SPEECH OF T.L. CLINGMAN, OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON DUTIES ON RAILROAD IRON AND COMMERCIAL RESTRICTIONS. DELIVERED IN TlE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 21, 1852. MrOHirAmlrAN: I avail myself of this occasion to say something with referetie' to the subject of the duties on railroad iron. The bill for the relief of the Raleigh and. Gaston ftiioad has just been defeated by a vote of the House. As that measure was under the operation of the previous question originally, and as the motion to lay on the table the question of reconsideration was not debatable, I was precluded from saying any thing in its favor. Though it has been thus rejeoted, there is still a bill pending for the repeal of the duties on all railroad iron, which, if passed, woild be more advantageous even to that road than would have been the bill just defeated. I am the more desirous of offering some observations to the committee, because of the course of the friends of higher duties, as we have witnessed it again and again during the present session. We have seen several attempts to put in the appropriation bills, clauses increasing largely the present taxes, for the sake of protection. These motions have been made, too, after the debate was stopped, and at a time when no discussion could be had in the committee. They are thus endeavoring clandestinely to foist on the country a much higher tariff than the people would knowingly submit to. This mode of proceeding is by no means creditable to the cause. In former times, having doubtless confidence in the soundness of the system, the friends of high duties introduced their tariff bills in the usual mode of legislation, so as to permit a fair discussion and investigation as to the merits of the measure. Of late, the contrary practice has beer adopted, and it is fair to presume that gentlemen have despaired of success in a fair contest, and are endeavoring, by some device or sudden stratagem, to get some oppressive act fastened on the country. As we are given to understand that, in despite of the late failures, a new attempt is yet to be made to get in a clause of the kind to some one of the unfinished appropriation bills I avail myself of this, the only occasion, to expose such a system ~f tactics. When at an earlier period of the session the bill for the benefit of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad was under consideration, there was the best prospect for its passage, the majority for it being large on all the preliminary votes. To-day, however, it has been ftially defeated. Why this change? Because of an ad. verse influence which has been brought actively into the field. There is a certain iron interest in the country- a s6rt of fourth department of the Governmentb-- which claims the right to control our legislation. Not content with their repreitatifr oni thist floor, they send regularly, at each session, bodies of delegates aAlof~lour o lobbies, with a view of influencing our action. They are often too ouccessful in misleading such members as have not thoroughly examined the sub 2 ject, and, compared their contradictory and conflicting statements from year to year. When they find that their statement of facts does not answer the purpose, but can be successfully used against them, they are in the habit of shifting it, and coming up with a new one of a contradictory character. It is only, therefore, by comparing these different statements, through a series of years, that we can hope to understand the true state of the case. Seeing, during the earlier part of the session, that there was a prospect of the country being relieved from an unnecessary tax on railroad iron, they have sent on an unusually strong representation. Having, for a great many years, been accustomed to have taxes imposed on the rest of the community for their benefit, they have at length grown so insolent as to insist, not only that these taxes shall be paid perpetually, whether the Government needs the money or not, but that they shall be paid in cash, without one moment's delay. For example, this Raleigh and Gaston Company having purchased in England iron to lay down on their road, are obliged, by the existing tariff law, to pay to the Government $70,000 or $80,000 as a duty or tax, before they are allowed to bring their iron into the country. Being pressed in their means, they asked that, instead of a payment in cash, they should be permitted to give bonds, with good security, to pay this duty in one, two, three, and four years. They also proposed that the Government should retain the money which it is to pay them for carrying the mail on their road. This would be sufficient, too, to pay off the debt as it falls due. It-is also admitted that the Government does not need the money, as there will be, according to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, a surplus at the close of the present fiscal year, of about $20,000,000. In this state of.facts, though the Government will in nowise be injured by granting the indulgence, we find these iron representatives making a most strenuous resistance, which in the end is successful in defeating the bill. They do not pretend either that they could have furnished, on any reasonable terms, iron to this company. On the contrary, it has been expressly admitted by Representatives from Pennsylvania on this floor, that in that State the railroads going up to their own works, were laid down with foreign iron. They themselves, when making roads, find it cheaper to purchase iron in England, pay the expense of getting it home, and the duty of thirty per cent. on its value, rather than use their own domestic iron. They have, nevertheless, on the present occasion, been instrumental in defeating, by a bare ma. jority of one vote, this bill for the temporary relief of one of our companies, in which the State of North Carolina is interested to the extent of one-half. Part of their opposition is doubtless due to the circumstance adverted to some time since in debate, by the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. MEACHAX,) who denounced the last Legislature of North Carolina, because it had passed, by a unanimous vote, resolutions against any additional protection to the manufacturing and mining interests of the North. Under the influence of this feeling, in part, but mainly because members have been misled by the. statements of this Pennsylva. nia iron delegation, the bill I refer to has been defeated, and opposition strength. ened against a repeal of the duties on railroad iron. Had gentlemen been more familiar with the subject, no such effect could have been produced. Mr. STEVENs, of Pennsylvania, (interrupting.) All I have to say is, that so far from operating against these railroad bills, that delegation of which the gentleman speaks, unfortunately, and by what 1 deem an unwise contract, passed through this House, or made its friends pass, a bill giving 3,000,000 acres ol land to the Missouri railroad;, and without the aid of those outsiders, it had no chance. Mr. CLINGMAN, (resuming.) It is very likely, Mr. Chairman, that that dele. gation did succeed in passing the Missouri railroad bill; but it was a mere mistake which they made. 3 Their object was, by an improper bargain, to get the votes of Western men to impose fresh taxes on the country for the benefit of the iron interest, and they no doubt pushed through that Missouri bill expecting to get a return. They did not get it, however, and I.am glad they did fail. I trust, sir, that all such attempts will bring nothing but disappointment and mortification on the actors. When there is any combination to plunder the public, I hope that the parties to it will always fail to obtain any benefit, and that Western member will stand out all the time against the bids of this interest. It is notorious to all of us who have been here for the last three years, that this iron interest is constantly offering support to Western measures, upon condition that the Representatives from that section will join them in imposing additional taxes on the community. Before, however, Mr. Chairman, speaking directly to this question of the duties on railroad iron, I wish to notice some of the general positions of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. STEVENS,) and the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. MEACHAM.) I attempted at the time when their speeches were delivered to reply to each of them, but was not so fortunate in the general struggle as to obtain the floor. There was one striking difference in the style of argumentation of the two gentlemen. The gentleman from Vermont indulged in some statements of facts, and gave us arrays of figures. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, being an older soldier in the cause, was too sagacious to venture on such ground. He knows that facts are stubborn things, that will not get out of anybody's way, and that figures, wheh fairly used, often prove too much. He has seen how, at former sessions, the array of facts and figures, presented by the iron conventions, were successfully used against their views. He has therefore avoided making specific points, and contented himself with certain generalities and stereotyped arguments in favor of protection and encouragement to American labor, &c. The gentleman has no doubt made many a good stump speech in Lancaster with these materials. Everybody is in favor of protection, but who is fond of taxation? IsWhhat the gentleman asks simply protection, or is it taxation, and unnecessary taxation at that? This is the point to be settled. One of the positions taken by the gentleman from Vermont, will enable us to illustrate this point clearly. That gentleman insisted that in consequence of the reduction of the duties by the present tariff, below what they were under the act of 1842, the North had been a great loser. He argued that it had lost much more than the South, by reason of the escape of its fugitive slaves. He insisted, with the utmost vehemence, that Southern men were very inconsistent in demanding a law for the return of fugitive slaves, and yet not agreeing to give additional duties to the manufacturers. It is, sir, undoubtedly true that Southern men have lost slaves to a considerable extent, by reason of their escape into the free States. But how is it with Northern property? Have any of the manufacturing establishments been destroyed or seized by anybody? Or have the fabrics made by them been taken away? This is not pretended, and even if it were likely to be done, the whole military force of the country woild at once be called out to pro. tect them. It must be admitted by everybody that they are fully and thoroughly protected. What is it, then, really, that the gentleman asked? Why, that