 211-12 ; her depredations on our commerce, captures of our vessels, etc.; new 
 principles interpolated into the law of nations, 210-18; treaty with, rejected, 221-2; British orders 
 in council and French decrees, embargo, etc., 226-8; r.egotiation at Washington with British min- 
 isters, 233-4 ; diplomatic discussion between United States and Great Britain (Monroe and Fos- 
 ter). 2)5-40; supposed objects of Great Britain and France, 243 ; Secretary Smith's resignation 
 and expose, 343-7; measures of defense, by United States, 249; war declared, 254 ; orders in 
 council revoked, 259 ; treaty of peace concluded, 274-0 ; claims of Great Britain on the Pacific, 
 377-81 ; West India trade, 382, etc.; navigation of the St. Lawrence, 3S6-90; northeastern bound- 
 ary, 386, 781-6. (See treaties, embargo, non-intercourse). 
 
 Greeley, Horace, correspondence of, with peace men and the president, 1188-90 ; nominated for presi- 
 dent by reform republicans and democrats, 1445-1448 ; letters of acceptance by, 1445-1448 ; reso- 
 lutions relating to the death of, 14.56. 
 
 Greeley reform movement, the germ of, 1380. 
 
 Green, senator, Missouri, on John Brown investigation, 1002 ; on BJineas bill, 1027 ; on peace propo- 
 sitions, 1123. 
 
 Grow. Galusba A.. Pa., reports a bill to amend laws of Kansas ; substitute for, offered by Dunn, 969; 
 reports another bill, which is lost, 975-6 ; his propositions concerning land and homestead bills, 
 997-8 : his Kansas bill of I860, 1026; his speech on homestead bill, 1031-4. 
 
 Grundy, Felix, of Tennessee, senator, on Foot's resolution, 498. ^ 
 
 Gunboats, Jefferson's plan of naval defen-^e, 212, 213; appropriations for building, 212, 220. " 
 
 Gwin, senator, Cal., on John Brown investigation, 1007 ; his reply to Pugh, 1012. 
 
 Habersham, Joseph, Ga., postmaster-general, 136. 
 
 Hale, John P., senator, N. H., on John Brown investigation, 1001, 1003; on president's message, 1069; 
 
 reply of, to Clingman, 1113. 
 Hamilton, Alexander, on removal from ofiice, 76 ; secretary of the treasury, 77; his character and 
 
 Jefferson's described, 95-6; controversy with Jefferson, 97-101 ; letter to Washington, 102-3; 
 
60 ESTDEX. 
 
 charges against, 107, 133 ; report on public debt, and resignation, 136 ; opposes Adams, 180, 189, 
 and Burr, 191. 
 
 Hamilton, of Texas, loyal speech of, 1106-7. 
 
 Harbor bill, defeat of, by the president's not returning it, 561. 
 
 Harris, of Md., in Chicago national democratic convention, 1196, 
 
 Harrison, Wm. H., delegate from northwestern territory, 188; nominated for, and elected presi- 
 dent, 735-S ; his inauguration and cabinet, 740-4 ; convenes congress, and dies, 744. 
 
 Hartford convention, history of, 209-72. 
 
 Harvey, Sir John, governor of Virginia colony, 27. 
 
 Haskius, of N. Y., report of, on President Buchanan's protest, 1036-7. 
 
 Hatch, a peace commissioner from the confederate government, 1206. 
 
 Hayes, Governor R. B., of Ohio, receives presidential nomination from the republican party,. 1580; 
 declared president of the Cnitea States by the decision of the electoral commission, 1592; policy 
 of the new president, 1592. 
 
 Hayne, Col., commissioner of S. C. to Washington, 1099; his final demand, 1102. 
 
 Hays, a murderer in Kansas, bailed by Judge Lecompte, 977. 
 
 Hayti, representatives to, authorized, 1143. 
 
 Haywood, Wm. H., of N. C, instructed to vote against thj tariff, resigns, 873. 
 
 Henry, John, agent in the British plot, visits Boston and Washington, and receives $50,000 for pre- 
 tended disclosures, 248-9. 
 
 Henry, Patrick, of Va., appointed envoy to Prance, and declines, 179; views of, on the Constitution 
 (Note F, Appendix); on emancipation as a war measure, 1144-5. 
 
 Helper's " Impending Crisis," and the election of speaker, 1000-1014. 
 
 Herrick, of N. Y., on constitutional amendment, 1200. 
 
 Hickman, John, of Pa., proposition of, to elect a speaker by plurality, 1015. 
 
 Hill, Isaac, of N. H., participation of, in the attack on the United States bank in 1829, 574; on branch 
 mints, 629. 
 
 Hill, representative B. H., of Georgia, reply to Blaine's attack in regard to Jefferson Davis and treat- 
 ment of federal prisoners in the south, 1565-66. 
 
 Hoard, of N. Y., resolution of, for inquiry into alleged attempts of government officers to influence 
 members of congress, 1035. 
 
 Holcomb, J. P., agency of, in the Greeley peace effort in 1864, 1189. 
 
 Holland dissatisfied with the Jay treaty, 147. 
 
 Holman, of lud., on the proposed constitutional amendment to abolish slavery, 1203. 
 
 Holmes, John, of Maine, on Mr. Van Buren's nomination, 553. 
 
 Holt, Joseph, of Ky., secratary of war, 1099; his reply to Col. Hayne, 1102; report of, to western con- 
 spiracy, 1192-4. 
 
 Homestead bill, Grow's proposition, 997-8; again introduced, passed by the house, amended in the 
 senate, passed and vetoed, 1029-30; Grow's speech on, 1030-4. 
 
 Hooper, of Mass., on national currency, 1159. 
 
 House bill No. 1050, otherwise known as the civil rights bill, motion in the senate to take up, 1412; 
 senator Schurz's speech, 1413 ; rejection of the bill, 1416. 
 
 Houston, Samuel, speech of, on Nebraska bill, 950. 
 
 Howard, Jacob, of Mich., senator, on the reconstruction of the seceded Statss, 1173-i. 
 
 Howe, of Wis., on the reconstruction of the seceded State-, 1174. 
 
 Hubbard, of t'onn., on repeal of fugitive slave laws, 1163. 
 
 Hunter, senator, Va., on the John Brown investigation, 1002 ; on the state of the country, 1092; ou 
 propositions of the peace convention, 1122-3; confederate peace commissioner, 1206. 
 
 Illinois, report of resolutions in the legislature of, against the further prosecution of the war, and 
 
 for an armistice, 1150. 
 IiMpressmeut oi' American seamen by Great Britain, 218, 261. 
 Incomes, a:;ditioual tax on, 1161. 
 
 Increase of public salaries, bill for, 14.57-1460; bill for repeal of, 1496, 1497. 
 Independence declared, 47; the declaratio. Appendix, 1. 
 Indiana, territory formed, 188; attempt to introduce slavery in. 909-10; divided, 213; admission of, 
 
 as a State, 282-3; claims the public lands within her limits, 474. 
 Indians, northwestern, war with, 94; treaty with, 140; Creeks and Georgia, .361-74; Jackson's policy 
 
 in relation to, 510, etc.; bill for removal of, 514, 524; Cherokee memorial, 525; case in supreme 
 
 court, 527; last controversy, 555. (See Georgia, Creek Indians, and Cherokees.) 
 Ingersoll, Jared, voted for as vice-president, 262. 
 
INDEX. 61 
 
 Ingham, Samuel D., secretary of state, resignation, etc., 548-52. 
 
 Insolvent and bankrupt laws, decision on, 308. 
 
 Insurreciionary States, bill for the more efficient government of, 1232; supplementary bill for the 
 
 more efficient government of, 1237. 
 Interior, department of, when established, 891. 
 [nterual improvement bill passed and vetoed, 283-4; another bill vetoed, 309; Cumberland road, 
 
 appropriation for, vetoed, 311-312; Maysville and Washington road bills vetoed; Ht^mphiU's 
 
 report ou vetoes, 506, 508; improvement of river and harbor bills vetoed, 561; several other bills 
 
 vetoed; improvement bills vetoed, and repassed, 971. 
 Internal revenue, ^see Revenae). 
 
 Internal t.aut<portation. Senator Windham's report on, 1514-1516. 
 Iowa, admission of, as a State, into tiie Union, 831. 
 Issue of silver coin, bill to provide for, 1.575; joint resolution relating to, by Representative Cox 
 
 1575-1576. 
 Iversou, senator, Georgia, on the John Brown investigation, 1003, 1006^on president's message, 
 
 1070-2; farewell speech of, 1103-4. 
 
