THE UNION — ITS DANGERS— PROGRESS, SPEECH c > V u. s * VVASHV •*- 3 . ¥. W. WICK, OF INDIANA. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1S48. In Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. Mr. WrCKsaid: The public records and public press inform our •constituents that a great majority of the measures acted upon by this House, are considered, discuss- ed, and prepared for final decision in a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and that a large portion of the time of the House is- spent in its capacity as such committee— the state of the Union being much more frequently the theme of discussion than is the particular bill for ihe time being before the House. They read that " in a multitude of counsellors there is' safety." They know that this House is a multitude, though I will add, en passant, that when they come to our Flail, (as they do when on their way to attend their popular conventions, and on certain other occasions,) they betray the most unaffected surprise at the unexpected character and lout ensemble of this " multitude of counsellors." Seeing that we are almost daily engaged in a con- sideration of the "state of the Union," they come to the conclusion that the Union is very safe in our hands — the more especially as the most of us were not backward when seeking a place here, to make known our extreme devotion to the Union, and our ardent desire to perpetuate it. They moreover gather, or infer from the fact of so much of the time of this House being devoted to a consideration of " the state of the Union," that there is danger, more or less, of a dissolution of the Union of States, and of parties, and this their apprehension is not a mere fantasy. There. is danger — not imminent and immediate — but re- mole. The selfish man, who cares for nothing but that things may go well in his day, has little cause to be alarmed; for such is the attachment of the American people to the Union of the States, that its dissolution will be a work of time. But the paternal man, who loves his children, and the chil- dren of his neighbors, and would provide against evils to which future generations may be exposed, and the patriot, whose bosom glows with love of country, may well and reasonably fear. The be- nevolent man, who loves his race, and has been naturally led to consider this country and its insti- tutions as of inestimable value to human nature, has a right to be anxious. His hopes, as to the destiny of the United States, may turn out to be but dreams. It will be germane to a consideration of the state of the Union, if not to the bill under consideration, to point out the incipient causes ever at work, un- dermining the foundation of the symmetrical struc- ture composing the Union of the States. That structure is of the composite order, combining the majesty of the Gothic, the sturdy strength of the Doric, the chaste neatness of the Ionic, and the ornate beauty of the Corinthian orders. It can never be overturned by open attack; but it may be subverted by underminingand removingthe found- ation, which foundation is the Constitution of the United States, in its letter, and in inferences which must be drawn from it. A resort to, or adoption of, inferences which might be drawn from it, will be fatal. From the time of the adoption of the Constitu- tion to this hour, Federalism has been engaged in a struggle — open when in power, and at other limes covert — the object of which has been, to lead, or force the General Government into the exercise of powers which may be inferred from the Constitu- tion; while Democracy, or Republicanism, has as constantly resisted the exercise by the General Government of any powers except those delegated by the Constitution in express words, or which must be inferred therefrom. It may be said, and truly, too— more's the pity— that many men call- ing themselves Republicans, have contended, and are now contending, for the exercise t5f certain powers which are admittedly neither expressly delegated by, nor yet of necessity to be inferred from the words of, the Constitution. My answer is, that such men may have cailed themselves Re- publicans, and may have voted generally with the Democratic party; they may have been, and may now be, generally recognized as members of the Democratic party; but they have been, and are Federalists, notwithstanding. Or, if they deny the exercise by the General Government of powers not expressly granted, or of necessity inferred, on all points except one or two, they are yet more dangerous than thorough-going Federalists; be- cause, being recognized as" Republicans, there is danger that they may mislead the unwary into the adoption of their opinions, and so contribute to make the Democratic party anything but a unit, in consequence of ihe spread of dangerous heresies. So, too, it may be said, and said truly, that, at f$ty9 times, nearly the entire Democratic party have ■ Ided points, and even passed laws inconsistent ■with the strict construction of the Constitution, which I have predicated. My response to this is, B that for a time immediately preceding such action of a portion — perhaps a majority — of the Demo- cratic party, Federalism had occupied the Halls of legislation and the Executive chair, and had sway- ed her leaden sceptre over. the land, and riveted down her abuses. Democracy coming into power, accommodated itself to the existing state of things, whether wisely or not, I will not express an opinion. One by one rivets were drilled out, or wrenched