we shall impose high duties or taxes on all who bring in foreign fabrics to sell, so that the manufacturers may get higher prices for what they make than is fair, according to the market prices of the world. This is really what he asks. To make the cases parallel, therefore, suppose that Congress had passed a fugitive slave law so efficient that not a single slave was ever lost, and that then I should make a loud complaint here, and insist that our slave property needed protection, and when called upon to explain, should say that I wished Congress to pass a law imposing a tax of fifty per cent. or more on the sale of all productions made by free labor, so that we might thus get a higher price for what the slaves made. This would be exactly such a case as the gentleman makes. And if Congress 4 should agree to impose a tax of thirty per cent. on the productions of free labor to gratify my importunity, and enable slaveholders to make larger profits, I might still complain just as he does, and say, that because they did not impose a duty of fifty per cent., we had lost the difference between that sum and thirty per cent. This comparisoh, I think, illustrates the real position of the gentleman. He has, as far as the manufacturing interest is concerned, no better ground of complaint than an individual would have, to whom we last year voted a pension of $2,000, if we should'now give him but $1,000. He might with as much reason complain that we had injured him: to the extent of $1,000, because we did not again give him twice that sum. But if the gentleman really considers the present duty of thirty per cent. on railroad iron injurious, I am willing to take it off. Again, Mr. Chairman, to make the case clearer, if possible, it is sometimes said in Congress, and more frequently in stump speeches, that the tariff is only a fence which Brother Jonathan has made to keep John Bull from injuring his property. It is certainly necessary in our country to the success of farming operations, that the crops should be protected by fences. But suppose, sir, that a man whose field was already surrounded by a good fence, should insist on having a law passed that no person should be allowed to sell corn, without paying a tax of fifty cents on each bushel, unless that corn had been made in his field. If he could get such a law passed, it might undoubtedly enable him to get fifty cents more for each bushel of his corn than the market price would otherwise enable him to do, and would of course make it that much worse on all corn buyers; but would it not seem strange if the community were told that this law was a mere fence to protect his crop from damage? It is idle for gentlemen to say that the duties do not increase the price, and are not intended to do so. If they lowered the market value of the articles, the. manufacturers would be injured by getting less for what they make. This nobody pretends; on the contrary, they can only be profited by the enhancement of prices. To prevent misconception, I declare, sir, that I am willing, and I believe the community are willing, to bear all the taxation that is really necessary to sustain the Government. The country has also consented that during the infancy of our manufactures they should be highly protected. From the war of 1812, a period of forty years, these infants have been well protected, and are even now enjoying the advantage of thirty per cent. duties. Being now forty years of age, can they not do with less? Why, our present tariff would be regarded as a very high one in any country in Europe. Not long since the new British Minister, Lord Derby, a high protectionist, said in debate, that the British Parliament ought to follow the example of the United States, and adopt a high tariff like ours. Their duties, it is well known, since the reduction made five years ago, are not generally higher than ten per cent. As, however, a majority of the members of Parliament are on this question known to be opposed to the Minister, and in fact for free trade, there is no probability of their going back to the old system of high protection, and therefore there is the less reason for any increase of duty on our part. I now, Mr. Chairman, ask the attention of the committee to the consideration of the immediate question, which I propose to discuss. It must be remembered that prior to the year 1842, there had never been any duty laid on the importation of railroad iron. It was during this period, while this kind of iron was free of duty, that the northern, and several of the southern Atlantic States went into the system of internal improvements, by making railroads. They completed some of their most important works, and obtained a fair start. This is a matter of the greatest consequence; for gentlemen will every. where find that as soon as one or two roads are in successful operation in a State, it is easy to go on by fresh additions to the system. The main difficulty is in the start. It seems hard, therefore, that while the older States? in the beginning obtained their iron without any duty, that similar indulgence should not be extended to the new. 5 By the act of 1842, a duty of $25 per ton was imposed on all rolled iron. Notwithstanding this enormous duty, there was not, for some years, any attempt to make railroad iron in the United States. In 1846, the price having risen in England to some $50 per ton, the addition of this duty, together with other costs and charges incident to the importation, made railroad bar, worth here from $80 to $90 per ton. A few establishments went into the business of manufacturing the article. There were seven or eight in Penntylvania, and four or five in the rest of the United States. The reduction of duty and price, which soon followed the act of 1846, ina few years, caused most of these establishments to abandon that branch of business. I cannot ascertain, after diligent inquiry by letter, and also of the committee of iron-masters who have been here during the session, that more than three establishments have continued to make railroad bar. Their whole production is not supposed to exceed some thirty thousand tons. I hold in my hand, sir, a statement of prices of merchant bar at Liverpool, during a run of ten years, which was furnished me by these gentlemen during their sojourn here. I will read the average price for each year, beginning with 1843, the first year of the operation of our tariff of 1842, as follows: ~ s. d.:~. d. 1843........................................ 4 16 3 1848................................... 6 11 3 1844.................................... 5 10 0 1849.................................... 5 18 9 1845........................................8 5 0 1850..........................................5 5 0 1846..........................................8 17 6 1851..................................... 5 2 6 1847....................................... I 6 1852, February and March...............4 15 0 It will be seen, sir, that this statement, furnished by themselves, singularly re. futes, as far as facts go, their theories. They said that the tariff of 1842, though it might make iron higher at first, would in a few years reduce it; but in point of fact, the article continued to rise regularly each year, from 1843 to 1846. When the act of that year reduced the duty, these gentlemen told us that there would probably be a sudden fall, and that in a little time the article would be higher than ever. But the reverse was the fact; the fall for the first year being a slight one, but increasing from year to year; regularly falling until the begin. ning of the present year, as far as their table goes, it including nothing after the month of March. At that time, according to this very statement, bar.iron at Liverpool was worth, including shipping charges- only ~4 17s. 6d. or $21 66 reduced to our currency. It thus appears that these facts, with most obstinate perverseness, refuse to conform to the theories of tlh gentlemen. There has, however, been within the last two months, a considerable rise at Liverpool in the price of bar-iron. This may be only temporary, as, according to the same statement I have read from, it occurred frequently within the last few years, that there would be a variance within three months of more than ten dol. lars pe5 ton, sometimes. It was for that reason that I have read the average statement of all the months in each year as given. It may be, however, that the great demand for railroad iron has affected the price. The prospect of a continued peace in Europe has stimulated the construction of railroads there, in addition to the great demand here, and, perhaps, we may see the article rather higher for some time to come. It is often alleged, however, by the friends of high duties, that this reduction ~s been purposely made by a combination of the iron-masters in England, to break down our establish. ments, so that they may, in the end, get a monopoly, and hereafter raise the price. Is this probable? In a statement in the memorial of the iron-maslers of Pennsylvania, published by order of their convention, at Philadelphia, in December, 1849, it appears that the product of Great Britain was then as much as two millions of tons. It has since increased to nearly three millions of tons, according to statements which I rely on as substantially accurate. But from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, at the present session, we have, on page fifty-four, 6 that the average foreign value of all the iron imported into the United States, in the latter part of the year 1846, was $48 per ton. In the early part of the pre. sent year it was worih only $21 66. If, therefore, we take the difference in price per ton, and multiply it by the whole number of tons produced in Great Britain, we shall find, by letting the price fall in th:s way, the iron men in that country have actually lost about $70,000,000 in a single year. And for what reason is it that they consent to loose at this rate for a half dozen years in succession? Why, merely, we are told, to enable them to break down these three iron establishments in Pennsylvania, which are making only thirty thousand tons per year. It would be far better for them to spend one or two millions, if necessary, in buying those works from the owners, and then having them to stand idle. Sir, the argument, often as it may be repeated, is preposterously absurd. The Sultan of Turkey might, with as much reason, assert that the cotton-growers of the United States had, by combination among themselves, reduced the price of cotton to break down his experimental cotton farm on the banks of the Bosphorus, began under the direction of our countryman, Dr. Davis. I admit, sir, that all production of iron, whether made in this country or out of it, tends to lower