 Jackson, Andrew, vote of, in congress, against the approval of Washington's administration, 154 ; 
 establishes martial law at New Orleans; 277-9 ; correspondence with Monroe on appointments, 
 284-8 ; conduct in Florida war investigated, and his defease, 293-8 ; nominated for president by 
 Tennessee legislature, and resigns his seat in the senate of U. S., .391-2; his accusation against 
 Adams and Olay, 393 ; letters of, to Indiana senate and Dr. Coleman on tariff and internal im- 
 provements, 401-8 ; elected president, 469-70 ; his inauguration and cabinet officers, 476-7 ; views 
 on protection reviewed by a committee, 534 ; suggests several amendments of the Constitution, 
 481; controversy with Calhoun. 536, etc.; dissolution of his cabinet, 548 ; re-elected president, 
 664-5; vetoes bank-bill, 567; protest against Clay's resolution, 607 ; asks for reprisals against 
 France, 633 ; suggests a law to prohibit the circulating of anti-slavery piibMcations through the 
 mail in the southern states, 650 ; his death, 832. (Sec bank of the United States, removal of the 
 deposits, nullification, tariff). 
 
 Jacques, Col., visit of, to Jefferson Davis, 1190-91. 
 
 Jay, John, appointed minister to Spain, 51; secretary of foreign affairs, 56; minister to Great Britain, 
 132-4; concludes a treaty, 137 (see Great Britain, and treaties); appointed chief-justice of the 
 supreme court, in 1781, and again in '800. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, member of the committee reporting the declaration of independence, 47; plan 
 of, for government of northwestern territory without slavery, 58 ; appointed minister to France, 
 56 ; secretary of state, 77; hostility between Jefferson and Hamilton, 95-101; their characters de- 
 scribed, 96-7 ; letter to Washington, i04 ; his commercial report, and resignation, 122-4; letter 
 toMazzei, 150; requests Madison to oppose Adams, 167-8 ; opposes the alien and sedition laws; 
 is author of the Kentucky nullification resolutions, 175 ; his election as president, with attend- 
 ing circumstances, 191-5 ; his inauguration and inaugural address, and cabinet, 196-8 ; appoint' 
 ments and removals, 199-202 ; re-elected, 212, and inaugurated, 214 ; address, 214-15 ; opinions of 
 Adams and Jackson, 428, etc. 
 
 Johnson, Cave, appointed postmaster-general, 832. 
 
 Johnson, liichard M., report of, on Jackson's execution of Ambrister and Arbuthnot, 293 ; his medi- 
 ation and testimony in Jackson's cabinet difficulty, 55U-2. 
 
 Johnson, Andrew, of Tenu., against disunion, 1074 ; on treason, 1124 ; nominated and elected as 
 vice-president, 1191, 1201 ; became president on the death of Lincoln, 1211 ; message in regard 
 to the right of certain States to representation in electoral college, 1228 ; report is relation to 
 the impeachment of, 1259 ; committee on impeachment of, discharged, 1259 ; vetoes Arkansas 
 admission bill, 1204 ; initiatory steps toward the impeachment of, 1265 ; impeachment resolution 
 sent to the judiciary committee, 1266 ; articles of impeachment against, 1267; commencement 
 of the trial of, 1268 ; Manager Logan's ar::ument against, 1268-1283 ; Hon. Wm. M. Evarts' arga- 
 ment in defense of, li8.3-1292 ; Manager Bingham's speech for prosecution, 1292-1298 ; close of 
 argument in the trial of, 1298 ; acquittal of, 12Q^. 
 
 Johnson, Herschel V., of Georgia, nominated for vice-president, 1049. 
 
 Judicial act, new, passed near the close of Adams' term, repealed by first congress under Jeffer- 
 son, 190. 
 
 Judiciary act of 1789, 77; attempt to repeal the 25th section of, 532-3. 
 
 Judiciary of Kansas, decision of, respecting treason, 967. 
 
 Kansas and Nebraska territories, act to organize, 963. 
 
62 ESTDEX. 
 
 Kansas, emigration to, slavery therein contemplated, 954 ; Andrew H. Reeder appointed governor, 
 95o; secret societies formed, and fraudulent election in, 955, 957; bill to remove place of meeting 
 vetoed and repassed, 957; pro-slavery laws, 957 -S; meetings of free State settlers to form a 
 government, 95S ; Topeka constitution formed, 953-9^ legislature and State otHcers elected, 959; 
 application for admission of, as a State, 9.V.); arrest of free State men for treason, 959; Topeka 
 legislature meets and is dispersed, 959; Shannon appointed governor of, 959; and treats with free 
 State leaders, 959-00, and is removed, 91)0; Douglas' report on alTairs in, 962-3, and Collamer's 
 minority report, 963^; committee-^;o investigate affairs in, appointed, and their report, 965-7; 
 judiciary, 9(j7; destruction of newspapers and hotel, 967; Topeka constitution in congress, 967-8; 
 Punn's amendment, 968 ; bills to settle difficulties in, reported on by Douglas, and action there- 
 on, 9G8-9 ; bill for admission of, again defeated, 975 ; John W. Geary appointed governor. Walker 
 appointed governor, and Stanton secretary, 981; election of delegates to Lecompton constita* 
 tional convention, 9S1-2 ; action of the convention. 982-3; Stanton convenes the legislature to 
 provide for a popular vote, and is removed, 981 ; Gov. Walker resigns, 985-6; votes on Lecompton 
 constitution, i'8i; ; St^e election in, under Lecompton constitution, frauds, Calhoun escapes, 
 986-7; Stanton's address, 987-8; Lecompton constitution in congress, 988-92; Crittenden, Mont- 
 gomery, and English's propositions, 9 1-2; territorial laws in, repealed, 998 ; new constitutional 
 convention called, constitution formed and adopted, 9:18, 999; republican party formed in, 998: 
 bill to admit, 1026, and debate on, 1027-8 ; bill to abolish slavery in, vetoed by Gov. Medary, 1028; 
 admitted as a State, 1102. 
 
 Kendall, Amos, agent to select State banks to receive the deposits, 592. 
 
 Kentucky admitted as a State, 92; resolutions of, 1798 and 1799, 172-6. 
 
 Kernan, of N. Y., on confiscation, 1165 ; on reconstruction of seceded Slates, 1184-5. 
 
 Ketchum, of N. Y., in national convention, at Chicago, on peace, 1196-7. 
 
 King, Eufus, succeeded by Monroe, at London, 208; proposes anti-slavery proviso for northwestern 
 territory, 58 ; resolution of, to colonize the free negroes, 3G3. 
 
 King, Wm. R., of Ala., president of scnitu pro iein., 910 ; vice-president, 937, 
 
 King, Presiou, of N. Y., senator, on John Brown investigation, 1005. 
 
 King, of Mo., on the repeal of the fugitive slave law, 1162. 
 
 Knights of the Golden Circle (see Western conspiracy). 
 
 Knox, Henry, secretary of war under Washington, 77 ; resignation of, 136. 
 
 Ku-Klux bill, 1333 ; Judge Shcllabarger's defense of the bill in the house, 1.338-1315 ; Representative 
 Kerr in opposition to. 1.346-1350 ; discussion of the bill, 1351-1354 ; debate in the senate, 13.54-1371; 
 speech of Mr. Trumbull denouncing, 1354-1361 ; Mr. Kdmuuds in defense, i;i61-1371 ; the bill as 
 it passed congress, 1372-1376; the president's proclamations relating to, 1376; appropriation bill 
 to provide for the expenses of election under, 1418; bill to extend the provisions of the 4th sec- 
 tion of, 1418. 
 
 Labor reform convention, 1443. 
 
 Lands, western, ceded to general government, 57, 85 ; public (see public lands). 
 
 Laud bill, to grant land to seminaries for instruction in agriculture, mechanics, and useful arts, was 
 vetoed by Buchanan, 996 ; designed to give preemptors advantage over speculators, failed, 997. 
 
 Lane, Joseph, nominated for vice-president, 1049 ; speech of, deprecating the election of an anti- 
 slavery president, 1069; against coercion, 1124. 
 
 Laurens, Henry, commissioner to treat with Great Britain, 52. 
 
 Laws, change of publishers of, 381. 
 
 Lecompte, Judge, Kansas, singular opinions of, 967. 
 
