Or %^<^ '^^c,^' l^ . » • o - •^i V » 'oK l^ ^ » • ''^Qt bV >.^'*^^-.o*' \--r.r'\y ^'^^'^^^-'J" V- "^•^l ■b^, ^ *r». % <^ *i ■•/ *^^-^^'y V--^*/ \/^*\ ' SPEECH OF ME. WINTHEOR OF MASS. ON THE MEXICAN WAR, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, January 8, 1847. ^ ''^ U.S. A, )] WASHINGTON: PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON 1847. SPEECH The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and harino- undei* consideration a bill to raise for a limited time an additional military force, and for other pur- poses — ^ Mr. WINTHROP said, that if he coukl have selected his own time for ad- dressing the committee, he would not have followed so closely in the wake of his honorable and excellent friend from Georgia, (Mr. Toombs,) who had just taken his seat. But, after watching and struggling for the flour for three or four days, he could not forego the opportunity of saying what he had to say now, even to avoid the disadvantage of placing his remarks in immediate contrast with a speech which had attracted so large a measure of attention and admiration. I am. not prepared, (Mr. W. proceeded to say,) to vote for the bill now under consideration. I certainly cannot vote for it in its present shape. I doubt whether I can be brought to vote for it in any shape, under the present circum- siances of the country. But, before dealing with its particular provisions, or with the principles and policy which it involves, I desire to submit a few con- siderations of a more general and comprehensive character. lam not one of those, Mr. Chairman— if, indeed, there be any such in this House — who think it incumbent on them to vote against all supplies in a time of war, because. they do not approve the manner in which the war was com- menced, or the spirit in which it is conducted. Regarding war as an evil which no language can exaggerate ; deprecating nothing more earnestly than a neces- sity of rendering myself in any degree responsible for its existence or continu- ance ; desiring nothing so sincerely as an opportunity of contributing in any way to the peace of ray country and of the world ; I vet acknowledge That there are many cases in which I should feel constrained to vote men and money for prosecuting hostilities, even though they had originated in measures which I utterly condemned. I may say, in a word, and without further specification, that I am ready to vote for the defence of my country, now and always ; and, when a foreign army is on our borders, or a foreign squadron in our bays, I shall never be for stopping to inquire into the merits of the quarrel, or to ascertain who struck, or who provoked, the first blow, before doing whatever may be in my power to drive back the invaders, and to vindicate the inviolability of our soil. Nor do I forget that it may be sometimes necessaiy for our defence to carry the war into the enemy's country, and to cripple the resources and crush the power of those who may insist on disturbing our peace. When such a necessity exists, and is clearly manifested, I shall not shrink from meeting its responsibilities. And here, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the honorable member from Ohio, (Mr. GiDDiXGs,) that I cannot acknowledge the entire applicabiliiy to the pres- ent issue of those British precedents Avhich he held up for our imitation a i'ew days ago. I am not ready to admit that there is any very close analogy between the struggle of the American colonies in 1776 and that of the Mexicans now. Still less analogy is there between a vote of the British House of Commons and a vote of the American House of Representatives. A refusal of supplies in the Parliament of Great Britain is, generally speaking, equivalent to a change of Administration. No British Ministry can hold their places in defiance of si°ch a vote. A successful opposition to supplies in time of war is thus almost certain to result, in bringing forthwith into power a Ministry opposed to its further prose- cution ; and the kingdom is not left to encounter the dangers which might result from a conflict, upon such a subject, between the executive and the legislative powers. It IS not so here. No vote of Congress can change our Administra- tion. If it could, the present Administration would have expired on Saturday last, when a tax, which they had solemnly declared was essential to furnish them with the sinews of war, was so emphatically denied. If it could, the pre- sent Administration would have gone out on Tuesday last, when their demand for a Lieutenant General was so unceremoniously laid on the table. No Brit- ish Ministry, in these days", could have surnved for an hour two such signal de- feats. But our Ex3cutive is elected for a term of years, and his Cabinet are quite in- dependent of our votes. A refusal of all supplies might hamper and embarrass an Executive, and give an enemy the advantage of divided counsels, but could hardly enforce a change of policy or secure a concerted action in favor of peace. Certainly, it does not seem to be the mode contemplated by our Constitution for putting an end to a war, when it has once been commenced. The people alone