the price. It is also undoubtedly true, that if we should pour a barrel of water into the Potomac, that there would, by consequence, be more water in the Chesapeake Bay. But manufactures have candidly stated that they cannot make iron at the present rates, and that, unless we give them increased protection, they must give up the business. That is really the question which they submit to us. I appeal to gentlemen all around to say whether fhere is any sufficient reason to justify this de. mand? Ought we to increase the present tax of thirty per cent., now oppressive on all parts of the country, just to enable a few establishments to make more money than they can now do? Have they any right to expect that we should do it? In this pamphlet, to which I have already referred, they have given us a minute statement of the cost of making iron in Pennsylvania. All the items they set down as making a sum total of $49 per ton at the works. They then state that it costs $4 75 to get into the market-making $53 75-and show, that when it is sold at $55 per ton, the manufacturer's profit is only $1 25. But we have it in their own published statement, which I now exhibit, that iron can be purchased in Liverpool at $21 66, and that, after paying all the charges incident to importation, it can be had here for $27 74, if free of duty. If, therefore, there were no duty on the article, Ae American purchaser could get it for $27 26 less than they ask, or about one-half only of the price which they told us two years ago they were obliged to have. To enable, therefore, the manufacturer to realize $r 25 per ton, you must make the purchaser loose $27 26. Is it fair thus to treat one class of our citizens for the sake of another? Are not the farmers who are interested in the making of railroads, just as worthy, and, in all respects, as meritorious as the manufacturers? But these gentlemen say that their iron furnaces give employment to laborers. Undoubtedly they do; but so does a railroad, and it is easy to show by calculation, as I did at the last session, that the making of a railroad gives employment to a much larger number of persons than does the furnande which merely makes the iron. They say, farther, that these establishments afford a market to the farmers. This is true, as to those living in the neighborhood of the works; but my constituents, or the people of Illinois and Missouri, can no more pay for iron in Pennsylvania with their produce than they can in England. In either case they would be compelled to make the payment in cash, and therefore should seek the cheapest market. Besides, sir, the railroad, when made, will carry their produce to the markets of the world, and not to a single establishment that would be easily glutted. The benefit from this protection is small, and confined to a few; but the, burden is large and diffused over the whole community. 7 I now, Mr. Chairman, ask the attention of the gentleman.from Pennsylvania (Mr. STEVENS) to the real cause of the difficulty under which his people have suffered. The complaint there is owing to the excessive degree of protection heretofore given. Under the stimulus of the extravagantly high duty of the tariff of 1842, there was too great a rush of capital to the iron business, because in the most favorable localities enormous profits could be made. So much capital went into the business, that all the spare labor in that part of the country was at once absorbed by that occupation, and the competition among the iron-masters caused a great rise in the wages of laborers, and has produced a condition of things which cannot be permanently kept up. Since I presented this solution of the difficulty in the last Congress, I have some additional evidence to support the view. From the census returns, which have been published for the first time during the present session, I find that while the average rate of wages for male laborers in the iron factories of Pennsylvania is one dollar and six cents, in Nortf Carolina it is only thirty-nine cents, and in Georgia it is only forty-three cents. Why this difference? What has produced such a condition of things? Clearly it is owing to the fact, that in those favorable localities in Pennsylvania the business was overdone, and more labor being required than could be had at the usual rates, wages rose thus high. I may be asked, however, if this is not a desirable thing. I need hardly say that I should be much gratified to see not only the iron manufacturers of Pennsylvania, but all the other laborers there, whether farmers or mechanics, and throughout the entire Union, receive not only one dollar, but ten or twenty a day. But this state of things cannot possibly be. As you can only raise prices partially and by legislation, the question is, whether it is right to i-. pose a tax on those of our citizens who are getting but forty cents per day, to give others more than one dollar? Why oppress North Carolina and Georgia for the sake of helping Pennsylvania? Mr. BROOKs. Do not the laborers in the iron establishments in North Carolina receive as high compensation as those in Pennsylvania? Mr. CLINGMAN. I am glad the gentleman has asked me that question. I beg him again to look at this statement which I have read, and he will find that by the census returns which have been published, that the average price of labor in all the iron establishments in North Carolina is set down at thirty.nine cents; the average in the iron establishments in Georgia forty-three cents, and that of Pennsylvania $1 06. Now, if you will look at the price of labor in the cotton factories in Pennsylvania, according to the census returns, it is only sixty-five cents. There is a difference between the prices of labor in the cotton and iron manufactories of from sixty-five cents to one dollar and six cents. Mr. MOORE, of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will allow me, I will ask him whether he allude's, when he speaks of the price of labor in the cotton manufactories, to male or female labor? Mr. CLINGMAN. I allude to male labor only. Mr. McNAIR. Is board included in this statement? Mr. CLINGMAN. The statement before me gives the rate of wages in all the States alike, without discrimination, and of course either board is included for all or none in the comparative estimate of the census tables. Mr. McNAIR. The price of board itself is eighty-seven 4nd a half cents a day. Mr. CLINGMAN. Then the price of board must of course be included in the statement. My object is to show the difference in the rate of wages paid to the laborers in the cotton and iron manufactories in Pennsylvania. The average rates, as I said, is sixty-five cents a day for one, and one dollar and six cents for the other. Mr. MOORE, of Pennsylvania. In the cotton manutfactories there are a great many minors. Does the gentleman include them in his estimate, or does he only refer io the labor of men. 8 Mr. CLINGMAN. However that may be, the gentleman will see that it will not help him out of the difficulty. When I come down to North Carolina, I find that the price of labor in the cotton factories averages forty-four cents per day, which is five cents higher than that paid to those in the iron establishments there; and we employ boys in our cotton manufactories as well as you do in Penn. sylvania. In Georgia the price of labor in the cotton manufactories is fifty-five cents per day, which is twelve cents higher than in the iron establishments of that State, also; so that the gentleman will see that the fact that minors and boys are emyloyed in the manufactories of Pennsylvania, does not help him out of the difficulty. But my explanation is the true one of the cause of the difference of forty cents per day between the rate of wages in the cotton and iron establishments in Penn. sylvania. The Government, as I said, by the duty imposed upon iron in the tariff of 1842, rendered the manufacture of iron so profitable that all the labor of the country was absorbed by the iron manufacturers, and such was the competition that the price of labor rose to the enormous rate of $1 06 per day, while the labor in the cotton manufactories remained at sixty-five cents. This fact illustrates the principle which I am endeavoring to maintain. Pennsylvania is suffering from excessive protection. At these particular localities where these iron estab. lishments were located, the business became so profitable as to raise the price of labor to that degree, that now that iron has fallen they cannot afford to make it on the same terms.; while if the duty imposed had been only a moderate one, so many would not have gone into the business, and there would have been a steady advance. What you want is a moderate check upon the system. I will make a few remarks upon a very singular statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, which I have no doubt gentlemen have seen incorporated in Mr. Corwin's report, as it is germane to this subject. But before I proceed to that matter, let me say that the price of labor in the -manufacturing establishments of North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, no doubt indicates the rate of wages among the farmers; for if the farmers paid any higher rate, of course these people in the manufacturing establishments would not work for less. If this is true, the farmers of the South and West, and I have no doubt that the same is true in other States, are not realizing more than forty or fifty cents a day, and yet gentlemen are clamorous in asking us to impose a tax upon these people who receive but forty or fifty cents a day, to enable others to get more than a dollar and six cents a day. Mr. McNAIR, (interrupting.) I will say to the gentleman that many of those who are employed in the iron works, have to spend many years in learning the art of manufacturing, and then they receive high wages, and that makes a very great difference. Mr, CLINGMAN. If the gentleman had attended to my remarks and referred to the census, he would have found that the average rate of wages included all the laborers, whether they receive high or low prices. But how, Mr. Chairman, is it with the farmers? I am amused sometimes by gentlemen getting up upon this floor, as I was amused when I saw an article in the National Intelligencer to the same effect, complaining most bitterly of a tax of five per cent. upon madder, dye-stuffs, and other articles which the manufacturers consume. The manufacturers say it is a great outrage to impose a tax of five per cent. upon what they use, but upon what the farmers use, they say thirty per cent. is not enough. The laboring farmers of the country are realizing but forty or fifty cents a day for their work, and the real question now is, whether you will impose a further tax upon them to enable these other people