 Lecompton, Qpnstitutional convention at. and action of, 982-3 ; slavery clause only submitted to the 
 people, 983 ; vote thereon, 9^6 ; subsequently submitted and rejected, 986; presented to congress, 
 and action on, 98S-92 ; submitted with the English proposition (page 91)1), and rejected, 9a3. 
 
 Lecompton and anti-Lecompton democrats, 1001. 
 
 Lee, Charles, of Va.. appointed attorney-general, 140. 
 
 Leigh, Benjamin W., of Va., sent as mediator to South Carolina in 1833, 583; on Benton's expunging 
 resolution, 622; on distribution, 625. 
 
 Legislature of Kansas, territorial, election in 1855 for choosing members of, the judges of election 
 dispersed by Missourians, and new ones appointed, 955 ; new election ordered by the governor 
 in the contested districts, 956; legislature meets at Pawnee City, free State men refused seats; 
 what acts were passed, 957-8; anew legislature, in 1857, passes an act for a constitutional con- 
 vention, 977. (See Lecompton). 
 
 Legislature of Plansas, free State, members of, elected; assembles at Topeka, March 1, 1856, organ- 
 izes a State government, elects senators to congress; Robinson, free State governor and others 
 
INDEX. 63 
 
 arrested for high treason; how the case was disposed of, 959; the next legislature (1857) also 
 broken up, and arrests made, and adjourns uutil June, 977. (See Kansas). 
 
 Lexington and Concord, battle of, 46. 
 
 Liberal republican convention of 1870, 1415. 
 
 Liberia, representative to, authorized, 11*?. 
 
 Liberty bills (personal), southern opinions concerning, 1079. 
 
 Lincoln, Abraham, nominated for president, 104S : elected, 1049; jo'irney to Washington, 1131; 
 inauguration and address of, 1131-3 ; his cabinet, 1133; issues war proclamation convening con- 
 gress, and calling for troops: call responded to. 1134-5; second call for troops, 1135 ; causes arrests 
 and suspends writ of habeas corpus, 1135; message of, to congress, 1136-7; interdicts commercial 
 intercourse with rebel Stales, 113!); first annual mc-^sage of, 1141-2; proclamatious of confiscation 
 and emancipation, 1143, 1147; recommends gradual emancipation, 1146; recommends banking 
 law, 1 146; reply of, to Albany democratic Vallandigliam meeting, 115:i-5 ; issues proclamation of 
 amnesty, 1157; proposition of, for peace, US'.) ; nomination of, in 1864, 1194; letter of, to Hodges, 
 1199-1201; election of, 1201; meets confederate peace commissioners at Fortress Monroe, 1207; 
 his visit to Richmond, and his death, 1209; his body conveyed through the principal cities to 
 Springfield, 111., for interment, 1211. 
 
 Little Democrat, and Genet, 117. 
 
 Liquidation of the public debt, president Johnson's proposition relating to, 1300. 
 
 Livingston, Edward, on Foot's resolution (powers of government), 498-9; secretary of state, 548; 
 minister to France, 592; letter about Stevenson's mission, 617-8; correspondence with duke de 
 Broglie, and returns from France, 632. , , g 
 
 Livingston, Robert R., minister to France, and joint negotiator for Louisiana, 204. 
 
 Loans, and issues oi treasury notes, at the session of 1861-2, 112!). 
 
 Louisiana, purchase of. 203-8; division and boundary of, 209-11; territorial government of. estab- 
 lished, 214 ; resolution recognizing the reconstructed government of, 1228 ; imbroglio of political 
 factions in 1871, 14.51; message of the governor to the legislature of 1872, 1451; expenses of the 
 legislature of 1871, 1451; injunction granted at the request of Governor Warmouth, 14.'51; exami- 
 nation into the financial accounts, 1451; P. B. S. Pinchback elected lieutenant-governor, ll.Vi; re- 
 port of the contTressional committee, 14.52 ; new election for governor and members of the legis- 
 lature, 1453 : "Lynch " returning board returns, 1-..53; organization of the "Lynch " legislature, 
 1454; conr.mittee of inquiry appointed by congress to inquire into the Louisiana election of No- 
 vember 4, 1872, 14()4; the situation of afl'airs, 1466; president's message relating thereto, 1473 ; 
 congressional bill to establish a government. 1473-1477; bill to restore the rights of the State, 
 1510; Senator Carpenter's analysis of the situation, 1510-1512; senatorial debate. 1512-1515; re- 
 port of the sub. committee appointed to visit New Orleans in 1875, 1534-1538; Gen. Sheiidan's 
 dispatches from New Orleans, 1539; ihe second congressional committee sent to New Orleans, 
 1538 ; the Wheeler compromise, 15.38-15c9. 
 
 Madison, James, in constitutional convention, 63,70, 71, T2, 74 ; on the president's power of removal 
 77; on funding the debt, SO; on a national bank, 90, 501, 502; his commercial resolulions, 124, and 
 his speech on, 126-8 ; inaugurated president, .March 4, 1809; his war spirit questioned, 249-50 ; re- 
 nominated in 1812, 249-50; and elected, 262 ; letters on the constitutionality and expediency of 
 protection (Appendix, Note D) ; views of nulliftcation (Appendix, Note B) ; on the nature of 
 the union (Appendix. Note P) ; on tht binding influence of judicial decisions, and the constitu- 
 tionality of a bank ("Appendix, Note G): his death announced in congress, 656. 
 
 Mail contractors, payment of, deferred, 1021. 
 
 Mails, violation of, recommended by the president, 650. 
 
 Mails in seceded States, 1114-16 ; remarks of southern members on, 1115-16 ; bill to suspend, passed, 
 1116.1131. 
 
 Maine, admission of, as a State, 313-17. (See Missouri compromise). 
 
 Mallary, Rollin C, of Vt., report and explanation of the woolens bill of 1827, 405-6. 
 
 Mallory, Florida, senator, on John Brown investigation, 1003. 
 
 Mallory, of Ky.. on national currency, 1160 ; on repeal of fugitive slave laws, 1162-3. 
 
 Manufactures, prohibited in colonies, 36 • encouraged by Washington, 53; by Jefferson, 198, 868; by 
 Aladison, 124, 126-7, 267 ; by .Monroe, 284 ; by Jackson, 402-3. 
 
 Marcy, Wro. L., on nomination of Van Buren as niAiister to England, 553-4 ; secretary of war, 832 ; 
 secretary of state, 99!). 
 
 Markley, of Penn , testimony of, respecting the alleged Adams and Clay coalition, 3^6. 
 
 Marshall, John, joint envoy to France. 102 ; secretary of state, 188 ; chief-jistice of supreme court. 
 
 Martial law at New Orleans proclaimed and en ^rccd by Gen. Jafckson, 277-9. 
 
64 INDEX. 
 
 Maryland, colony, settlement and government of, 30. 
 
 Mason, John Y., of Virginia, attorney-general, 832. 
 
 Mason, Jobn M., of Va., senator, resolution of, concerning the John Brown investigation, 1001, 1008; 
 capture of, on English vessel, 1141. 
 
 Massachusetts, colony, settlement and government of, 23. 
 
 Massachusetts, and Connecticut, controversy with the government, during the war of 1812, 263. 
 
 Mazzei, Jefferson's letter to, animadverting on Washington's administrati'^i, 150. 
 
 McAllister, of Pa., on the amendment of the Constitution to abolish slavery, 1206. 
 
 McClellan, George B., nominated ior president, 1195; acceptance of, 1197 ; democratic opposition 
 to, 1198. 
 
 McDuflie, George, of Ga., report of, on bank, 500, etc.; on protection, 509-10 ; on bank, 566 ; on re- 
 moval of deposits, 602 ; on the power of congress relating to internal improvement and protec- 
 tion (Appendix, Note K.) 
 
 McLane, of Del., on woolens bill, 406 ;^minister to England, 481 ; negotiates a treaty on West India 
 trade, 5i8-30 ; secretary of the treasury, 548 ; secretary of state, 502 ; resigns, 617 ; minister to 
 England, S3'2. 
 
 McLean, John, of O., appointed postmaster-general, Dec. 9,1823 ; justice of supreme court, 47T ; de. 
 clines candidacy for president, 561. 
 
 Medaiy, Samuel, governor of Kansas, 988 ; vetoes a bill to abolish slavery, 1028. 
 