away, and the fact was gradually developed, that instead of being necessary to keep together the machinery of the body politic, or proper parts thereof, they were but miserable contrivances to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer; to in- troduce a corrupting influence into the very capil- laries of the popular body, and to strip the States of their original inherent sovereignty. Were I, in the article of death, to be called upon by those constituents to whom I am deeply indebt- ed, to point out the causes to be apprehended, as tending to produce the final and fatal catalepsy of the Republic, I would, in view of the moral respon- sibilities impending, designate, as the principal proximate cause, without hesitation, and with as- sured certainty, the exercise, loith reference to inter- nal affairs, by the General Government, of powers neither expressly granted to it by the letter of the Con- stitution, nor of necessity, to be inferred therefrom. There is behind this proximate cause a remote cause, of which I must say something before I resume my seat. I shall not reiterate the well-known doctrines of the Democratic party concerning the original sov- ereignty of the States, and the result of a grant of powers to the General Government; nor will I pause to reason analytically, as to the sure danger of construing the Constitution liberally in favor of grants of power to the General Government. That task has been performed, many times, by those having claims to ability and authority greater than I may truly boast of. I propose to establish, practically, that the exer- tion by the General Government of powers not expressly granted has, in all instances produced mischief. And — First. There is no clause in the Constitution conferring power upon the General Government to charter a bank. The power, nevertheless, was exercised. Did the bank do good ? Did it benefit the masses? Did it purify the currency ? An old Sroverb declares that " all is well that ends well." >id the bank end well ? What is the opinion and feeling of the common mind upon these points noio? When Federalism found itself in power in 1840, did her high-priests dare to present the bank idea — its dead and rotten corpse — till they had dressed it in "bra new duds," and christened it "Fiscality ?" Have not those high priests been com- pelled, by public opinion, to blink their faith, and to pronounce some gibberish about an " obsolete idea," as a lullaby to the jealousies of their own partisans? Dare they now publish, as an article in their party creed, their declaration " '.hat Con- gress has power to charter a bank of discount and issue, and that it is expedient to exercise that power?" They dare publish no such article of faith. They dare pronounce their country in the wrong, and as engaged in an unjust and unneces- sary war, as a party; they might venture upon almost any declaration, any specimen of moral treason in reference to a subject not yet fully un- derstood by the people. They are bold gentlemen, and are in desperate circumstances, and would therefore venture much. But to declare in favor of a bank, against which the masses have repeat- edly decided, would be a piece of Quixotic gal- lantry, quite uncalled for. Bank literature will not therefore be proclaimed, just at present, either in the body of the temple of Federalism or at the vestibule, where it may fall upon vulgar ears, and be " very much misunderstood." Till the time shall come when Federalism shall be " once in the sad- dle," and no " fixed fact"shall stand in the way — as John Tyler did, like the angel before Balaam and his ass — till that time come, the literature of Chesnut street, the lore of " fiscal agencies," must be kept from " the public eye," and remain in the Holy of Holies, to be read, talked, and thought of only by those who minister there. I am no friend to the batik, but " I am a gentleman of bow- els," and if this same bank were a " real human,''' I acknowledge I should feel rather pathetic, 'in view of the ingratitude manifested towards it. It bought up editors, leading men, and politicians for " the party" by the hundred; it browbeat every- body, and, more or less, either frightened or cajoled nearly every one but old Lion Heart and his " kitchen cabinet. " And now, after all this, to be pronounced an " obsolete idea," and be smuggled away out of sight, and (ostensibly at least) laid on the shelf among the old, thrice-condemned Federal lumber — the alien and sedition laws, the Hartford Convention, and blue lights! — " I wish I may die if it is not too bad!" Again: It is but a few years ago since Federal- ism boldly advocated the doctrine of adjusting the tariff with a direct reference to assisting our manu- facturers, by enhancing their profits, and found a few Democratic votes subservient to that doctrine. This idea was called protection. Democracy op- posed it, intruded upon it, and finally overthrew it in 1846. The Constitution confers the power upon Congress to levy duties upon importations for the support of the Government. Federalism claimed that under a liberal construction of this grant, the power of protection could be exerted, and ought to be exercised freely. The people were carried away for a time, in portions of the country, by this idea. They were made to believe that American inge- nuity, industry, and capital, aided by cheap pro- visions for operatives, and inexhaustible water- power, could not compete with foreign ingenuity, industry, and capital, without levying from the