to make a dollar and a quarter. They say to the farmers who may complain, that the duty makes things cheaper. Then why do they not submit to it themselves? It 1' because they do not themselves believe in the argument; else why complain of 9 the five per cent. tax on copper, and fifty other things which they find occasion to use, and which are, to some extent, produced already in this country, and can be without limit. No, sir; their wish is to be exempt themselves from all share iti supporting the Government, and that all others may be taxed for their benefit. They have been so much petted, that they have been quite spoiled. Most of our tariffs have been made entirely to suit their wishes. The farmers, and their representatives here, I am sorry to say, have looked too little into the details of the systems, and hdve permitted the manufacturers to have everything their own way. It is high time that there was a nearer approach to equality and justice. But I wish, Mr. Chairman, to advert to an argument which has been put for. ward again and again; and I ask the attention of my friend from Tennessee, over the way, (Mr. JONES,) and others. These gentlemen say you are propos. ing now to benefit corporations, but you will do nothing for the farmer; that you propose to take a duty off of railroad iron, but you do not touch plow iron. Now, I should like to show gentlemen ho*v little there is in this objection. These gentlemen have not surely looked into the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury. From the last report (page 83) it appears that there were 254,000 tons of bar-iron, manufactured by rolling, imported for the year 1851. Most of this was railroad iron. From another statement, furnithed during the present session to my colleague, (Mr. MOREHEAD,) by the Secretary of the Treasury, it appears that the exact amount of railroad iron imported for the year, was 190,199 tons. But all the other kinds of bar-iron, not manufactured by rolling, according to the same report, (page 84,) imported for the year 1851, amount to only 20,198 tons. This includes the finer kind of Swede iron, as well as the plow iron imported. If it were all used by the farmers, instead of only a small part of it, it would still be but little more than one-tenth of the railroad iron imported. How absurd, then, is it to say, that it is a matter of great importance to relieve the farmers from a tax on 20,000 tons, but it is not worth while to remove a burden ten times as great. These gentlemen are ex. tremely anxious to remove a mote from the eye of the public, but they are utterly indifferent about getting out the beam. But is it true, sir, in point of fact, that the capitalists are interested in the railroads mainly, and that farmers are not? I can speak from some observation upon the sub. ject. In North Carolina we have a few roads, but not so many as we ought to have, and would like to get more, and yet I find that those roads have not been made by capitalists. Moneyed men who want to make as much as possible, you will find invariably looking for more productive stocks. There is the Wilmington railroad, the stock of which my colleague (Mr. ASHE) very well knows is not now worth more than seventy cents on the dollar, and yet the very men who took that stock, and lost money on it, have since taken stock in other roads. Why is it? When you propose to construct a road in North Carolina-and I have no doubt the same is true in Western and Southern States generallyevery farmer asks himself how much can he afford to loose for the sake of get. ting a public improvement; and after deciding that question, he takes as much stock as he can afford. So these roads are made by the farmers and the poor of the country mainly. And when they are made in any, manner whatever, they benefit all classes. They enable the farmers to get their produce to mar. ket-to the sea-side, where they have the markets of the world. Every man who travels is benefited, too--aad almost every one has to travel to some ex. tent. The manufacturer is also as much benefited as any one else. He has the road to enable him to send his goods to the consumer in the country, and by the same facility he gets back his grain, and beef, and pork. Nor does the benefit stop here. When this produce comes to the sea.side, you find that the ship owner, and the merchant, take it and carry it abroad, whereby commerce is vastly increased and extended. Every class of the community, and every branch of business is thus benefited. 10 Mr. FULLER, of Pennsylvania, (interrupting.) The gentleman has exhibited a very striking contrast between the rate of wages in the State of Pennsylvania, and the State of North Carolina, and has stated that the rate of wages in the iron establishments of Pennsylvania is $1 06 per day, and forty-three cents in the State of North Carolina. I wish to know of him if he considers $1 06 too high a rate of wages for a laboring man in any State of the Union? Mr. CLINGMAN. I have answered that question, and I will answer it again. I told gentlemen that I would like to see these laboring people getting the high. est wages. I hope the gentleman will not interrupt me again, except with some new matter. Mr. FULLER. What kind of men are they in North Carolina, who work for forty cents a day? Mr. CLINGMAN. The object of the gentleman is only to occupy my time, as I have answered that question. I have said this: that when gentlemen propose to tax one man who is get. ting only forty cents a day, to, enable another man to get more than $1 06, 1 am not for it. I should be very glad to have these men get $5 a day, or a much larger sum, but I am not willing to tax one set of men to give to another. As I was saying, every body has been struck by the immense increase of our foreign tonnage in the last two or three years. Why is it?' Because the improvements of the country have carried a vast amount of its products which never before found their way there, to the sea.side, and they are now transported abroad. But we hear a great complaint made of British free trade. When listening to this clamor, people would suppose that Great Britain was robbing us of every. thing, especially of our gold and silver, and that we were losing every year. I find, according to the statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, in the commerce and navigation document for the last year, (page 46,) which any gentleman can read for himself, that Great Britain buys $124,000,000 worth of products a year from us, and sends us back only $105,000,000 of her produce, (page 270 of same document.) So that we actually sell her $19,000,000 of pjogerty more than we take back from her, obliging her to make up this sum in specie to us. It is amusing to hear this great hue and cry against our commerce with Great Britain, when it is known that she not only buys more from us than all the world besides does, but $19,000,000 more than she sells to us. That is equivalent to $19,000,000 of specie upon our side. I should like to know if any one objects to that state of the case? If you stop this trade with Great Britain, the result will be that the $100,000,000 worth of cotton she now takes, and the rice, porkc, tobacco, and the breadstuffs, &c., amounting to some $20,000,000 and upwards, all are to be kept at home to rot on our hands. Great Britain only gets our cotton and other things by paying more than anybody else, and she is the largest and best customer therefore we have, and our trade with her is much the most profitable we have with any Power. I now wish to make a remark upon a singular statement contained in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, (page 54.) It is a table, from which it appears that in 1848, we were consuming ninety-nine pounds of iron to each person, and that now we are consuming only sixty-nine pounds. This is a singular state.of things, if it be true. But what is the fact, and how does he get at it? Remember, in 1848, iron was worth nearly $80 per ton, and it is now down to $30. Is it not very extraordinary, therefore, that when iron was dear, you consumed ninety-nine pounds, and when it fell down to a much lower price, you consumed only sixty-nine pounds. Now, if it were true, that under this system of legislation, our peopele were so impoverished that they could not consume the amount of iron they wanted, it would be a great and important 11 question. But how do you get at these facts? I will tell you. The amount imported in each year is easily ascertained, but the error is in computing the amount of domestic production. It appears from the census of 1840, that we manufactured in the United States 286,000 tons of iron. It appears also, from the census of 1850, that wemanufactured 564,000 tons, which is doubling the amount in ten years. That is the only data we have to go upon that is at all authentic. But when some of the manufacturers of Pennsylvania, a couple of years since, wanted to make a strong impression upon Congress, they got together and claimed upon the strength of estimates and conjecture merely that they did make 800,000 tons in the year 1848. This statement was got up expressly to induce Congress to give them fuither protection, they alleging that the manufacture of that article had fallen down to little or nothing then. Well, the Secretary of the Treasury has taken that statement mnade up in this way in December, 1849, at the instance of these iron manufacturers, and incorporated it into his report. If you take the census of 1840, and the census of 1850, you have something reliable to go upon. Though the census may be inaccurate, yet it is, after all, more likely to be right than any other statement. Yet, the Secretary of the Treasury has taken that statement and incorporated it into his report upon mere conjecture, and at the instance of persons interested to make the difference between the two periods as great as possible. Is there the slightest reason to believe in this statement? I appeal to the judgment of every gentleman around me-are we not making more railroads in the United States now, than we ever have at any former time? Are we not making a larger number of ships? Both are great consumers of iron. Are we not constructing more steamboats and steamships, with their immense massive iron machinery, than at any former period? Are we not using iron for houses, bridges, and in a thousand ways, and to a greater extent than formerly? Are not our farming operations carried on with a greater consumption of iron than at any previous time? I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the people of the United States are consuming more iron now than at any earlier period of our existence. It is a strange, a most preposterous idea, that they do not consume it, because it is so cheap; and yet this