 Mediation, offered by Spain, between France and England, 50 ; by Russia, between the United States 
 and Great Britain, 261, 267; by Great Britain, between United States and France, 639-40. 
 
 Mediterra;;ean fund, 210, 220. 
 
 Membeis of congress, appointment of, to civil office, condemned by Jackson, 392 ; number appointed 
 by the several presidents, 480. 
 
 Memminger, commissioner from South Carolina to Virginia, 1025. 
 
 Mexico, claims against, default in payment of, 738 ; minister from, protests against annexation of 
 Texas, and departs, offers conditionally to recognize ind. of Texas, 8J3 ; is delinquent on in- 
 demnity ; Slidell sent to negotiate, and returns, S34-5; war against, announced, G. Davis' speech, 
 proposals to negotiate, and two million project, 836-7 ; war with, affects Great Britain, Polk's 
 message, and Santa Anna's treaty, 840 ; treaty with, 848. (See war with Mexico). 
 
 Michigan, territory of, formed, 213 : State of, admitted, 656-61. 
 
 Military Academy at West Point established, 202. 
 
 Military reconstruction bill, 1232. 
 
 Militiamen, execution of, by Gen. Jackson, 1C7. 
 
 Mililia, act for the enrollment of, during the rebellion, 1161. 
 
 Millson, of Va., on the election of speaker, 1012; moves extension of Missouri compromise Hue, 1088. 
 
 Minnesota admitted as a State, 993. 
 
 Mint, branches of, established; Hill and Benton on, 629-30. 
 
 Mississippi river, navigation of, 52, 140 ; territory, government provided for, 169 ; State of, admitted, 
 2S3 ; secediug senators, Brown and Davis, withdraw, 101)8. 
 
 Missouri territory (till then called Louisiana), government provided for, in 1812; application for 
 admission; compromise, 313, etc.; admitted as a State, 319. 
 
 Missouri in 1870, political movements in, 1444. 
 
 Monroe, James, minister to France, 119; recalled, 148; joint negotiator for Louisiana, 206; minister 
 to England, 208 ; with Pinkney negotiates treaty, 221-2; discussion with Poster, 235-40; nomi- 
 nated for president, 282; election and inaugural of, 284; correspondence with Jackson, 285-8; 
 northern tour, 289 ; was re-elected in 1820 ; died July 4, 1831. 
 
 Monroe doctrine noticed, 354, 97Q, 973, 1189, 1198. 
 
 Montgomery, of Pa., proposition of, in debate on Kansas bill, 991. 
 
 Moore, of Ala., in defense of the south, 1014, 1015. 
 
 Morgan, William, abduction of, by freemasons, 463. 
 
 Morris, Gouverneur, member of constitutional convention, 67; minister to France, and recalled, 119. 
 
 Morris, Robert, originator of Bank of North America, 92. 
 
 Morris, E. J., of Pa., on Helper's book and election of speaker, 1014. 
 
 Morris, of 111., against the Lecomptonites, 1019-20. 
 
 Morris, of N. Y., on repeal of fugitive slave laws^gllGl, '62, '64. 
 
 Morton, senator Oliver P., the Indianapolis speech of, defending Grant's administration, 1.379, 1380; 
 speech on proposed reform in counting the electoral vote, 1524-1529; offers bill for counting the 
 electoral vote, 1553. 
 
 Murray, William Vans, minister to Netherlands, 160 ; envoy to France, 179. 
 
ESTDEX. 65 
 
 Nashville convention, proposed by the friends of the annexation of Texas, 827-8. 
 
 National Intelligencer newspaper established, 179. 
 
 National finances, sketch of, from 1865 to 1871, 13S1-1392; act authorizing the 6's of 1881, 1382; 
 act authorizing tbe 5-20's, 1383; act creating a sinking fund, etc., 1383; act authorizing the lO-tO's, 
 1384; act authorizing the consolidated loan of 1875, 1384; act creating legal tenders, 1385; limita- 
 tion of greenbacks, 1385; the funding bill of 1868, 13S6; remime of financial movements, 13S9; 
 specie resumption, and its method of accomplishment, 1390-1392; supplementary bill to that pro- 
 viding a national currency, 1460-1464; panic of 1873, 1484-US7; resolutions reported by the com- 
 mittee on finance looking to resumption, 1497; debate on the question, 1497-1505; the Kelly bill 
 tor improving tne currency, 1519; the Sherman resumption bill and debate thereon, 1520-1524; 
 bill lor the issue of silver c Jin, and the Cos resolution relating thereto, 1575-1516. 
 
 Naturalization of aliens, acts of congress for, 203. 
 
 Navigation acts of Great Britain, 35 ; navigation of the St. Lawrence, negotiations concerning, under 
 Mouroo and Adams, 3813-90; navigation acts of United States, 75, 283. 
 
 Navy, encouraged by Washington, 153; (see Gunboats); department of the navy established, 166. 
 
 Nebraska and Kansas, territories formed, bills for, debated and passed, 942-52. 
 
 Nebraska, an act enabling, to form a State government, 1161. 
 
 Neutral rig. its, doctrines of France concerning, 252-3. 
 
 Neutrality acts : act to prevent military expeditions against nations at peace with the U. S., 133 ; and 
 an act against fitting out vessels, or aiding in any warlike measure against a friendly power, 283. 
 
 Nevada, territory of, formed. 1130-31 ; an act enabling the people of, to form a constitution and State 
 government, 1161; admitted as a State, 1203. 
 
 New Hampshire, colony, settlement and government of, 23. 
 
 New Jersey, colony, settlement and government of, 32. 
 
 New York, colony, settlemi'nt of, and government, 29. 
 
 New Mexico, a bill establishing a territorial government for, in 1848, 886, not passed ; another in 
 1851), passed, 905; bill to admit as a State, 1121, not passed. 
 
 Nicholson, senator, of Tennessee, in reply to A. Johnson, 1074-5. 
 
 Non-importing associations in the revolution, 41-2. 
 
 Non-intercourse wi*h St. Domingo, 220 ; with Great Britain and Prance, 232-5 ; act repealed, 226. 
 
 North Carolina secedes from the union, 1185. 
 
 Northeastern boundary, attempt to settle by arbitration, 2S6 ; settled, 7S4-6. 
 
 Nullification, advocated by Hayne and others, 487-96 (see debate on Foot's resolutions, and South 
 Carolina ; also Virginia and Kentucky resolutions). • 
 
 Ohio, State of, admitted into the union, 203. 
 
 Opposition to reconstruction, 1261. 
 
 Orders in council, British, 22(j-8 ; revoked, 259. 
 
 Ordinance of 1787: originated in 1784 ; proposed again in 1785, modified, and failed, 58; a plan sub- 
 mitted by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, and adopted ; provisions of, 58-9. 
 
 Oregon, occupation of, 377, etc. ; right to, asserted by democratic convention, 810-11; bill for giving 
 notice to Great Britain, lost, 815-16 ; negotiation, and position of tlie administration, 849-.50 ; com- 
 promise offered and declined, 850-1 ; resolutions to terminate joint occupancy, 851-2 ; course of 
 Adams, Giddings, and other whigs, 852-60; resolution to give notice passed, 860-62 ; failure of the 
 attempt to mediate, announced, 859 ; debate on title and boundary in the senate, by Dix of N. Y., 
 Cass, Dickinson of N. Y., and others, 863-5; government for, by Dix and Calhoun, 884-6 ; Clay- 
 ton's bill, including other territories; debate continued (the question of slavery being involved), 
 886-8 ; the bill for the territorial government of Oregon..still pending, the president transmitted to 
 congress a message with a copy of the ratified treaty, settling the question of boundary with 
 Great Britain, 884; admission of, as a State of the union, 996. 
 
 Orleans, territory of, formed, importation of slaves therein prohibited, 209; government of, 213. 
 
 Orth, of Ind., on confiscation, 1165-6; on constitutional amendment, 1205. 
 
 • 
 
 Pacific railroad, act for the construction of, passed, 1143. 
 
 Panama mission, its objects and results, .352, etc. 
 
 Parties in the convention to frame the Constitution, federalists and anti-federalists, 73. 
 
 Patents and copyrights, act relating to. 1314. 
 
 Patterson, William, of N. J., in convention, plan of, for a Constitution, 62. 
 
 Patriot war, 712 ; affair of the Caroline, Van Buren's proclamation, 713-14 ; trial of McKenzie and Van 
 Rensselaer, 714-15: trial of McLeod, 715, and his acquittal, 722 ; case before congress, 717-22, and 
 the legislature of New York, 722. 
 