masses a further bonus in favor of the manufactur- er, in the shape of high taxes. Many Democrats in name were carried away by this absurdity, and others feared to boldly advocate the truth as they understood it. But time, which proves all things, exposed this heresy; and one of the fruits of the Democratic victory, in 1844, was its perfect explo- sion. In the 29th Congress there were but few Democrats adverse to the doctrine of free trade, and these few, it could, by an individual and personal application of circumstances, be demonstrated were controlled by local interests or political timidity. And now, in 1848, the prophesies of Federalism 8 having been disproved by experience — the tariff of 1846 having improved both the revenue and the markets — no Democrat can be found to advocate the exploded idea. And Federalism, which for- merly was so obstreperous in favor of protection — whose priests formerly bellowed in our ears, in ominous tones, making our hearts to tremble, and our knees to knock together, the catch words, Protection, Home Market, Foreign Pauper Labor, and all of that sort of thing, now have grown mild, and " roar you an it were any sucking dove." Assembled in Convention, a few days since, to nominate a Presidential candidate, they dared neither reassert nor declare an abandonment of their ancient tariff doctrines. They let "expres- sive silence sing" the praise of the Democratic tariff of 1846, and blinked the confession of past errors, which they owed to their own honor, and to the world. No Democrat will now quarrel with me for as- suming; that experience has proved that there is no necessity for straining points, and making free con- structions of the Constitution, so as to infer there- from the power to charter a bank. He will rather unite with me in hoping that the day may soon come when the States may all cease to exercise that power, or by amending their constitutions, either restrain their legislatures from the granting of such charters as now exist, or deny the power alto- gether. Were f a young man, I should expect to see the States redeem themselves from the corrupt- ins; influence of banks, from the baleful and par- alyzing effects of bank suspensions, and bursts, and from the meanness of a debauched currency, and of the shinplaster abomination, forever and ever. But thus far, Democracy can only boast that it has driven the idea of a national bank into disgrace, taken away from Federalism her magic wand, com- pelled her to confess as an " obsolete idea" that which was once, to her, as a household god, and forced her to smuggle it into existence (as she would, if she had the power) under some new name and disguise devised by the priests who minister at her altars. Nor can any Democrat now be made to cower at the mention of" free trade," or forced to compro- misingly give utterance to the Shibboleth, " inci- dental protection." On the contrary, he speaks of *• free trade" in manly phrase, as an idea to be ap- proximated as closely as may comport with rev- enue. And Federalism which formerly, in portions of the Union, was able to make Democrats afraid by boldly blustering forth her real doctrines in fa- vor of a tariff, heavily protective — such as would " take care of the rich, and enable the rich to take care of the poor" — now modestly squeaks forth a declaration or rather protest, begging favor for the idea of " incidental protection." Upon these two points of controversy, concern- ing claimed inferential powers, Democracy has achieved a perfect victory, demonstrated the truth of her positions by experience, and silenced if not convinced her adversary. Whether the safety of the Union, and individual welfare shall, or shall not again be endangered by a return to power of a political party whose creed does not forbid the ex- ercise of powers not expressly granted, or, of ne- cessity to be inferred, and whose instincts will inevitably lead thereto, depends upon the will of the American people. It is to lie hoped that intelligence, or at least then memory, « i! 1 be found equal to the occasion. The Israelites did oluh I jewels to make a calf god while fin. and smoke, and thunder, and lightn n Sina p yet demonstrated the existence and presence of the true God before their eyes; but it would be a libel upon the American people to suppose it possible for them to be equally besotted, and stupid. And yet a reference to the past might inspire one with some diffidence upon this point. For it has happened that a small number of those calling themselves Democrats did, by voting with their opponents, throw the (Government into the hands of Federal- ism, and they only escaped the fearful consequen- ces naturally resulting from a forgetfulness so criminal, through the unforeseen and unexpected intervention of the supreme and good Providence, which <: has made and preserved us a nation." In the progress of legislation other schemes have been, and. will be brought forward, requiring legis- lation by Congress upon subjects, the care and su- perintendence of which are not committed to the General Government; and, upon all such occasions Federalism has ever thrown, and without doubt, will continue to throw the weight of her votes in favor of the exercise of the forbidden powers, with an eye to h*cr never-forgotien plan of extending the operations of the General Government, and clipping the States of their sovereignty. At present, 1 will content myself with naming, as two of those schemes, the appropriation by Congress of money for carrying