can apply the potent styptic, the magical Brocchieri, for stopping the effusion of blood, if it be the Executive will that it shall continue to flow. It is their pre- rogative to change the Administration, and the day is coming, though farther off than some of us might wish, when they will have the opportunity of exer- cising it. While, therefore, sir, I yield to no one in admiration of the illustrious statesmen of Old England, whose names have been introduced into this debate — Burke, Bane, Fox, and Chatham — and honor them especially for their noble efforts ia behalf of American rights, I do not see my way clear to making their conduct in the British Parliament in 1776, the exact model of my own conduct here and now. I turn rather to the example and authority of American statesmen, hardly less distinguished, and no less worthy of admiration and imitation. If ever there was a man of pure life, of stern integrity, of exalted patriotism in our country, it was John Jay ; a member of the first Congress of the United States, and the author of one of those masterly papers, emanating from that body, which called forth the well-remembered commendation of Lord Chatham himself; the first Chief Justice of the United States, and of whom it has been beautifully said, that " when the spotless ermine of the judicial robe fell on John Jay, it touched, nothing not as spotless as itself." He was no friend to war in generator to the last war in which this country was involved in particular. But, in writing to a kindred spirit during the existence of that war, he expressed sentiments in which I so heartily concur, that I cannot forbear reading them to the committee : John Jay to Timothy Pickering. " Bedford, J^ovemher 1, 1814. " It is not clear to me that Britain did then expect or desire to conclude the war quite so soon. As to her presenter future disposition to peace, or how far it has been, or may be affected by a set- tled or by a still fluctuating state of things in Europe, or by calculations of our becoming more united or more divided, cannot now be known. If we should change our rulers, and lill their places Avith men free from blame, the restoration of peace might doubtless be more easily accomplished. Such a change will come ; but not while the prevailing popular delusion continues to deceive and mislead so great a portion of our citizens. " Things being as they are, I think we cannot be too perfectly united in a determination to defend our country, nor be too vigilant in watching and resolutely examining the conduct of the administration in all its departments, candidly and openly giving decided approbation or decided censure, according as it may deserve the one op the other." Mr. GiDDiNGS. Will my friend from Massachusetts permit* me to ofler one word of explanation ? The Speaker. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield the floor ? Mr. WiNTHROP. Certainly, sir. ^ . Mr. GiDDiNGS. The gentleman from Massachusetts will distinctly understand that, in so many words, I expressed the opinion that, if the army should be withdrawn within the legitimate liinits of the United States, there would be but one voice in the country in favor of a war to repel invasion. Mr. WiNTHROP. I cheerfully give the gentleman from Ohio the benefit of ihe explanation, and had not the slightest intention of casting any reflection apoa his conduct. Sir, I concur entirely in both the propositions contained in this paragraph which I have just read from the correspondence of Mr. Jay. I think " we cannot be too perfectly united in a determination to defend our country," wherever that defence may be involved, directly or indirectly, in this war and in all other wars ; and I think that " we cannot be too vigilant either in watching and resolutely ex- amining the conduct of the Administration in all its departments, candidly and openly giving decided approbation or decided censure, according as it may de- serve the one or the other." For, while I am not willing to class myself with those who are for refusing all supplies, even under the present circumstances of the war in wfiich we are engaged ; while I maintain that some provision must be made for the support of our armies and the defence of our country, as long as a foreign nation is in arms against us, declining all overtures of peace; I must also disavow all sympathy with those who proclaim their intention to sanction all the measures of the Administration, blindly and implicitly, and to vote fpr whatever amount of money and whatever number of men they may see fit to demand. I cannot regard such a course as either called for by patriotism or consistent with principle. Still less do 1 acquiesce in the doctrine which would impose silence upon all who cannot approve the conduct and policy of the Administration. I hiave no faith in the idea that it is necessary for us to hold our peace, in order that the Executive may make peace with Mexico. I believe, on the contrary, that, if this war is ever to be brought to an end, it is time for those who desire that con- summation to speak out in language not to be misunderstood. Indeed, sir, I know of nothing of less favorable augury