66 INDEX. 
 
 Payment of pensions in 1R70, act providing for, 1308. 
 
 Peace with Great Britain, 52 ; negotiated for at Ghent, 264, 267, and concluded, 274-7. 
 
 Peace convention, proposed by Viiginia, 1099-1100 ; proceedings of, 1116-17 ; propositions of, acted 
 on by congress, 1121-4 ; peace with confederate States, attempt to negotiate, 1188-9, 1206-8. 
 
 Peck, James H., judge, impeachment and trial of, 533-4. 
 
 Pendleton, Geo. H., nominated for vice-president, 1195; on war measures, 1196. 
 
 Pennington, William, of N. J., elected speaker, 1022. 
 
 Pennsylvania, settled by William Penn, 32. 
 
 Persons having taken oath to support Constitution and broken it, prohibited from ofilce holding, 
 proposition relating to, 1230. 
 
 Pensacola and St. Marks, taken by Gen. Jackson, 290-92. 
 
 Pickering. Timothy, secretary of war, 136; secretary of state, 140. 
 
 Pierce, Franklin, nominated for president, 937; election of, and inauguration, 939-40 ; message of, to 
 congress, refers to the subject of slavery, 940-41 ; message of, on Kansas affairs, 961-2 ; procla- 
 mation of, for enforcing Kansas laws, 959; censures emigrant aid societies, 961; last annual 
 message of, 974-5; letter of, to Jefferson Davis, 1151-2. 
 
 Pinckney, Charles C, minister to France, 148, 162; his reception refused, 155; candidate for presi- 
 dent, 191. 
 
 Pinckuey, Thomas, at London, succeeded by Rufus King, 146. 
 
 Pinckney, William, and Monroe, treat with Great Britain, 221-2. 
 
 Platforms of parties, in 1852, 93S-9 ; in 18.56, 972-4; in 1860, 1043-8; in 1864, 1194-6. 
 
 Plitt, George, testimony of, in fraud investigations, 1039. 
 
 Pliimer, William, of N. H., testimony of, in favor of J. Q. Adams, 455. 
 
 Poindexter, George, of Miss., on president Jackson's protest, 608 ; resolutions of, 610; on expunging 
 the journal, 621. 
 
 Political campaign of 1868, 1305; political studies, the value of, 1593-1594. 
 
 Polk, James K., on removal of deposits, 603-4 ; speaker of the house, 754 ; nommated for presiaent, 
 809; protest and confldontial circular against annexation, 811 ; election of, 814; his inauguration 
 and cabinet, 832; difficulty with Mexico, 833-5 ; army ordered to the Rio Grande, 835 ; the presi- 
 dent announces war with Mexico, 836. (See Annexation of Texas, and War with Mexico). 
 
 Polygamy, act to punish, in territories, 1144. 
 
 Popular sovereignty, defined, views concerning, 999-1000. 
 
 Porter, Peter B., report of, for increasing the means of defense, 249. 
 
 Postage, law to reduce rates of, 831. 
 
 Postal telegraphy, proposition to establish, 1395. 
 
 Post-offlce investigation, abuses in, detected, 615-16. 
 
 President, how elected, Cons., Art. ii., sec. 1, cl. 3, and Art. 12 of amendments; his powers and duties, 
 Cons., Art. ii., sec. 2. 
 
 Presidential absences from Washington, representative Blackburn's motion to inquire into, 1568; 
 memorandum of the past instances of, see Appendix, 47, 50 ; presidential campaign of 1ST2, 1443. 
 
 President Johnson requested to furnish information of doings under the reconstruction act, ]2t0. 
 
 President pro lempo'/e of the senate, resolutions relating to the tenure of office of, 1545; debate on tho 
 question in the senate, 1.545-1553. 
 
 Princeton, war vessel, explosion of, killing secretaries Upshur and Gilmer, 799. 
 
 Prisoners of war, numbers of, 1158 ; cruel treatment of, 1191-2. 
 
 Proclamations of Lincoln, 1134, 1135, 1139, 1143, 1147, 1157. 
 
 Promotion of inter-State commerce, bill to consider the, 1331. 
 
 Proprietary governments, colonial. 30. 
 
 Protests of South Carolina and Georgia against tariff, 4T0-1- 
 
 Provincial or royal governments in the colonies, 26. 
 
 Public debt, attempt to fund, 52; amount and funding of, 78-85; State debts assumed by general gov- 
 ernment, 86; Hamilton's report on public debt, and the act, 136; sinking fund, 283 ; public debt 
 from 181)9 to 1872, reduction of, 1449. 
 
 Public lands, distribution of, and proceeds, 472, 474-5; sublet of, referred to committee on manufac- 
 tures, 559-00: act to distribute proceeds of, 756. (See articles Revenue and Distribution). 
 
 Public lands, grants of, to States, for railroads, 971 ; statistics concerning (see Grow's speech), 1031-4. 
 
 Public school question, debate on, 1569-1.575. 
 
 Pugh, George E., senator, O., on John Brown investigation, 1005-6; in defense of northern democrats, 
 1010-11; Gvvin's reply to, 1012. 
 
 Puritan, origin of the name, 22. 
 
 Rambouillet decree, French, 234. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 67 
 
 Randolph, Edmund, in convention, proposes a plan for a constitution, 60-62 ; appointed attorney- 
 general, 77 ; secretary of state, 124. 
 
 Eandolph, John, on the tariff of 1828 ; minister to Russia, 530-1. 
 
 Ea^ificatiOQ of the Constitution, 73^. 
 
 Eeadmission of States, bill relating to, 1240. 
 
 Rebellion, meditated, causes and evidences of, 1050-1 ; threats of, 1051^; commenced, 1134; evidences 
 of tercination of, 1203-4 ; ends, 1209. 
 
 Rebellious States, attempts at reconstruction of, 1173-86; bill defeated by the president, 1186; report 
 and protest by Wade and Davis, 1186. 
 
 Reciprocity of trade with Canada, and notice for termination of treaty, 1208. 
 
 Reconstruction act, bill explaining, 1240; bill reported by the judiciary committee concerning, 1319. 
 
 Reduction of currency, act to sui=pend, 1290. 
 
 Reader, Andrew H., appointed governor of Kansas, 955: his removal, 957; elected to congress, 9.58. 
 
 Reform promised by president Jackson, 477; reform and retrenchment. (See retrenchment and reform). 
 
 Reform republicans, circular is[<ued in 1S76 by, 1577-1578. 
 
 Refunding the national debt, act authorizing the, 1308. 
 
 Registration of voters under recon^^tiuction act, 1302. 
 
 Relations of the United States with Spain, England, and France, 216-18, 247-8. 
 
 Removal from office, power of, 76 ; by Jefferson, 198-202 ; by Jackson, 478-9 ; number of removals by 
 the several presidents, 4S0-1 ; speeches on, by Webster ana White, 626-9. 
 
 Removal of legal and political disabilities, bill for the, 1400 ; Senator Sumner's speech, 140.3-1407 ; 
 speech of Mr. Frelinghuyseu, 1407-1412 ; new bill for the, 1426 ; final action of congress, i44S. 
 
 Representation and slavery, debate on, in convention, 64-71. 
 
 Representatives, apportionment of, 93, 202, 56.3-4. 
 
 Reprisals against Prance asked for, 630 ; reports in the senate and in the house on French affairs» 
 631 ; against Mexico, 665. 
 
 Republican form of government, bill to guarantee, 1215. 
 
 Republican national convention of 1868, 1303; of 18T2, 1446. 
 
 Republican party, formation of, 971-2. 
 
 Resolutions of Clay, on removal of deposits, 605; of Poindexter, on protest, 610; Virginia and 
 Kentucky in 178S and 17s9, 172, etc. 
 
 Resolution calling on Pres. Grant for information regarding use of the army in Louisiana, 1531-1534. 
 
 Restoration of Tennessee to the union, proposition concerning, 12.31. 
 
 Restriction of representation to southern white population, proposition relative to, 1227. 
 
 Retrenchment and reform, six bills for. reported by Benton, 348-9 : constitutional amendment pro- 
 posed, .350-52 ; Chilton's resolution for, 421 ; alleged abuses Specified, and by the opposition ex- 
 plained and defended 421-27 ; referred to a committee ; committee's report, 427-S. 
 