out a system of internal improvements, and the legislation by Congress for the Territories in reference to municipal matters, to the extinction of the sovereignty of the people thereof. Upon both of these points, Democracy, true to herself, has defined her position in the resolutions of the late Baltimore Convention. It is, however, much to be feared that there are dissenters from the common and declared creed to be found even among the acknowledged members of the Demo- cratic body. Federalism never reasons. It never speaks from an intelligent conscience. It prates of expediency, and presents the bright side of a scheme, without permitting the dafk side to be seen by the people. Thus, an advocate of a sys- tem of internal improvement presents the advan- tages to result from the improvement of harbors and rivers, and the making of railways and canals; but he does not inform the people that these things always cost money; that because of the distance of the General Government from the scene of oper- ations, public works cost the Government many times as much money as the like works cost when executed by States, companies, or individuals. He speaks in glowing terms to his constituents of the convenience to them of having this or that public work carried on by the United States, and well knows how to enlist the mercenary, by represent- ing the advantage to result from large expenditures of money in their immediate vicinity, and by hint- ing that a contract may fall to their share, yielding the large profits generally yielded by all Govern- ment contracts. But will he tell the honest masses that the money thus expended near them must every dollar be raised from them by taxation ? Never. If internal improvements should be carried on by the General Government, one of three things If a larger amount mnsr them in im- ;,rr.\< menifi^hnn nngthem through vi'. of their fair re, they will be holding an advantage over other, and more neglect- ed sections, which, as honest men, they must ac- knowledge to he unrighteous. Of incurring the guilt of this unrighteousness, my constituents are in little danger. They are not in the vicinity of any possible public work, except the Cumberland road, which seems, by a consent almost common, to have been dropped out of the system. Again : if just about their reasonable share of an internal improvement fund should be expended upon useful works of improvement among them, they could not accuse themselves of unrighteous- ness, and the only drawback upon their satisfac- tion would be, that because of the General Govcrn- ernment expending money for any (but especially for such) objects, they have taxed themselves to improve, or make some kind of public facility, at many times its reasonable value. And if it should turn out that very little, if any, of the internal im- provement fund should be expended among them, or upon any work in which they have more than a remote interest, lam inclined to believe they would begin \c\-y much to doubt the constitutionality of such expenditure; and that tliey would decide againstthe expediency of such a fleecing operation, there is no doubt. The present Chief Magistrate of the United States has, on two occasions, exercised the ex- traordinary legislative function committed to his hands by the Constitution, by preventing the pas- sage, into laws, of internal improvement bills which had passed both Houses of Congress, exerting, for that purpose, what is commonly called " the veto Cower." He lost no friends among my constituents y so doing. Instead of finding or making occa- sion to apologize for, or explain my votes against one of these bills, after it was vetoed, and against the other on all occasions, I acknowledged to my constituents mv error in judgment in voting for one of those bills before it was vetoed, and prom- ised to do so*no more; and with that, my ever kind Democratic constituency let me off. I have not found leisure to collate proposed ex- penditures provided for by bills pending in both Houses for internal improvements, nor can any one now foresee what amendments will be offered to bills when they come up? providing for expendi- tures not now in the calendar. I have not even looked into the calendar of the Senate. I have, however, looked casually and hastily over a por- tion of the bills originating in the House, and those which, having passed the Senate, await the action of the House, and, inter alia, I find the following, which are to be passed, I suppose, by hook or by crook, viz: For Improving streets in this city ' ,«:)'>. ISO For the purchase of bridpes r<>r tins city 30V 00 For harbors and rivers, (in light house' hill) 73 fcOO For light-houses, (in lipht house bill) ' 120,0 o Fur light-housee, (in civil and diplomatic bill) Hi~,000 Not one dollar of these sums will be expended among my constituents, nor will a dollar thereof teach their pockets. Nor have they even a remote interest in any of the improvements authorized by the appropriations, unless it may be supposed that the appropriations for the Ohio and Mississippi rivers may tend, very remotely, to promote their interest. Many of them have traversed the upper Ohio, and satisfied themselves that the money here- tofore expended there, in attempts to improve the navigation, has, in fact, produced artificial obstruc- tions to such navigation. There is a hill on the calendar appropriating some refuse land towards completing the Cumberland road; but does any one dream that it will pass? Is it not very certain to "get a