statement is thrown out and copied into the newspapers, and harped upon from time to time, without persons taking the trouble to look into it, or see its fallacy. But, Mr. Chairman, we are sometimes told that by submitting to a high price for a few years under protection, we shall in the end get the article cheaper. Even if this be conceded as a general principle, it cannot hold good as to railroad iron, if the iron-masters of Pennsylvania are to be relied on as good authority. In this same pamphlet, printed by them, from which I have been reading, it is said, that in making iron, the labor amounts to nine-tenths of the whole coAt of production. It is also shown by the table, on page 46, that the cost of American labor on a single ton is $11; and that the English get the same done for $3 71. Taking, therefore, the raw material in this country to be worth about the same that it is in England, it being, too, but one.tenth part of the whole cost, it appears that a ton of bar-iron can be manufactured in that country for $20, at a better profit to the maker than the same would afford here when sold for $50 per ton. Nor can this inequality ever be overcome, unless wages were correspondingly reduced 'in this country. This, I need hardly say, is not desired by those interested, and therefore there is no ground for us to hope that the burden they propose the nation should bear will be a mere temporary one. Conceding that the British have the advantage, however, in this particular manufacture, I am still of the opinion that those representing the iron interest have greatly exaggerated the difference. This very committee of iron-masters, to whom I have already referred, told me, during the present session, that they were able to make 12 iron in Pennsylvania now, at $10 per ton less than they did two years ago, This, they said, was owing to improvements and economy, and not to any re. duction of wages. This remarkable fact has occurred, too, not under a high tariff, but under what they call a low one. It reminds me of what Las occurred in England, with reference to the sjlk manufacture. While that business was heavily protected by the Government, it languished; but since the duties have been reduced, it is prosperous. These facts tend to show that it is necessary that people.should rely on their own efforts for success. If the wagoner wishes' Hercules to help hinm e must put his shoulder to the wheel. Even if all the duties were repealed, I have no doubt but that the iron manufacture would still go on, just as our farmers make corn at fifty, twenty-five, and even ten cents per bushel in some localities, because they cannot do better. Though they do not call upon us to tax others for their benefit, they have a right to insist that we shall not impose unnecessary burdens on them, to aid othets who are already better off. T'he gentleman from Penn. sylvania, (Mr. Ross,) whose able speech has rendered it unnecessary for me to touch many points of the subject, showed that the iron business in his State was in a highly prosperous condition, and that more iron woriks had been built since 1846 than in an equal period before it. The minute knowledge he evinced on this branch, will not, I trust, be lost on the house or the country. '.In the census table, furnished to us this session, it is stated that, there is now in operation 10,814 miles of railroad. This will have to be relaid from time to time. There are also in progress of construction 10,896 miles of railroad in the different States of the Union, The duties under the present tariff on the iron necessary to complete these roads will amount to more than $8,000,000, but the Secretary of the Treasury estimates the surplus on hand at the close of the pre. sent fiscal year at some $20,000,000. Had we not better, therefore, repeal the duty, and thus enable all the States to finish their works? Pennsylvania herself, that is making several hundred miles of road which she is laying down with foreign iron, will be much more benefited as a State than injured by the measure. It will take halfa million of dollars to pay the duty on the iron which will be re. quired on the roads in North Carolina, which we expect to have to purchase in the next eighteen months. The grading of the roads can be done by the farmers themselves, but the iron is a cash article, and why should its price be so much raised by an unnecessary tax, as I have shown this to be? I admit, sir, that it is advantageous to a country that part of its labor should be employed in manufactures; but it must be such business as will sustain itself. It is clear that if any branch of manufactures is so unprofitable that it cannot support itself, but must be kept up by a tax qn other more prqfitable occupations, it is a eosing concern on the whole, and ought to be abandoned. All the countries referred to as having grown wealthier by reason of their manufactures, did so be. cause they took care to engage in such kinds of business as they found convenient and profitable. England was referred to by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. STEVENs.) She, however, tried the system of restriction until her starving populatiop could no longer bear it, and five years ago she was obliged to repeal her tariffs, and adopt a comparative system of free trade. The consequence is that she is more prosperous than at any period of her existence. Let me present to the House some statements professing to come from official sources, and furnished by the London correspondent of the National Intelligencer. Nobody will suspect that paper of art undue bias towards the side of 'free trade. The article in question will be found in the paper of March 27, 1852. In the year 1845, the year before the repeal of the corn laws, the importations into the United Kingdom of wheat and meal were 1,141,957 quarters; and in 1851 the increase was no less than 5,355,687, or nearly five-fold. Remember, too, that the domestic production of these articles had increased, and ask yourself 13 IS3 how vast the benefit conferred on the starving population of the country by this large increase of provisions consumed. Nine years ago, the consumption of sugar was 4,068,331 cwt.; last year it had risen to 6,834,189 cwt., or an increase of sixty-nine per cent. Not only are the people there able to pay for these articles which they consume, but all branches (of manufacturing exhibit a propor. tionate increase, as is shown in the same article, as follows: Again: if wj look at the items of manufactures and exports, we shall find evidences of prosperity which are founded, we think, upon increased consumption of raw materials. Take the following brief tabular arrangement of the quantities of the leading varieties of raw materials, which passed through the hands of our manufacturers in the years 1842 and 1851, respectively: 1842-lbs. I 51-lbs. Cotton................486,498,778........................645,436,624 W ool................ 44,022,141...................... 69,346,893 Raw silk.............. 3,856,867......................... 4,059,449 The entire exports of the results of British industry were, in 1842, ~17,381,023; in 1851 they were ~74,116,396; an increase within nine years of more than fifty per cent. I might, by going further into detail, show still more clearly how much Gre Britain has been benefited by greater freedom of trade. Nor can it be pretend. ed by any one cognizant of the facts, that she has made this advance at our ex. Tpense. Our prosperity, as a nation, is greater than at any former period. The last half a dozen years show an advance that cannot be equaled by any period of similar length in our history. Money has been abundant; our domestic production, and export, at fair prices, much greater than ever befbre, while what we have had to purchase in turn from abroad, has been lower than formerly. Wages, generally, have been very high, and the necessaries of life abundant and cheap. Even the cotton factories, which a year or two since were languishing from the high price of the raw material, are now doing well. Their numabera are on the increase, and they are generally at work on full time. According to a statement, which I think correct, they had taken for consumption of cotton, up to the latter part of May of this year, 509,293 bales. During the whole of last year, they used only 305,216 bales. If, in the latter part of the present year, they should take as much as they did for the corresponding period of last year, their consumption and manufacture would, fbr the piresent year, considerably exceed that of any former one, and be fifty per cent. greater than that of the highest year under the tariff of 1842. If a cotton or iron establishment is sold by the company for debt, the fact is at once paraded in certain newspapers, and charged to the want of a higher tariff; but when the same factory is started in new hands, or,when others are built, these journals take no note of it, nor do they tell us how many farmers and merchants have their property sold by the sheriff or otherwise fail in business. I find, too, that our export of cotton gtpds was, in 1846, $3,545,481, and in 1851, $7,241,205, or more than doubled. I now propose, Mr. Chairman, to direct the attention of the committee to another subject of great magnitude, viz: The modification of our navigation laws, and the relaxation of certain restrictions on commerce now existing. The period is perhaps a favorable one for such a discussion, because the public mind is now excited on the subject of the fishing difficulty. It is proposed by certain persons, that to obtain from Great Britain further fishing privileges in her waters, and also the right to the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, we should adopt a system of free trade with Canada, &c., and so far repeal our tariff as to admit Canadian productions free of duty. If this be the whole extent we are to go, I am opposed to it. Why, sir, has not the country been told ten thousand times by the manufacturers, when asking for high duties, that though the farmers might thereby have to pay them a little more for their goods, yet it would be amply made up to them by the manufacturers, who would take their productions in turn, and give them better prices thanvthey would get else where. This story has been repeated until it is known to every child. And yet, sir, they gravely 14 ask us to keep up the taxes on manufactured articles for their benefit, and to the oppression of the farmers, and nevertheless propose that they shall be allowed to go oter to Canada, to purchase such foreign productions as they wish to, con. sume, merely because such things may be cheaper there than at home. Yes, sir, they wish the farmers to bear the burden of the tariff, while they have the benefit of free trade, Coming