 Revenue, power of congress to provide, 96S ; bill to insure collection of, 509 ; distribution of sur- 
 plus of, recommended by Jackson, 482 ; Dickerson's plan, 472 ; new plan to distribute, adopted, 
 654-6 ; acts to provide, li(i2, 1268. 
 
 Rhode Island, settle;nent and government of, 24, 25. 
 
 Richardson, of 111., in the Chicago convention, on peace, 1197. 
 
 Richmond, Va., capture of. by General Grant's army, 1209. 
 
 Right of instruction. Clay's remarks on, 347. (See Note I, Appendix). 
 
 Ritchie, Thomas, letter of, concerning Stevenson's appointment, 618. 
 
 Robinson, free State governor of Kausas, arrested for alleged treason, 959. 
 
 Rose, British minister, 224-5. 
 
 Rowan, of Ky,, on Foot's resolutions, in 18.30, 496-7. 
 
 Royal or provincial governments described, 26. 
 
 Rusk, of Ark., proposes to re-establish and extend the Missouri compromise line, 10T9. 
 
 Russia, claims of, on the Pacific, 374; treaty with, 376. (By a treaty with Russia in 186 she ceded to 
 the United States all her possessions on the Pacific coast). 
 
 Sanders, George N., and the Niagara Falls peace negotiation, 1188-9. 
 
 Sau Domingo, resolution in congress against the European control of, 1318; resolution urging presi- 
 dent to appoint free commissioners to. 1318; resolution authorizing a commission of five to 
 negotiate a treatv with, 1318; conditio'-.s of the aunexation question, 1320; message of President 
 Baez, of, 1321 ; Mr. Morton's resolution to, 1323 ; resolution calling ou the president for copies 
 of papers and correspondence relating to the annexation of, 1323; senator Sumner's speech on 
 the negotiation with, 1323; the commission appointed to investigate, 1327; report of the Do- 
 minican committee on the state of affairs in, 1328; Grant's message accompanying report, 1330. 
 
 Santa Anna, treaty with Texas, S40; permitted by Polk to pass the blockade; resumes military com- 
 mand and presidency, ^41. 
 
 Saulsbury, senator, Del., for the Union, and against secession, 1072. 
 
 Scofield. of Pa., on constiiutional amendment, 1205. 
 
 Scott, Gen. Winfleld, advice of, concerning the strengthening of the forts, 1064-5. 
 
 Seamen, disabled, act for relief of, 169; impressment of (see article Impressment). 
 
 Seat of government established, 85-6. 
 
 Seceded" States, order and dates of secession of, 1095-6; withdrawal of their senators, 1098, 1100-1; 
 in armed rebellion, joint resolution referring to, 1221. 
 
 Secession, causes of, lri5n; long premeditated, 1051-5 ; carried into effect, 1056-7. 
 
 Seminole war in Florida, 289, etc. ; Pensacola occupied by the British, iu 1814, under Col. Nichols; 
 
68 ESTDEX. 
 
 provisions of the treaty of peace between TT. S. and Great Britain ; Indians instigated to liostili- 
 ties by Col. Nichols, 280-90; Gen. Gaines sent to protect the inhabitants,, and is succeeded by 
 Gen. Jackson, who takes St. .Marks and Pensacola, then in the possession of Spain ; protest of 
 Spain ; reciprocal obligations of Spain and U. S., 290 ; occupation of the posts defended by John 
 (J. Adams, aill-S ; trialof Arbuthnot and Ambrister, and their execution, 292; Jackson's conduct 
 investigated by congress, and report of the committee, 293-.5 ; Jackson's memorial to Congress, 
 296-8; Monroe's message to congress, and orders the posts surrendered, 299 ; treaties with Spain 
 and Great Britain; Florida ceded to the United States, 299-302; the second, brief account of; 
 blood-hounds imported from Cuba to aid in capturing the Indians, 733-4; the war terminated by 
 peaceable means ; the cost of, 734. 
 
 Senators from seceding States expelled, 1139. 
 
 Sergeant, John, of Pa., commissioner to Panama, 353 ; candidate for vice-president, 561. 
 
 Settlement of the northwestern bonudary-line, 1442. 
 
 Seward, Wm. H., bill of, for the admission of Kansas, and debate thereon, 1026-7; proposition of, 
 1080-1 ; on the union, 1093-5 ; compromise speech of, 1107-8 against the right of secession, 1127; 
 conference with confederate peace commissioners, 1206-7; letter of, to Charles F.Adams, 1207-8; 
 attempted murder'of. 1210. 
 
 Seymour, Horatio, of N. Y., and others, opposition of, to coercion, 1140 ; nominated for president. 
 
 Seymour, Thomas H., of Conn., letter of, to a rebel officer, 1150-1. 
 
 Shannon, Wilson, governor of Kansas, acts of, and removal, 959-60. 
 
 Shellabarger, representative, on the bill to enforce the fourteenth amendment, 1338-45. 
 
 Sheridan, Gen. P. H., removed from command of the fifth military district, 1261. 
 
 Sherman. John, of Ohio, on the election of speaker, 1012; declines, 1022; on lugitive slave laws, 1164. 
 
 Sicklss, Daniel E., of N. Y., on southern mails, 1114-15. 
 
 Simmons, of R. I., senator, on John Brown investigation, 1003. 
 
 Singleton, of Mi'^s., on the slavery question, 1017-18. 
 
 Sinking fund, appropriation tor, 2U3 ; fund established. 283. 
 
 Slave trade, foreign, prohibited, 225-6 ; in District of Columbia, 912. 
 
 Slavery and representation, debate on, in convention, 64-71 ; provision for, Constitution, Art. I., Sec 2. 
 
 Slavery in the District of Columbia, petition of citizens of, to aboli h, 468-9. (See abolition). 
 
 Slaves, fugitive, in Canada, attempt to procure their surrender by Great Britain, 468. 
 
 Slave laws, fugitive, repealed, 1161-4. 
 
 Slavery in territories prohibited ; abolished in District of Columbia, 1142-3. 
 
 Slavery in States, amendment of Constitution to abolish. (See .\rticle XIII. of amendments.) 
 
 Slidell, John, of' Louisiana, minister ten Mexico, not received, 831-5; retires from the senate, 1112; 
 capture of, at sea, 1141. 
 
 Smith, Robert, of Md., secretary of state, 283 ; resigns, and makes an expose of administration in 
 the controversy with France and England, 243-7. 
 
 Smith, Samuel, of Md., on Van Buren's nomination, 553. 
 
 Smith, Wm., of S. C, speech of, on Madison's resolutions, 124-6. 
 
 Smiihers, of Del . on reconstruction, 1179-81 ; on constitutional amendment, 1205. 
 
 Soldiers, voting of, in the army, 11.5.5-6, 1198. 
 
 Somes, of Maine, speech of, against compromise, 1118-19. 
 
 Soi;s of Liberty, order of, 1192. (See conspiracy). 
 
 Southard, Samuel, of N. J., on expunging resolution. 622. 
 
 South Carolina, prepares to resist Uie collection of duties, a convention assembled, nullification or- 
 dinance adopted, 57i)-7 ; Jackson's proclamation, 577-81 ; act of nullification passed, proclama- 
 tion denounced, military preparations, 582 ; bill to authorize the president to enforce the collec- 
 tion of the revenue, 583 ; Virginia oilers to mediate, and sends a commissioner to Soijth Carolina, 
 583; Clay's compromise tai'ilf bill, 584-5; "'force bill" passed, 585; nullifying ordinance re- 
 pealed, and South Carolina pacified, 586 ; South Carolina boastings, 586-7 ; prepares for seces- 
 sion, 1056; appoints commissioners to Washington, declares causes for secession, 1077-8 ; com- 
 missioners at VVasliington, 1082-3 ; sends also an agent (Col. Hayue), 1099 ; demand of, and sec- 
 retary Holt's reply, 1102. 
 
 Spain, offer of, to mediate between France and Great Britain, 50; the latter rejected it, .51 ; dispute be- 
 tween the United states and Spain respecting boundary and the navigation of the Mississippi, 
 51; treaty with, 140; dissatisfied with Jay's treaty, 147, and with the purchase of Louisiana, 209; 
 treaty of indemnity with, in 1802, and ratification by her refused, 210 ; consents to ihe transfer 
 of Louisiana, 211; aggressions of, 216; negotiations with, unsuccessful, 221 ; the treaty of 1802, 
 ratified in ISIS, 299-300 ; a treaty of amity, settlement, and limits concluded in 1819 ; terms of 
 the treaty ; ratification delayed ; war apprehended: treaty ratified in October, 1820, 301-4. 
 