for the destinies of our country, than the disposition which has been manifested by the Administration ind its friends to stifle inquiry, to suppress discussion, to overawe every thing ike free comment and criticism, in regard to the war in which we are now m- rolved. When any one of the vessels of our navy meets with a disaster at sea, is vrecked in a gale, or stranded on a lee shore, a court of inquiry is forthwith in- itituted as to the circumstances of the catastrophe. Her officers demand it. The government exact it. It is considered due to the country, as well as to all con- ;erned, that it should be clearly seen whether there has been any carelessness or my culpableness on the part of any of those to whom she has been entrusted; .nd, if so, who is the guilty party. But now, when the ship of State itself has been involved in the deepest disas- er which can befall her, when she has been arrested in that track of tranquil li- •erty for which she was designed, and has been plunged into the vortex of foreign var, we find her commander and his officers and pilots all denouncing any inves- igation of their conduct, and imperiously demanding of the People and their Re- ' >resentatives that they shall rest satisfied with a one-sided, ex parte vindication if their acts and motives. All denial, all doubt of the supreme wisdom andcon- ummate justice of their conduct is boldly condemned from the very quarter-deck tself, not without ominous glances at the yard arm; and those who honestly en- ertain misgivings as to their course, are called upon to close their lips, or to sub- ait to the base imputation of" giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Sir, if this be an evidence of the progress of Democracy, it can only be of that ort of Democracy which is to find its legitimate goal in despotism. If such a lOCtrine is to receive the sanction of this House, we had better resort to the old ustom of the British Parliament, and send our Speaker, at the opening of every [Jongress, to the President, to beg that he will graciously grant to his most faith- j1 Commons the privilege of free debate. Nay, we might as well resort at once a the old Roman practice, in time of war, and invest our Chief Magistrate with the irresponsible prerogative of the Dictatorship, and leave him alone to take case that the Republic receives no detriment. We are gravely told that we may question the policy and justice of an Admin- istration in time of peace as much as we please; but that when we are engaged in war, all such questioning is unpatriotic and treasonable. So, then, Mr. Chair- man, if the rulers of our Republic shall content themselves with some ordinary measure of misconduct, with some cheap and vulgar misdemeanor, the people may arraign and impeach them to their heart's content. But let them only lift themselves boldly to the perpetration of a flagrant crime, let th'em only dare to commit the very worst act of which they are capable, and they are to find their impunity in the very enormity of their conduct, and are to be safely screened be- hind the mountain of their own misdoing! This, sir, is the length to which the President has gone in his message. This is the length to which gentlemen have followed him on this floor. Be it, say they, that this war is, in your judgment, wholly unjustifiable; be it, that it has been commenced by Executive assumption and usurpation; be it, that it is prose- cuted in a manner utterly inconsistent with the constitution of our country; yet,, as it is a war, and for the very reason that it is this monstrous wrong, you must not opftn your lips; you must not express or intimate opposition or discontent; you must not inquire, discuss, or do any thing but vote supplies for its vigorous prosecution. The enemy will hear you, and will derive "aid and comfort" from your conduct, and you yourselves will be guilty of treason. Sir, I say, let the enemy hear — let the enemy hear, and let the world hear, all that we say and all that we think on this subject, rather than our rights of free discussion shall be ilius wrenched from us, and ratner than the principles of our Constitution and the spirit of our Government shall thus be subverted and crushed, Mr. Chairman, I can find no words strong enough to express my utter repro- bation and condemnation of this abhorrent doctrine. The doctrine that, whenev- er war exists, wliether produced by the acts of others or by our own act, the Re- presentatives of the people are to resign all discretion and discrimination as tO' the measures by which, and the objects for which, it is to be carried on! The doctrine that, in time of war, we are bound by the obligations of patriotism to throw the reins on the neck of Executive power, and let it prance and plunge afccording to its own wild and ungoverned impulses! I have heard before of standing by one's country right or vjrong, and much as we may scorn such a sentiment as a general principle, there is at least one sense in which no man is at liberty to revolt at it. As a maxim of defence, in time of danger, its propriety canYiot be disputed. But whence came this doctrine that we are to stand by the