go-by," or to be voted down? In this (which is to be the usual) state of things, is it a matter of wonder that vetoes of internal-improve- ment bills should be well received by those I rep- resent? But again: my constituents are not con- tent with examining this matter in the light of the existing state of things; they look a head, and foresee the mighty rivers of Texas, Oregon, and Califor- nia coming into the system, and estimate, without more arithmetic than they can master, by counting on their fingers, that their shifting sands, their fickle channels, their mighty cascades, and their tens of thousands of miles, would ingulf, sink, and sweep away the revenues of the world. Hence, those of them who do not, at once, sustain the President as to the unconstitutionality of such expenditure, do not hesitate a moment to sustain his repeated exer- cise of the veto power on this point, upon the score of expediency? and 1 believe they are generally very willing to see it adopted as a part of the national creed, that such expenditures are uncon- stitutional. Of course, I except from this category such as have some selfish or political reason for affecting to entertain a contrary opinion. Ethics were not made for those who calculate personal interests, and shape political opinion accordingly, nor is candor the attribute of the ambitious. Some of the appropriations for internal improve- ment, now pending in one or the other of the Houses, are inserted in the ordinary appropria- tion bills, without the passage of which the Gov- ernment cannot go on. Othersof them, I prophesy, will be inserted therein by way of amendment. Nay more, I have a prescience that there will be grafted upon those bills yet other amendments of this character, which, at present, are not thought of generally, but will be dragged forth, in due time, from their hiding-place in the bosom of selfish- ness, or of political cunning. The effect of such a course will be to compel the President to either approve measures in the very teeth of principles deliberately avowed in previous solemn, and well- considered veto messages, or to assume the respon- sibility of hazarding the passage of the appropria- tion bills at the present session, and the expend- iture incident to a call of a special session of Congress. If the bills should be rejected by the President, before an adjournment, but in the last hours of the session, after an adjournment sjiall be resolved on, a call of Congress will be almost cer- tain; and if they should be rejected constitutionally, after an adjournment, the call will be indispensable. The President is vested by the Constitution with certain powers. With certain limitations, he is an independent branch of the Legislature. His opin- ions are known. We are not in the dark on the subject. Unless, then, we are sure that he will abandon points of constitutional law, which he has, under oath, deliberately assumed, and, after time for reflection, reasserted, or that we have a two-thirds majority in favor of our internal-im- provement appropriations, and can pass them full ten days before adjournment, we take upon our- selves the responsibility of causing the expendi- ture incident to a special session of Congress. I have heard it said that the President has not the firmness to adhere to his principles under the cir- cumstances which I have predicated. I have not the slightest authority to speak for him, here or elsewhere; but 1 know a little of the man, and more of the circumstances which surround him. He is about to retire from the chair of state, and, in all human probability, from the political arena, forever. If behave, in his construction, the elements for which 1 have given him credit, he understands himself as living for history, and will not, under any circumstances, beat a cowardly and scandalous retreat from that which he has declared to be his sworn duty. And if he be the "Young Hickory" which we Democrats endorsed him for in 1844, he must be gifted with, at least, some of the perti- nacity and conscience of "Old Hickory, "as well as ordinary pride of character. If you think ill of my judgment, bring James K. Polk to the test. Try him. If he fail to give you yet another " touch of his quality," you may set me down as no prophet. I wili scarcely be suspected of any desire to pre- vail on the other side of the House, having little party interest in their good conduct. I profess, however, a good will to caution my Democratic brethren to ke^p out of a "nasty scrape." The utter impossibility of raising money to keep up annual appropriations for harbors upon the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and upon the lakes, and for the improvement of the rivers upon the Atlantic and Pacific slopes, and in the great valley, ought to admonish us to abandon such appropriations at once; for, in the end, they will be abandoned of necessity. It may be said that this is a new Dem- ocratic idea. Well, suppose it to be so, and what then? Are we not the " progressive" Democracy? New ideas must arise as new circumstances pre- sent themselves. Besides, the idea is not entirely new. It was started in the early days of the Re- public, it took a wide stride in the days of the Man of the Jge, has progressed during the present Ad- ministration, and will be forced, by events and circumstances just at hand, upon us by the su- preme law of necessity. It has been said that, on this subject, one of the existing political parties in this country has little to boast of, as compared with the