from them, this proposition is the most amazingly impudent one that the mind of man has ever conceived. It would be a very different thing if they proposed to put all persons on the same footing by a general repeal of duties, and permitting all to purchase where they could buy most advantageously. With respect to our fishermen, I am as anxious as any one to advance their interests. They certainly, however, have no reason to complain of us. They are now, and have, from time immemorial, been sustained by bounties from our Treasury. In addition to getting the salt they use in curing fish free of duty,the bounty paid to them out of the Treasury is, according to the speech of the gentleman from Massachusetts himself, (Mr. SCUDDER,) delivered a few days since, equal to $22 32 for etch person engaged in the business, including both ship-owners and fishermen. As they are employed but four months, it is there. fore equal to $5 58 per month added to their other profits. Would not the farming laborers of the country like to have given to them by the Government $5 50 per month, in addition to their wages? Instead of this, however, they have to pay in taxes the very money which the Government gives over to the fisher-,men. The fish caught by.them are certainly a good commodity, but not worth so much to the nation as the pork and beef of Ohio, Kentucky, and other States, which gets no such bounty. It is said that.the sailors thus employed serve in times of war to man our Navy, and defend the country. This is, to some extent true; but it will hardly be affirmed that they render more important service than the riflemen of the western and southern country did at New Orleans, Buena Vista, and on many other well-fought fields, and yet, instead of giving these men bounties out of the Treasury, we impose taxes on them. I do not wish to be understood as insisting on a repeal of the laws giving these bounties to the fishermen, but only to show that they are, in fact, much favored already, while I am disposed to obtain for them further advantages, upon what I consider fair terms." What are these terms? Simply that, in addition to the fishing priv. ileges, the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and free trade with Canada, we also so ftar modify our navigation laws as to extend the reciprocity system with Great Britain adopted a few years since, to the entire coasting trade of the two coun. tries. By the arrangement entered into some three years ago, our ships have the right, to cArry freight, &c., from any port of the British dominions to any other country, also from Great Britain to any one of her colonies, and from one colony to another. IHer shi-s, too, have the right to carry from the United States to any other country; but our vessels cannot thus go from one port of Great Britain to another port of that island, nor from a port of one of her colonies to another port of the same colony, nor can her vessels take cargoes from one port of the United States to another in our country. I propose, then, so to modify the exist. ing system as to allow the vessels of both countries to participate in the coasting trade of each. Against this proposition a clamor is raised, and one gentleman said in my hearing that we had as well abolish our Navy. Everybody may remember, however, that there was a similar apprehension of mischief from the adoptiqn of the reciprocity system in the foreign trade before it went into effect. But what has been the result? Instead of our commerce suffering, there has been an immense increase, by reason of the free competition thus afforded. Yet Great Britain has not been prejudiced, but on the other hand, has been positive. ly benefited. In 1848, the year prevrous to the repeal of the navigation act, the 15 entire tonnage of the United Kingdom was 10,630,000; in 1851, it was 13,471,000-being an increase of some thirty per cent., an amount greater than the advance for an equal period at any former time. The increase of British tonnage engaged in the foreign trade, which entered the ports of Great Britain in the year 1851, as compared with that of 1849, is, however, only five per cent. But that of the United States in the same ports was as follows: For the year 1849, 587,986 tons, and in the year 1851, 779,664 tons-an increase of twenty. five per cent. in two years. It thus appears, that, in her own ports, our tonnage has increased five times as much as hers since the adoption of the reciprocity system. How is the comparison on this side of the water? I have a statement for the port of New York, which I take to be accurate. No. of Tons Tons Total Tons Calendar Years. arrials. American. Foreign.Total Tons. 1846................................... 2,292 496,761 185,404 682,165 1847.......................... 3,147 605,482 ' 333,537 939,0191 1848........................................ 3,060 657,7941 367,321j 1,025,1164 1849......................................... 3,227 734,9081 414,096 1,148,1041 1850................................ 3;333 807,500- 441,7561 1,249,337, 1851....................................... 3,840 1,144,485 479,5664 1,624,0511 From this it appears that within two years, viz: 1849 and 1851, whilst the increase at that port of British tonnage is fifteen per cent., that on our side amounts to seventy.eight per cent., or more than five times as much. We are, under the system of free competition, beating the British everywhere. For the accuracy of this statement, with reference to the port of New York, I appeal to the gentleman representing it, (Mr. BROOKs,) who made an able speech on this subject in the last Congress. Mr. BROOKS. That increase of tonnage arises from two sources; first, the annexation of California, which has caused an extensive commerce around Cape Horn, which we had not before. And, secondly, the British navigation act, which has opened all the British ports. Mr. CLINGMAN. By the British navigation act, the reciprocity system be. tween both countries has been extended to the foreign trade. I am obliged to the gentleman for the candor of his admission. My object is to show that free trade upon the ocean has greatly increased our commerce, and thereby benefited us. We now send more abroad because of this greater freedom of trade. It is a little singular, some gentlemen may think, that both countries should be benefit. ed by this change. The reason is this: in the first place, by reducing the cost, you increase the amount of freights. We all know that when people can get their productions to market cheaper they sell a great deal more. In the next place, when one branch of business is glutted, the whole field being open, own. ers of vessels can shift from one employment to another. What I propose, Mr. Chairman, is this: I am willing to agree with Great Britain, that if she will allow our fishermen the privileges they desire, and give us the navigation of the St. Lawrence to boot, I will go for Canadian free trade, protided we also extend the reciprocity system to the coasting trade of both coun. tries. We shall thus greatly benefit our agriculturists. Why should not the farmer, when his produce gets,to the sea-side, have the right to send it anywhere in the ship that will cary it cheapest? Two years since I had occasion to state, that it cost more to take freight from New Orleans to New York than from New York to Canton, on the opposite side of the globe. This is a heavy tax on the cotton, pork, and flour that goes down the Mississippi. Why should people be longer compelled to submit to it? By letting in the competition of British ships, and stoping the monopoly, we should lower freights, and benefit all the producers 18 of- cUn ty.GteaI Britain is,'able. to gilve'ous aL suMci~ut eqqivalent, inth #whyrofexchange. Unless, however, this is to be done,.laniopoed, to Cana. Ai~n re~ciprocity. That would be simply giving. Ca~n~a -all the -bgneA4t of' being -inour U non withoutlIer b~ontributiig, anything to support our Government. Of -coarge- it-isgoigod policy for;h er, arid I do not wonder, that S-i rljenry R4lwer, the British" Mini ste r,;wai anxin6us for it. Its a~doptions would ternipta.plortion. of our, population- to go o-ver into'.CAnada. They might thus- escape the-high- tariff of this" country, and buy: British, goods cheap- for their own use, and yet have' the privile ge- of selling all they made in this country., I repeat, I am willing to adopt-a general system of -free trade, but nqt a partial one for the advantage of a particular class or section. I have, Mr. Chairman, discussed these topics with little expectation that in the, ten days which remain. of the. present: session,-we %-hall see any legislation _6i themil, -but rather in the~hope That at. sor-a early day of-ýthe- next sesgion, Con. g;ess-nnuy be- induced to. aet- on- them. - During. my time on this floor, I have *ltkp,esed JmpO~tii4rt rlesultsf, s-idgat- canges f ulcoiin.ffected by. dis. ~s,ýjonin these' I:6s rd 1attIis d 1t, Iclould, by directing- the attention of' ~q~p' ~ nst~h~n~l iz ~ymanner, Y~,~- th&- '-e--, i*6u4e tv mdu ofthe-p-ress erwise, big public -opinion to- that cnition that *auld e ffett C..I h prop-Or'legislation to carry them into practical operation. I *4MAik ethq omsittaee for. its, attention, and will no longer *occupy its -timp* Towsits, print. Revival of State Sovereignty in Congress. SPEECH OF HON. JAMES A. GARFIELD, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JYXT SE:27, 1;879 -The House being in Committee of the Whole on the marshals' appropriation bill, June 27, 1879 -Mr. GARFIELD said: Mr. Chairman, " to this favor" it has come at last. The great fleet that set out on the 18th of March, with all its freightage and armament, is so shattered that now all the valuables it carried are embarked in this little craft, to mreet whatever fate the sea and the storm may offer. This little bill contains*the residuum of almost everything that has been the subject of controversy at the present session. I will not discuss it in detail, but will speak only of its central feature, and especially of the opinions which the discussion of that feature has brought to the surface during the present session. The majority in this Congress have adopted what I consider very extreme and dangerous opinions on certain important constitutional questions. They have not only drifted back to their old attitude on the subject of State sovereignty, but they have pushed that doctrine much further than most of their predecessors ever went before, except during the period immediately preceding the late war. So extreme are some of these utterances that nothing short of actual quotations from the Record will do their authors justice. I therefore shall read several extracts from debates at the present session of Congress, and group them in the order of the