Executive, right or wrong? From what soil of Democracy has it sprung? In Avhat part of our Republican history do you find the germ from which it has now so suddenly burst forth? Sir, the Democracy of other days is not without a voice on this subject; a voice of warning, a voice of rebuke, which I trust will not be heard in vain.. Every body will remember a celebrated controversy which occurred betweeu Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the year 1793, on the subject of the Proclamation of Neutrality. But every one is not famdiar, perhaps, with the principles brought under consideration in that masterly discussion. I beg leave to refresh the memories of gentlemen with a few paragraphs from the papers of James Madison on that occasion: " Every just view that can be taken of this subject admonishes the public of the necessity of a rigid adherence to the simple, the received, and the fundamental doctrine of the Constitution, that, the power to declare war, including, the power of judging of the cau.ses of war, is fully and exclu- sively vested in the Legislature; that the Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the ques- tion whether there is or is not cause for declaring war; that the risht of convening and informing^ Congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right which ilie Consti- tution has deemed requisite or proper; and that for such, more than for any other contingency, this right was specially given to the Executive. " In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislative, and not to the executive department. Besides the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of Executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created, and it is the Executive will which is to direct it. In war the public treasures Eire to be unlocked, and it is the Executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of otHce are to be multiplied, and it is the Executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the Executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest pas- sions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast — ambition, avarice, vanity, the hon- orable or venial love of fame — are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace. " Hence it has gi'own into an axiom, that the Executive is the department of power most dis- tinguished by its propensity to war; hence it is the practice of all States, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence. " As the best praise, then, that can be pronounced on an executive magistrate is, that he is the friend of peace — a praise that rises in its value as there may be a known capacity to shine in war — so it must be one of the most sacred duties of a free people to mark the first omen in the society of principles that may stimulate the hopes of other magistrates of another propensitj?, to intrude into questions on which its gratification depends. If a free people be a wise people also, they will not forget that the danger of surprise can never be so great as when the advocates for the prerogative of war can sheath it iii a symbol of peace. " The Constitution has manifested a similarprudence in refusing to the Executive the soZe power of making peace. The trust, in this instance, also, would be too grer.t for the wisdom, ajid the temptations too strong for the virtue, of a single citizen." And there is another paragraph in one of the same papers of infinitely more significant import: " Those who are to conduct a war, cannot, in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are bai-red from tl^e latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws." Much has been said, in the course of this debate, Mr. Chairman, about the doc- trines of old fashioned Federalism. Now, here, sir, are the doctrines of old (ashioned Democracy, in the very language of one of its ablest and most honored masters. And how strangely do they contrast with the manifestoes of that mod- ern brood, which boast themselves so vaingloriously of their borrowed plumes! [n which one of these golden sentences of James Madison do you find any justifi- cation of the idea, that the Executive department of the Government is to be im- plicitly trusted in time of war, and that the vigilance of Congress is to sulfer it- self to be lulled asleep by the insipid opiate of a President's message? What can be moie emphatic than the declaration, that "those who are to conduct a war can- aot, in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges whether a war ought fa be commenced, continued, or concluded?'''' Who can read these paragraphs with- out being deeply impressed with the sentiment which pervades them, that if the true spirit of Democracy calls upon us ever to be jealous, with an exceeding ;ealousy, of Executive power, it is when that power has been armed with the fearful prerogative of war, and when, as now, that prerogative is masked behind "a symbol of peace?" If the democratic sensibilities of James Madison were startled and shocked, when George Washington, that "prodigy of many centu- ries," as he well entitled him, thought fit to forestall the deliberations of Congress by