other. With the candor which I have resolved shall on all occa- sions characterize what I may say here, I will confess that while the Whig party has been con- sistently wrong, on this subject, 'the Democratic party has not been very consistently and unitedly right. In consequence of the presence in its body of many dissenters, it has been fearfully addicted to backsliding. But, upon the whole, it has, true to its leading characteristic, been, even in reference to this subject, " progressive." Reforms, like revo- lutions, never go backwards. We shall "go on to perfection." Who will be the last Democrat who will be found casting his votes with Federal- ism, on this subject? Upon 'he other point which I have indicated as being now in controversy, and from the misunder- standing whereof there is danger to the Union im- pending—I allude to the sovereignty of the people of the Territories in reference to matters of muni- cipal legislation — I have a few sentences to utter. Territories, as organised bod 'un- known to the Constitution, not t> named therein. Tbe po.wer.lo legislate for them, in this Hall and in the Senate Chamber, is claimed under a clause in the Constitution which is in these words, viz: " The Congress shall have -power to dis- ' pose of, and make all needful rules and regulations 1 concerning, the territory or other property of the ' United Stales.'' , At the time the Constitution was adopted, the United States owned, in sovereignty, and subject only to the extinction of the Indian claim, an immense and almost unexplored and un- known extent of territory. It was easy to foresee that (as did subsequently come to pass) settlements would be made in different portions of this terri- tory, remote from each other, and yet nearly simultaneously, and that thus many inchoate bodies politic must, of necessity, soring into existence. Had it. been the intention of the Convention to confer legislative sovereignty over these bodies politic upon Congress, the grant of such sover- eignty would have been made in express words. The object of the clause which I have quoted from the Constitution is evidently not intended to confer political sovereignty. It only authorizes Congress to legislate concerning the territory of the United States as property — land. If it had been intended to confer upon Congress political sovereignty over the Territories of the United States, the plural of the word "territory" would have been used, and "territory" would not have been classed with property, and evidently characterized as such by being immediately followed by the words "and other properly of the United Slates." A recent writer and orator upon this subject, more remarkable for ability and ingenuity than for conscientiousness, has misquoted this clause of the Constitution, or perhaps I may say amended it, by striking out the word "territory," and insert- ing in lieu thereof the word " Territories," thereby leaving the incautious reader, who does not exam- ine the Constitution for himself, to believe the ab- surdity that the Constitution makes Territories, in their capacity as bodies political — i. e., the bodies and souls of the population — the " property of the United States.'' Parliament never asserted so much concerning the people of the Colonies, though it did assert its own power "to legislate for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. '' And for and because of that declaration, far more than because of the "tea tax," did our forefathers assert and achieve their independence. This unauthorized substitution of a plural for a singular enabled the writer in question, and other advocates of the doc- trine of the supremacy of Congress over the su- premacy of the people, to stagger along on a lame argument. Without it, their idea has no constitu- tional support. I have heard the decisions of courts quoted to establish this doctrine. Such au- thority is not satisfactory. I can find precedent, and decisions of courts, and of Congress, to sus- tain a bank of the United States, and every item of the Federal creed. Inasmuch, then, as the Constitution has not conferred the sovereignty of the Territories upon Congress, I claim it for the source of all sovereignty— THE PEOPLE. From what I have said, it appears that the grand distinction between Federalism and Democ- 6 racy consists in this: Federalism claims for the rovernn tl ■. right to exercise many racy assigns to the States. Examine this distinction in the light of common sense, and which doctrine is the best for the people? Can the General Government exercise power with- out encountering expenditure ? Every one will see that the answer to this question must be in the negative. It involves expenditure to pass a law through Congress; but in most cases this is. but as "a drop in the bucket," compared with the ex- penditure incident to the execution of the law, if it be temporary. If it be a permanent law, (as most are,) requiring constant or even annual exe- cution, then the machinery, the officers employed in and the action of that execution, becomes a permanent burden upon the treasury. It is in con- sequence of Congressional legislation upon new subjects — many of them unauthorized by the Con- stitution — far more than in consequence of our na- tional growth, and the extension of our borders, that the national expenditure has increased in the progress of time. National expenditure would be a public, and individual blessing, if the Government possessed means of meeting it other than raising it from the people