topics discussed. Senator Wallace (Congressional Record, June 3, pages 3 and 5) says: The Federal Government has no voters; it can make none, it can constitutionally control none. * * * When it asserts the power to create and hold "' national elections" or to regulate the conduct of the voter on election day, or to maintain equal suffrage. it tramples under toot the very basis of the Federal system and seeks to build a consolidated government from a democratic republic. This is the plain purpose of the men now in control of the Federal Government, and to this end the teachings of leading republicans now are shaped. There are no national voters. Voters who vote for national Representatives are qualified by State constitutions and state laws, and national citizenship is not required of a voter of the State by any provision ot the Federal Constitution nor in practice. * * * * * * * If there be such a thing, then, as a "national election," it wants the first element of an election - a national voter. The Federal G-overnment, or (if it suits our friendl on the other side better) the nation, has no voters. It cannot create them, it cannot qualify them. Representative Clark, of Missouri (Record, April 26, page 60), says: The United States has no voters. Senator Maxey, Texas (Record, April 21, page 72), says: It follows as surely as "grass grows and water runs " that, under our Constitution, the entire control of elections must be under the State whose voters assemble; whose right to vote is not drawn from the Constitution of the United States, but existed and was freely exercised long before its adoption. Senator Williams, Kentucky (Record, April 25, page 8) says: The legislatures of the States and the people of the several districts are the constituency of Senators and Representatives in Congress. They receive theil- commissions from the governor, and when they resign (which is very seldom) they send their resignations to the governor and not to the President. They are S-tate officers and not Federal officers. 2 Senator Whyte (Record, May 21, page 14) says: There are no elections of United States officers and no voters of the United States. The voters are voters of the States, they are the people of the States, and their members of the House of Representatives are chosen by the electors of the States to represent the people of the States, whose agents.they are. Mr. McLANE. Do I understand him to say that the Government of the United States has the right to keep the peace anywhere within a State? Do I understand him to say that there is any "peace of the United States " at all recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States? Mr. ROBESON. Certainly I do.-(Record, April 4, page 14.) Mr. McLane (Record, April 4, page 15) says: I believe that the provision of law which we are about to repeal is unconstitutional; that is to say, that it is unconstitutional for the United States to " keep the peace" anywhere n the States, either at the polls or elsewhere; and if it were constitutional, I believe in common with gentlemen on this side of the House that it would be highly inexpedient to exercise that power. Wh en that law used the phrase "to keep the peace" it could only mean the peace of the States. It is not a possible thing to have a breach of the United Statespeace at the polls. Senator Whyte (Record, May 21, page 18) says: Sovereignty is lodged with the States, where it had its home long before the Constitution was created. The Constitution is the creature of that sovereignty. The Federal Government has no inherent sovereignty. All its sovereign powers are drawn from the States. The States were in existence long before the Union, and the latter took its birth from. their power. The State governments are supreme by inherent power originally conceded to them by the people as to the control of local legislation and administration. The Federal Government has no part or lot in this vast mass of inherent sovereign power, and its interference therewith is utterly unwarrantable. Senator Wallace (Record, June 3, pp. 3 and 4) says: Thus we have every branch of the Feieral Government, House, Senate, the executive and judiciary departments, standing upon the State governments, and all resting finally upon the people of the States, qualified as voters by State constitutions and State laws. Senator Whyte (Record, May 21, p. 15) says: No, Mr. President, it never was declared that we were a nation. In the formation and adoption of the Constitution the States were the factors. These are the declarations of seven distinguished members of the present Congress. The doctrines set forth in the. above quotations may be fairly regarded as the doctrines of the Democracy as represented in this Capitol. Let me summarize them: First, there are no national elections; second, the United States has no voters; third, the States have the exclusive right to control all elections of members of Congress; fourth, the Senators and Representatives in Congress are State officers, or, as they have been called during the present session, " embassadors " or " agents " of the State; fifth, the United States has no authority to keep the peace anywhere within a State, and, in fact, has no peace to keep; sixth, the United States is not a.nation endowed with sovereign power, but is a confederacy of States; seventh, the States are sovereignties possessing inherent supreme powers; they are older than the Union, and as independent sovereignties the State governments created the Union and determined and limited the powers of the General Government. These declarations embody the sum total of the constitutional doctrines which the Democracy has avowed during the extra session of Congress. They form a body of doctrines which I do not hesitate to say are more extreme than was ever before held on this subject, except perhaps at the very crisis of secession and rebellion. And they have not been put forth as abstract theories of government. True to the logic of their convictions; the majoritiy have sought to put them in practice by affirmative acts of legislation. Let me enumerate these attempts. First, they have denounced as unconstitutional all attempts of the United States to supervise, regulate, or protect national elections, and have tried to repeal all laws on the national statute-book enacted for that purpose. Second, following the advice given by Calhoun in his political testament to his party, they have tried to repeal all those portions of the venerated judiciary act of 1789, the act of 1833 against nullification, the act of 1861, and the acts amendatory thereof, which provide for carrying to the Supreme Court of the 3 United States all controversies that relate to the duties and authority of any officer acting under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Third. They have attempted to prevent the President from enforcing the laws of the Union, by refusing necessary supplies and by forbidding the use of the Army to suppress violent resistance to the laws, by which, if they had succeeded, they would have left the citizens and the authorities of the States free to obey or disobey the laws of the Union as they might choose. This, I believe, Mr. Chairman, is a fair summary both of the principles and the attempted practice to which the majority of this House has treated the country during the extra session. Before quitting this topic, it is worth while to notice the fact that the attempt made in one of the bills now pending in this House, to curtail the jurisdiction of the national courts, is iu the direct line of the teachings of John C. Calhoun. In his " Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States,"' published by authority of the Legislature of South Carolina in 1851, he sets forth at great length the doctrine that ours is not a national government, but a confederacy of sovereign States, and then proceeds to point out what he considers the dangerous departures which the government has made from his theory of the Constitution. The first and most dangerous of these departures he declares to be the adoption of the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, by which appeals were authorized from the judgments of the supreme courts of the States to the Supreme Court of the United States. He declares that section of the act unconstitutional, because it makes the supreme court of a "sovereign" State subordinate to the judicial power of the United States; and he recommends his followers never to rest until they have repealed, not only that section, but also what he calls the still more dangerous law of 1833, which forbids the courts of the States to sit in judgment on the acts of an officer of the United States done in pursuance of national law. The present Congress has won the unenviable distinction of making the first attempt, since the death of Calhoun, to revive and put in practice his disorganizing and destructive theory of government. Firmly believing that these doctrines and attempted practice of the present Congress are erroneous and pernicious, I will state briefly the counter propositions: I affirm: First, that the Constitution of the United States was not created by the government, of the States, but was ordained and established by the only sovereign in this country-the common superior of both 'the States and the nation --the people themselves; second, that the United States is a nation, having a government whose powers, as defined and limited by the Constitution, operate upon all the States in their corporate capacity and upon all the people; third, that by its legislative, executive and judicial authority, the nation is armed with adequate power to enforce all the provisions of the Constitution against all opposition of individuals or of States, at all times and all places within the Union. These are broad propositions; and I take the few minutes remaining to defend them. The corstitutional history of this country, or rather the history of sovereignty and government in this country, is comprised in four sharply defined epochsFirst. Prior to the 4th day of July, 1776, sovereignty, so far as it can be affirmed of this country, was lodged in the Crown of Great Britain. Every member of every colony (the colonists were not citizens but subjects) drew his legal rights from the Crown of Great Britain. "L Every acre of land in this country was then held mediately or immediately by the grants from that Crown," and "all the civil authority then existing.or exercised here, flowed from the head of the British Empire." Second. On the 4th day of July, 1776, the people of these colonies, asserting their natural inherent right as sovereigns, withdrew the sovereignty from the Crown of Great Britain and reserved it to themselves. In so far as they delegated this national authority