issuing a proclamation of neutrality, what would he have said had he lived to see a President, "such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magis- tracy," not merely involving the country in war by his own acts, but proceeding to stigmatize as traitors all who may think fit to inquire into the causes of the war, or to judge for themselves whether it ought to be continued or concluded? But w^ have been told, Mr. Chairman, that whoever else may undertake to cavil at the course of the Administration in relation to this war, it does not be- iong to those who voted for it to do so. We were elegantly and courteously informed, some days ago, that the man who voted for the war, (meaning, ol course, for the bill of May 13,) and who how complains of the Executive, musi be little betteir than a knave. Now, sir, I voted for the bill of May 13, and I complain of the Executive; and I stand here to vindicate the character and the consistency of those to whom this foul epithet has been so flippantly applied. And let me say at once, that it is from the very fact that I voted for that bill, that I feel all the greater right, and all the greater obligation, to complain of the course of the Ad- ministration. What, sir, was the bill of May 13th? I deny totally that a vote for that bill was, in any just sense of the term, a vote for the war. It certainly does not lie in the mouth of the President, or any of his friends, to call it so. The Presi- dent told us on the 11th day of May that the war existed. It existed, as he said, and as the preamble of the bill repeated, " by the act of Mexico." It ex- isted, as many of us thought, who protested at the time against the justice o( the preamble, and have never ceased protesting against it from that day to this, by his own act. At any rate, the war existed, as the President said, as the bill said, as I thought then, and as I think still. For I have never doubted for a moment that a state of things had at that time been brought about, between this country and Mexico, which called for a recognition, on both sides, of the existence of a state of war. What, then, was the bill of May 13th? It was a bill to give to the Execu- tive the war power, to meet an exigency of existing war, and for the purpose of enabling him to accomplish the great purpose, which he so solemnly professed to have at heart, of re-establishing an honorable peace. This, sir, is what we on this side of the House voted for. Doubtless, our action was in some degree influenced by the condition of Gen. Taylor's army ; nor can I fail to protest against the assertion of an honorable member, that we must have known that the .army would have extricated itself before the succors authorized by the bill could reach them. We could not, by any possibility, have known any such thing. It might have been regarded as probable that Gen. Taylor would either have been victorious, or have been van- quished before that time. But not few nor feeble were the apprehensions that he might have been vanquished. And if such a result had occurred — if our army had been conquered, and the captives had been marched ofl'tothe mines, I leave it to others to take the responsibility of saying that there would then have been no occasion for men and money to rescue and redeem them. The exigency, however, was not one for calculating chances, or speculating on probabilities. The war existed; and I know of no mode of meeting an ex- isting war but by a prompt exercise of the war power. This is one of the casea to which the Irish maxim may be well applied, that " the best way to avoid a difficulty is to meet it plump." And so far, while I entertain the most perfect respect for those who diff*ered from me, and freely admit tliat the preamble of the bill furnished ample ground for honest and patriotic disagreement, I have nothing to regret in the vote which I gave for the substantial provisions of that bill. ButJiow, sir, comes the question, suggested by the remarks of more than one gentleman in this debate. Because we have voted, six months ago, under these circumstances, or under any other circumstances, to confer the war power upon the President, are we therefore bound to acquiesce in any and every mea- sure for which he may see fit to employ that power ? Because for these rea- sons, or for any reasons, we have entrusted that fearful prerogative to the officer (to whom the Constitution assigns it, when it is to be wielded at all, are we there- fore responsible for his whole exercise of it, and absolutely estopped from com- ^'^^^;?i:'areXoXrylSrire,tdeed 1 Suppose, sir,, tha. the Presiden. had been found exercising this power with tameness. or with downngU trea- chery suppose he had suffered our armies to be taken captive and our strong- ho ds obe^ surrendered ; suppose he had invited an invasion o our undisputed nauonal soil on this side of the Nueces, or on this side of the Sabine.; suppose Te had be n discovered entering into traitorous agreement with the enemy and admitting their chosen leader not merely into their own territory bu iiuo our^ should we have had no right of arraigning him before the country ? No man will put forth so preposterous an idea. And if, on the other hand, he is found PP verting the authority, asked by him and given to him as an instrument of Teare to Ae purposes of invasion and conquest, and embarking the "ation in . S crusade of aggression and aggrandizement, is it not ^q-l >' our r.ght and our bounden duty to call him to account? Is it not especially the right, and pre- eminently the diuy, of those who have aided in giving him that power upou faTothe pretexts.