by the process of taxation. But the fact is otherwise. Every dime expended the people must pay into the Government coffers. To raise money, the Government has no resort but the pock ets of the people; and to them it is precisely the same, so far as the amount is concerned, whether the resort be direct, through what is called "direct taxation," or indirect, through tariffs. Federal- ism, when it speaks on this subject, very usually presents to the people only the expenditure, and the advantages to result therefrom. It is usually silent as to the taxation consequent upon expendi- ture; and it never points to the well-known fact that the General Government cannot — never has, and never will — expend money economically, as a State or an individual may. Democracy proclaims the " whole truth" upon the subject; and this may be the occasional cause of temporary defeat. If individual Democrats do occasionally play the Federalist, by telling the agreeable half of the story, they go on Swimmingly for a season; but in the end they sputter out. The conclusion is, that the Union is in danger from the General Government exercising too much power, and raising and ex- pending too much money. Another evil, to result from the free exercise of power by the General Government, the expendi- ture consequent upon that, and the taxation con- sequent upon expenditure, must be either direct taxes, or further pinching restrictions upon the laws of trade, resulting from an increased tariff of duties. In connection with this subject — the exercise by the General Government of (towers not conferred by the Constitution, and the consequent evils — I have named a bank, a tariff for protection, internal improvements, and prescribing municipal laws for the Territories. These are by no means all the subjects which I might introduce, analyze, and explain, in support of my argument. In the prog- ress of our affairs, matters will hereafter arise upon which the same principles will bear in a similar manner. When those new questions shall arise, Federalism will frequently, for a time, succeed by bringing into the field her plausibilities and appa- rent expediencies. But the grand test of truth — experience — will ever prove that it is neither neces- sary nor for the better, but altogether unnecessary and for the worse, for the General Government to assume powers not expressly conferred by the Constitution, strictly construed. It is upon this point — that of a strict construction of the Constitu- tion — that Democracy must stand. All departures from it involve it in the swampy grounds of Fed- eralism, and get it into trouble. The day will come when it will stand intact of a single sin or heresy upon this point, and without a dissenter among its adherents; or otherwise the Constitution will be lost sight of, and a " common law," com- posed of precedents, take its place. Congress will then legislate almost without limitation; the Gen- eral Government will be a splendid and expensive affair; the States will have but a nominal and com- plimentary sovereignty; they will be sovereign de jure, but not de facto; the people will find them- selves burdened with a permanent public debt and high taxes, and there will be an aristocracy of bankers, manufacturers, and holders of permanent American stocks. There will be a Democracy, too; but it will be too poor to go into the political market and buy votes, and too powerless to con- trol them. It will have two glorious privileges: that of grumbling, and that of rebelling. But prac- tical influence it will have none, till again grasped by the rude and reckless hand of revolution. I have intended, by what I have said, to lead to one grand practical idea, in addition to a consider- ation ofDemocratic theory. The practical idea is this, to wit: that Democratic private men are in constant danger of being beguiled into the adop- tion of Federal dogmas by the presentation to their minds of plausibilities or apparent expediencies, comporting with local interests. For example: a manufacturer might be inclined to waive the appli- cation of the doctrine of strict construction so far as to admit a little protection into a tariff law be- yond that which is purely incidental. So a resi- dent on our seaboard, lakes, and rivers, may think that the power to expend money in internal im- provements must be somehow or other conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. He cannot but be puzzled, when requested to find the article or clause in which the power is directly given; but yet insists that it is there. So, also, one mor- ally opposed to slavery will insist that Congress ought to legislate for the Territories, at least so far as to exclude slavery therefrom. The amount of it is, that these gentlemen are clamorous in favor of a strict construction of the Constitution (the sole principle of a purely political character, which dis- tinguishes Democracy from Federalism) till that doctrine trenches upon some special interest or prejudice of their own, and then they insist on waiving the principle. How will this work ? Let us see. The Democrats of one section will insist on the necessity of Congress legislating to keerj slavery out of Territories. For the sake of una- nimity, the Democracy of other sections yield this point. The Democrats of other quarters come forward, and insist that the power to engage in works of internal improvements must be squeezed out of the Constitution, though it should be as dif- ficult as to "extract blood from a turnip." For the