 Southern elections in 1868, 1264"; southern politics in 1874, 1515-1516. 
 
 SpeakcL' of the house, long contests for: contest for seats, involving the election of speaker in 
 1839, 7'-'8-31 ; in 1849. 892-4 ; in 1859, involving " Helper's Crisis," slavery, and the John Brown 
 investigation, 1000--22. 
 
 Specie circular of 1836, 666; Swing's motion to rescind, debate on, bill passed, 668-72 ; repealed, 702. 
 
 Specie payments, suspension of, in 1814, 272; resumed, 282; suspension in 1837; congress specially 
 convened to relieve the country, 678-9; sub-treasury and other bills proposed, 680; debate on bill 
 to postpone the fourth installment of deposits with the States, 681-4; on the treasury note bill, 
 684-7 ; sub-treasury bill lost, 6S7-8; •' conservatives," Tallmadge and King, 688 ; bill to resume. 
 
 Spoliations, French bill to pay claims for, 623 ; Adams' proposition respecting the delay of France 
 to pay indemnity, 631. 
 
 Sprague, Pclee, Maine, speech of, on Indian bill, 521-6. 
 
 Stamp act of British parliament, 37 ; stamp act of the United States, 161. 
 
 Stanton. P. P., appointed secretary of Kansas, 981; convenes the legislature, and is removed, 984. 
 
 Star of the West, mission of, to Charleston, unsuccessful, 1098. 
 
 State governments during the revolution, 49. 
 
 St. Clair, Gen., defeat of. by western Indians, 94. 
 
 St. Domingo, non-intercourse with, 220. 
 
 St. Marks and Pensacola taken by Gen. Jackson, 290-2. 
 
 Stephens, Alexander H., of Georgia, chosen vice-president of the Confederate States, 1111; confeder- 
 ate peace commissioner, 1206. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 69 
 
 Stevens Thaddeiis, of Pa., on slavery, 1105-6; on confiscation, 1169-71. r,„,„„. n.r. .a 
 
 Sleven-on tnclrevv of Va., speaker of the house, lOUl : rejected as minister to England, 61 .-18. 
 
 lle^Tt^iS-'o^PrTrh^f^on^^^^ on the tariff of 1846,868-71. . 
 
 It LouVs uaSl c^^^^^^ the democratic party, 15S1; platform of, 158 1-15S2; noraination of 
 
 Governor Tilden, of New York 1582. 
 ISt^:;^'or^4^o€^^-'S^^X'^B.ren, 670; de^atecl 689; .peeclies of Tal.madge, 
 
 Cafho n ClMV, and Webster, 690-702; established, 732; repea ec, 747; re-Lvstablished. ^74. 
 SnmterTFort, occupation of, by Anderson, attempt to supply, and the capture ot, 11.J4; raimng of the 
 
 SupSkunK'v recou.'truclion bill, 1240; supplementary civil rights bill, 1457. 
 SuSDres"ed documents concerning the controver>*y with France and England, 229-31 
 Sum-erne court opinion of, on bank question, 305. etc.; on insolvent and bankrupt laws, 308; m the 
 '^caseoTtlie Cherokees, 557; in the case of Amistad captives, 727; in the D red bcott rase. 979-81 ; 
 decision reviewed bv Senator Doolittle, 1075-H; decision of, concerning the validity of siave 
 contracts, 1449 ; decision of, concerning the slaughter-house cases, 1489. 
 
 Tallmad^e N P of N. Y., senator, speech against the snb-treasury, 687. 
 
 ' Tarii^?f"^"^^;'^^1in'o^ ^-i^t^^^^.eea^u.s on, 322^0; Clay's speech on, 
 •W etc • Webster's speech in reply, 331. etc.; Philadelphia r.^eetrng on defeat of '• ^yoolens bill," 
 iio.H.;;ri«bur<^ convention. 4 2-14 act of 1828, 414-18; southern feeling. 419-21; attempt to re- 
 vise M4- act-^oTrslrcports rn. bills and passage of, .562-3; Verplanck's bill and Clay's com- 
 nrom?-^- of 1832-3, 5K3-7 ; act of 1842, reports on, of committee on manuractures and secretary of 
 Cn'ea«ury T70-9; distribution proviso, bill vetoed, 779-80; report of committee ot thirteen bill 
 ms<ed and approVed, 782-:^; attempt to repeal. 828 ; prices of goods at Richmond 829 : attacked, 
 Fn 1^46 by the^president and secretary of the treasury, 863-8; Stewart's reply, 8(.8 ; bill reported, 
 amended passid. 871-3 : proposition to revise, 995-6: new act passed, 1143-4. 
 
 ISion'^iSof'cLfmrd l^G^^^ John Adams' sentiments on, 34; stamp act glass, 
 
 mnet^ . t c taxed; and acts resisted, 37-11 : tax law of congress opposed in Penus^-lvania. 186-7 
 m P^n;^7^w•wv locates an armv at Corpus Christi. is ordered to the Rio Gr.andp, b35; nominated 
 ^^"^ o • ^resid^nt pi^^Sugfot- co^^^^^^^ 874-9 ; letter to Allison 879; disatfection of the whigs, 
 
 bXio comeK. 880-1; public meetings at Baltimore and Albany his let t^ers and election, 
 1^°?- hfs rnaiiguration and cabinet, 892; message to congress, 894; and his death, 910. 
 
 Te^nessel'secedes from theTn1oii,°li35;'tlavery in, prohibited, 1208; delegation ob.iected to, 1256. 
 ?er;Uo^TaSr°Sm'MeS^^^^^ the government of, 894, etc.; Bell's resolutions, 
 
 and report of committee of thirteen, 943-4. 
 Territorv of Wyomin,'. organization of, 1299. ^ ,. . , n-o 
 
 Teif-n'itL reniiiredbv Kansas legisature, 957. and abolished, 9(8. ,. ^t 
 
 Texa°i^depe deuce o^a^ in congress, and petitioned for, 661-2; subject discussed, and a 
 
 resoutimi of contingent recognition adopted, (56-2-4; remonstrances against annexation, 703; 
 Prestoifs resolution, for annexation, and speech, 703-4; Adams speech, 7u9-ll; proposition to 
 f, iiex withcliawi 712 ; annexation of, revived ; treaty concluded and rejected Wb-90; Benton's 
 annex, witiuuawii, i~, a m-esident anuoals to the house, 798 ; letter of Clay on annexa- 
 
 rTnn^"VQ"i;v? eUer of Vak Bureifs^^^^^^ annexation, 816-18; Benton's bill for 
 
 aZittin^Texas rsasLte iX thereon, bill passed, 819-21; Webster's, 
 
 Can iti '8 and Sikis Wright's opinions on 'annexation, 822-1 : Benton's Boonville speec;h 82o-6; 
 Nashvi W crvention pro^posed, 8-27-8; southern sentiment, S-27;. effects of aunexa .on 8:^0; pio- 
 test of MeScarminister, S33; Benton on Texa. and New Mexico boundary bill, 905-9; contro- 
 versy with Texas; boundary bill passed, 911. 
 Thayer of Pa on the reconstruction of seceded States, 1183-1. 
 
 tS. GoVernor Skt^uel ^ New Y.n-k,' political career of, 1582-1583; his letter accepting the 
 
 democratic nomination for president, 1583-1587. 
 
 Toombs, senator, Georgra, propositions of, 109U-1 
 
 Toneka free State meetings and conventions at. 9i8-9, 992. 
 
 Townsend, of N. Y., on constitutional amendment, 120o. _ 
 
 TrPfismi q -rests for in Kansas, 9,59 ; acts of c ngress to punish, 1143-1. 
 
 Trea'urv circular see specie circular), issue of, authorized, 684-7, 739, 841 ; report for 18.2, 1449 
 
 TSwi^hG -eat Britain (Jay's), 137 ; call of the house for correspondence refused by the presi- 
 
 S^JSl^nXt^rS^i^oi^c^S- « ^^^^ aSjiSt^ct to, 1308. 
 
 senate on the repeal of, l.«0-15a3. 
 ?lf%'hrreport'orr cCgl'S^^^^^^^ 619-20; on French spoliation bill, 623; nominated 
 
 '^ foVviceAjre^idein 7^^^^^ opinions, 737. and election, 738; be omes president by the 
 
 fu itl of Ilm-isou 745- veties bank bills. 748-9: resignation and statement of his secretaries, 
 -Im^ new c^i a 7V4rvet/ =s tarittbill, 7S0; debatlon veto, 780-2; tanlf bill again taken up, 
 amended mssed and again vetoed, 78-.' ; remarks on veto by Mr. Adams 78-2-3 ; the same bifl, 
 ~istribui\on cl.au" e having been struck out, was passed and signed by the president; presents 
 propositions of the peace convention, debate thereon, 1121-4. 
 