^;nd for far other objects, to hold him to his responsibihty ? st I repeat^ is because the President holds this tremendous inslrumen part y by my vite, that I feel constrained to examine well into h.s course, and Tdemand o^f him vainly perhaps, but audibly and earnestly to remember his pledtes and to p^use from'the prosecution of a policy at total variance w.th the original intentiois of Congress, and with all the institutions and interests of our ''Mn^Chainnan, in any remarks which I may see fit to ^^^^^-'"^^^^j^^J!^^!;' in relation to the existing war, I do not intend to just.fy the ^"du.H of Mexico I do not deny, I never haVe denied, that we have just cause of '^^'^Pl^/ l^^^^"^^^^ the Mexican Government. Grossly exaggerat^l as I regard many of he repre sentations of the President, and of his supporters on this A^-' ;!;;;/f TjJ /h,' claims of our citizens for spoliations upon our commerce, I Xf [^^^^^ f ."^'V^;'; Mexico has been much at fault in all this matter. Nor am I ^^'^P^^^^ to jlenj that she has been at fault in many other matters of move recent oc^^^^^^^^^^^^^ She was wrong in not acknowledging the independence ;>/ ^exa^^ma^^^^^^ ^go. She was wrong, when she at last proposed to make tl^^^/^^^^^^Xch in affixing to it a condition which could do her no manner of good, and which was surei be construed into an offence to oti.ers. She was w-ng in breakmg off so abruptly all diplomatic intercourse with the United States, when the ac of annexation had passed the two Houses of Congress She was ™g ^n '^^ receiving Mr. Slidell agreeably to the understanding between ^^^J^^^ ^^J"^^ ments, a's I conceive, when he was sent on a mission of P^^^^ .^^^^^.^'^^^^J^^^ aao She was wront years ! It cannot be completed under a year and a half or two years ! What visions of protracted conflict do these facts unfold ! The ^royiso of the bill authorizes the President to appoint the officers of these ten regiments during the recess of Congress, and to report them to the Senate at their next session. This ^roi-tso proves that these regiments are not expected to be in readiness for any present support or relief of the troops in Mexico. The officers are not to be appointed until Congress has adjourned.- What a power is this to confer on the President ! Nobody can imagine that the Senate can exercise any effective check upon appointments so made, and when the officers are once at their posts. Four or five hundred commissions, of all grades, from brigadier generals down to lieutenants, are thus to be placed in the hands of the President. Hov/ many of them are to be dangled in the eyes of members of this House, with the view of carrying measures which sdem now to meet with no particular favor, remains to be seen.. But the great objection to the bill is the policy which it discloses. In propos- ing this measure and that of the Lieutenant General, the Administration virtually call upon Congress to sanction the ultra and extravagant policy which they have recently adopted m regard to this war. I §ay recently adopted, for it is plain that a new spirit has come over the dream of the Executive on this subject. On the 11th of November last the Secretary of War addressed a letter, which ^is in print, to a gentleman in Kentucky, in wliich he said: •' It is proper, how- ever, to say that the anioimt of force already in service is deemed sufficient for the prosecution of the war.^'' On the 16th day of the same November he issued a requisition for ten new regiments of volunteers to serve during the war. What occurred during these five days to change the whole policy of the Administration has never been dis- closed, but it is plain that a marvellous change was wrought. And in pursuance of it, these ten new regiments of regulars are now called for. This new policy- can be nothing less than one of invasion and conquest. The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in June last said : "Texas, and indemnity for wrongs confessed by several treaties, coasts and borders in tranquil possession without transatlantic interference, are all we insist upon. It will be Mexican infatuation, should the contest become one of races, of borders, of conquest, and oj territorial extension.''' Mexican infatuation, I presume, is at length sufficiently manifested, and this contest of races, borders, conquest, and territorial extension is to be commenced. And this contest Congress is now called upon to sanction. If it be not so, the President can inform us. If this be the policy, I am entirely opposed to it, and ieel bound to express that opposition in the most unequivocal terms. ' W46 ^' "o /.^^;r\ /.c>;z^^'^-o ,^^.i^>\ 0^ .•^:^% ^ .*'"*. 5^r '> ■^\/ 'V'-B-/ \'^-^\/ V^^"/ v\.-^^..\ .-^o\;i>%%