sake of political fraternity that point also is yield- ed. Then come the Democrats from the manu- Picturing districts, and insist, that in virtue of certain constitutional inferences, Congress has power to give them a little direct protection, and that they are very needy for the want of it. To give them contentment, that point is given up. Lastly come the Democrats of the cities and towns, and suggest that they are much hampered in the way of "business facilities," and that a national bank — a fiscality — is actually necessary for them. This is rather startling; but as it is threatened that a separate organization and defection will be the consequence of a refusal, that point is yielded too. Thus, one by one, every Democratic principle is yielded, and the Democratic party is thoroughly Federalized. If one minority can force the major- ity on one point, other minorities have an equal right to force the majority on other points; and thus minorities may excise, seriatim, every prac- tical opinion resulting from the Democratic creed, anil lead us back into the fold of Federalism. The difficulties which have arisen in the Demo- cratic party, in consequence of the existence of points of difference in opinion, can only be ad- justed by minorities conceding to majorities. The majority, uninfluenced by local interest or preju- dice, will naturally be in the right. It may safely be avowed, that in no single instance have minori- ties carried any point otherwise than by a union, for the time being, with Federalism, from the con- sequences of which adulterous union they have not escaped unhurt, nor except upon working out their salvation with much fear, trembling, and repentance. The masses belonging to the Democratic party do not naturally desire to dissent from the major- ity; and it is my clear conviction that they glide into false positions because political men and the corps editorial mislead them. Instead of honestly cautioning them against Federal ideas, made for the time acceptable in consequence of local inter- ests or opinions, it has seemed to me that very frequently political men and editors go out of their way to bridle and saddle some miserable hobby, and mount and ride it with extraordinary evi- dences of exhilaration. This want of political candor and courage is the remote cause of disunion to which I have alluded. God make the politi- cians honest. The people are so. I have said that Democracy is progressive. Fed- eralism has wagged her head, and in reproach and derision called us " the progressive Democracy," and we have not taken the saying as a reproach, but as praise. Monarchy has progressed from that which was despotic to that which is limited. Kings " progress" as the people demand of them, or, in default, have " progressed" into exile, leav- ing the place where a throne was, to be occupied by the tribune. Literature, science, philosophy, the arts, and belles-lettres ; progi their adaptation to use '* progiesses."' Moral and physical man "progresses." Animals, by cul- ture and the crossing of breeds, " progress" in beauty and useful qualities. The moral world and the physical terra firma keep moving; the planets roll on in their courses; systems career through immense space; nature, and art, and mind, are in progress. Even religious creeds — not religious truths — undergo modification, and, for good, "pro- gress." Federalism alone is stationary. She changes her name, and may blink her favorite ideas for a time, till an election can be carried upon an "availability;" but in creed, opinion, principle, wish, and instinct, she changes not. Unchanged, except in mere externals, since 1787, she stands in her ancient and murky temple, and grows dizzy as she looks out, in amazement, upon the whirl of all things as they flit past her in their PROGRESS. Aware that her principles are, generally, unac- ceptable, the late Federal — I beg pardon, Whig I believe is the word now — convention adjourned without the formal or informal declaration of any creed or platforms Resolutions haying a squinting that way were declared to be out of order by the presiding officer. A novel but prudent decision, without precedent or reason, was this. The emer- gency called for it. Like the bird of the wilder- ness, our friends of the Whig party hid theirhead in the bush, and fancied the world would fail to see their tail. The precaution was vain. The absurd alliance between the political panty which pronounced the late war unnecessary and unjust, and the general who led one wing of our conquer- ing army, has excited a burst of ridicule and dis- gust from one end of my district to the other. It will, if I mistake not, give occasion for loud guf- faws of derision from Maine to Texas, from Ore- gon to California, and the quidnuncs and wits of Europe will join in the cachinnatory chorus. Even if the great Federal, National Republican, Whig party had not estopped itself from a resort to the supposed availability of military reputation, the Democratic party, always ready to honor Demo- cratic heroes, has blundered upon a couple of avail- abilities in that line which cannot be defeated. The day is not now when radical Democracy, repre- sented in the persons of two "volunteer^''' of 1812, will be even endangered. The people will remem- ber Jackson's Secretary of War* and Jackson's aid-de-camp,f and will endorse the preferences of " the Man of the As-e." r Cass. t Butler. ■ w c c x ^ • v\ „4 Q*. " r • •VL% "> • A v o * * v .. *o, **7Y^ A <> *o • » %=> ^-^CT* A v^tf 5 y o_ V^ 1 V*