70 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Union, dissolution of, prayed for, 756; attempt to censure Adams, 751-66; Giddiuss presents a 
 
 similar pfitition, 766. 
 Cnitea iStates Gazette. Fenno's, 97; Fenno's death, 185. 
 Upshur, Abel P., secretary of the navy, 754; of State, 7'J9, correspondence on annexation, 787-8; his 
 
 deatii, 7'.)9. 
 Utah territory, government for, established, 904 ; insurrecti(Tu in, 985. 
 
 Vail, Aaron, charge of affairs from U. S. in England, 617. 
 
 Van Burcn. Martin, secretary of state, 477 ; resigns, 548, and is appointed minister to England, 552 ; 
 noniinatc-d and rejected, 55J; nominate I for vice-president, 5ti4, and elected, 5iw; casting vote of, 
 against mailing anti-slavery papers, 0.53; elected president, and inaugurated, 676-7; money pres- 
 sure and bank suspensions, 678; convenes congress and :ecoramends sub treasury, 679 ; sundry 
 bills reported, and fourth installment of surplus revenue to be vviiliheld, 689; sub-treasury bill lost, 
 687, and again, 68iMsee sub-treasury); renominated, 7.3o ; letter on annexation, 8i-i3-S "; nomina- 
 tion lor president by Utica and Buffalo conventions, 831. 
 
 Vallandicham, Clement L., of O., banished for alleged disloyal la giiage, 1152; his arrest denounced 
 by Albany democratic meeting, resolutions transmitted to Lincoln, and his replv to, 1153-5; nom- 
 inated tor governor of Ohio, 115-3; removes to Canada West, 1155; concerned in Western con- 
 spiracy, ll'.l2-;3; on peace, at Chicago convention, 1197; suggestions for a future democratic plat- 
 form, by, i:«0-81. 
 
 Van Wyck, of N. Y., speech of, on slavery guarantees, 1104-5. 
 
 Veto, power of. applied to bank Dili by Madison. 27.3; internal improvement bills, by Madison and 
 Monroe, 2-^4. .3'jO, 311 ; Maysville and Washington road-bills, by Jackson, 506, 508; bank and land 
 bills, by Jackson, 567, 5-<7; bank bills, by Tyler, 748-9; tariff bills by Tyler, debate on, 780-8'2 ; 
 distribuiion bill, by retaining it, 784. 
 
 Vienna, congress of, 51. 
 
 Virginia, colony, settlement and government of, 26; resolutions of 179S. 172-6; propositions of 
 legislature of, KW-lltiO; secedes from the union, 1135; restored to the union, 1312. 
 
 Virgiuius, case of the, 14-'>7-1483. 
 
 Wade, Benj. P., of Ohio, senator, on John Brown investigation, in08-'l-10; on Kansas bill. 1027-8? 
 opposes compromises, 1080; report and protest of, with Henry Winter Davis, on president's de- 
 feat o( reconstruction bill, 11S6. 
 
 Walker, Kobert J , of Miss., secretary of the treasury, 832; report of, on tariff of 1846, 867-8; ap- 
 pointed governor of Kansas, 981 ; letter of, on Lecompton affair; instruction from liuchanan; 
 resigns, [lio-d ; letter of, on Lecompton constitution. 991 : testimony of, against Buchanan. 10J8. 
 
 War wiTh Great Britain, revolutionary, causes of. 33, etc. ; war with Indians, deleat ol St. Clair, 94. 
 
 War of 1812 ; .Madison's war message. 251 ; war report, 252 ; declaration of, 25i ; address of minority 
 of congress, 254-8 (see Great l^ritain). 
 
 War with .Mexico: act authorizing loans and treasury notes, 841-2; debate on objects and origin of 
 the war, by Calhoun, Benton, and Clayton, 842-5; principles involved, remarks of Corwin and 
 Khett, 81*!-^ ; war terminated, treaty, 848 (see Seminole war, Florida war, and Patriot war). 
 
 War, civil, of 1361 (see Seceding States, Secession, Abraham Lincoln, etc.), additional acts providing 
 for the war, 1161. 
 
 War debt, estimate of, July, 1861, 1157; amount of, 1203. 
 
 Warehouse act passed, 873. 
 
 Washington, commandyr-ia-chief, 46; president, 75; letters to Hamilton and Jefl'orson, 101-3: re- 
 elected president. lO'i ; refuses to comply with a call for correspondence respecting tlie Jay treaty, 
 143 ; Ills suspicions of Jefferson, 149 ; charged with mouarchism by Jefferson. 150; for.red letters 
 again-t, 151 ; retirement of, and denunciation of, by Aurora newspaper, 156 ; again commander- 
 in-chii'f, 166 ; farewell address of (Appendix, Note A), died, December 14, 1799. 
 
 Washin.'ton, city of, seat ol government, 85, wfi; capitol at, burned, 268; designs against the public 
 pnjjierty at, i0:>8-90; Federalist newspaper, 199. 
 
 Webster, Daniel, opposes tariff, 280; on Foot's resolution, 894; on expunging resolution, 622 ; on 
 poNwr of removal, 626-8; on spoliation bill, 623; on postponing fourth installment. ()81-2; appointed 
 secretaiv of state, 744; letter of, on cabinet resignations, 754; speech of, on compromise of 1850, 
 899-9,12: his death, 9:^7. 
 
 Wendell, Cornelius, testimony of, concerning frauds, 1038-9. 
 
 Western lauds, ceded to thfe general government, 58, 85. 
 
 West India trade, . 82. etc.; Gallatin sent to England, negotiation cut off, 38-4 ; treaty, 386: McLane's 
 arrangement, 52H-:!0; relief from the effects of the treaty prayed for, 784. 
 
 West Virginia, admitted into tiie union, 1147-8. 
 
 WesterJi wiiisky frauds, 154'); prosecutions of parties engaged in, 1541. 
 
 Whisky insurrection in western Peni;sylvania, 105-<6. 
 
 White, Hugh L., of Tenn., on Indian l5ill, 511-15 ; on expunging resolution, 622; on removals from 
 office, ii2S-9. 
 
 White, of O.. on constituti nal amendment,! 905. 
 
 Whitfie'd, J. W., delegate to consress from Kansas, 955 ; seat of, contested, 965. 
 
 Williams, Roger! settlement of, in Rhode Island, 25. 
 
 William-, of Pa,, on reconstruction, 1181-3. 
 
 Wilson, Heiiry, senator, Mass., on John Brown investigation, 1002. 
 
 Wilson, of Iowa, on confiscation, 1165. 
 
 Wirt, William, attorney -general, 1000; nominated by anti-masons for president, 564. 
 
 Wolcott, Oliver, of Conn., secretary of the treasury, 136. 
 
 Wood. Fernando, of N. Y., on cimfiscation, 1171-2; on peace, at Chicago convention, 1197. 
 
 M'^oodbury, Lcvi.ou Foot's resolution, 498; secretary of the navy, 54S ; secretary of the treasury, 617. 
 
 Woolens hill of 1827, 403, etc. 
 
 Wright, Silas, ju spoliation bill, 623; reports sub-treasury, 680; retnarks on postponing fourth install- 
 ment of the surplus revenue, 689. 
 
 Young, Brighara, governor of Utah, 985. 
 Yulee, D. t., letter of, disclosing conspiracy. 
 
 , 'h^ ^^ 
 

 '' 'f^ 
 
 
 
 ^<i>'' 
 
 C^^ 
 
 
 ■'"<■: 
 
 •^^. 
 
 
 .-^^ V 
 
 
 
 K^^'.^ 
 
 
 
 ..:^ 
 
 
 
 .^% 
 
 
 ^-^^ if 
 
 o 0' 
 
 ^-:> .'-.- 
 
 aX^' 
 
 <.-^ X, 
 
 .■-y 
 
 O, ' it 
 
 
 V- * 3 M \V 
 
 '^'% "".^^ 
 
..x^^ 
 
 ^x^- 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 461 540 7