at all, they delegated it to the Continental Congress assembled at Philadelphia. That Congress, by general consent, bocame the supreme government of the country-executive, judicial, and legislative in one. During the whole of its existence it wielded the supreme power of the new nation. Third. On the 1st day of March, 1781, the same sovereign power, the people, withdrew the authority from the Continental Congress and lodged it, so far as they 4 lodged it at all, with the Confederation, which though a league of States, was declared to be a perpetual union. Fourth. When at last our fathers found the confederation too weak and inefficient for the purposes of a great nation, they abolished it and lodged the national authority, enlarged and strengthened by new powers, in the Constitution of the United States, where, in spite of all assaults it still remains. All these great acts were done by the only severeign in this Republic, the people themselves. That no one may charge that I pervert history to sustain my own theories, I call attention to the fact that not one of the colonies declared itself free and independent. Neither Virginia nor Massachusetts threw off its allegiance to the British Crown as a colony. The great declaration was made not even by all the colonies, as colonies, but it was made in the name and by authority of "all the good people of the colonies" as one people. Let me fortify this position by a great name that will shine forever in the constellation of our Southern sky-the name of Charles Coatsworth Pinckney, of South Carolina. He was a leading member of the constitutional convention of 1787 and also a member of the convention of South Carolina which ratified the Cdnstitution. In that latter convention the doctrine of State sovereignty fonnd a few champions; and their attempt to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, because it established a supreme national government, was rebuked by him in these memorable words. I quote from his speech as recorded in Elliott's Debates: This admirable manifesto, which for importance of matter and elegance of composition stands unrivaled, and sufficiently confutes the honorable gentleman's doctrine of the individual sovereignty and indep xidence of the several States. In that declaration the severnl States are not even enumerated, but after reciting, in nervous language and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are, and of right to be, free and independent States." The separate indep ndence and individual sovereignty of the several States were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this declaration. The several States are not even mentioned by name in any part of it, as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America- that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent. Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this union by mainainining that each is separately and individually independent as a species of political heresy which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses. For a further and equally powerful vindication of the same view, I refer to the Commentaries of Justice Story, vol. 1, p. 197. In this same connection, and as a pertinent and effective response to the democratic doctrines under review, I quote from the first annual message of Abraham Lincoln, than whom no man of our generation studied the origin of the Union more profoundly. He said: Our States have neither more nor less power that reserved to them in the Union by the Cons itution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast olf their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly froim a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of taites on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones by the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "united colonies" were declared to be "free and independent States;" but, even then, the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another, or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as (heir mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterward abundantly show. The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from ihis, they can only (o so against law and by revolution. The Union and no- themrives separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase, tle JLnion gave each of them whatever of independence and libh:ry it has. The Union is older than any of the States, and in fact it created them as States. Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the Union threw off Iheir old dependence for them and made them S:ates, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution independent of (he Union. Of course it is not forgo;ten that all the new States framed their constitutions before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the Union. In further enforcement of the doctrine that the State governments were not the sovereigns who created this government, I refer to the great decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Chisholm vs. The State of Georgia, reported in 2 Dallas, a decision replete with the most enlightened national spirit, in which the court stamps with its indignant condemnation the n6tion that 5 the State of Georgia was "sovereign" in any sense that made it independent of or superior to the nation. Mr. Justice Wilson said: As a judge of this court I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens o Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union as a part of the "people of the United States," did not surrender the supreme or sovereign power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign State. Whoever considers in a combined and comprehensive view the general texture of the Cong'itution will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted for such purposes a national government, complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, execudive, and judiciary, and in all those powers extending over the whole nation. Is it congruous that, with regard to such purposes, any man or body of men, any person, natural or artificial, should be permitted to claim successfully an entire exemption from the jurisdiction of the national government? Mr. Chairman, the dogma of State sovereignty which has reawakened to such vigorous life in this chamber, has borne such bitter fruits and entailed such suffering upon our people, that it deserves more particular notice. It should be noticed that the word "sovereignty" cannot be fitly applied to any government in this c6untry. It is not found in our Constitution. It is a feudal word, born of the despotism of the middle ages, and was unknown even in imperial Rome. A " sovereign" is a person, a prince who has subjects that owe him allegiance. There is no one paramount sovereign in the United States. There is no person here who holds any title or authority whatever, except the official authority given him by lawv. Americans are not subjects, but citizens. Our only sovereign is the whole people. To talk about the "inherent sovereignty" of a corporation-an artificial person-is to talk nonsense; and we ought to reform our habit of speech on that subject. But what do gentlemen mean when they tell us that a State is sovereign? What does sovereignty mean, in its accepted use, but a political corporation having no superior? Is a State of this Union such a corporation? Let us test it by a few examples drawn from the Constitution. No State of this Union can make war or conclude a peace. Without the consent of Congress, it cannot raise or support an army or a navy. It cannot make a treaty with a foreign power, nor enter into any agreement or compact with another State. It cannot levy imposts or duties on imports or exports. It cannot coin money. It cannot regulate commerce. It cannot authorize a single ship to go into commission anywhere on the high seas; if it should, that ship would be seized as a pirate or confiscated by the laws of the United States. A State cannot emit bills of credit. It can enact no law which makes anything but gold and silver a legal tender. It has no flag except the flag of the Union. And there are many other subjects on which the States are forbidden by the Constitution to legislate. How much inherent sovereignty is left in a corporation which is thus shorn of all these great attributes of sovereignty? But this is not all. The Supreme Court of the United States may declare null and void any law or any clause of the constitution of a State which happens to be in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Again, the States appear as plaintiffs and defendants before the Supreme Court of the United States. They may sue each other; and, until the eleventh amendment was adopted, a citizen might sue a State. These "sovereigns" may all be summoned before their common superior to be judged. And yet they are endowed with supreme inherent sovereignty! Again, the government of a State may be absolutely abolished by Congress, in case it is not republican in form. And, finally, to cap the climax of this absurd pretension, every right possessed by one of these "sovereign" States, every inherent sovereign right except the single right to equal representation in the Senate, may be taken away, without its consent, by the vote of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the States. But, in spite of all these disabilities, we hear them paraded as independent, sovereign States, the creators of the Union and the dictators of its powers. How inherently "sovereign" must be that State west of the Mississippi which the nation bought and paid for with the public money, and permitted to come into the Union a half century after the Constitution was adopted! And yet we are told that the States are inherently sovereign, and created the National Government! Read a long line of luminous decisions of the Supreme Court. Take the life of Chief-Justice Marshall, that great judge, who found the Constitution paper and 6 made it a power, who found it a skeleton and clothed it with flesh aud blood.- By his wisdom and genius he made it the potent and beneficent instrument for the government of a great nation. Everywhere he repelled the insidious and dangerous heresy of the sovereignty of the States in the sense in which it has been used in these debates. Half a century ago this heresy threatened the stability of the nation. The eloquence of Webster and his compeers and the patriotism and high courage of Andrew Jackson resisted and for a time destroyed its power; but it continued to live as the evil genius, the incarnate devil, of America; and in 1861 it was the'fatal phantom that lured eleven millions of our people into rebellion against their government. Hundreds of thousands of those who took up arms against the Union stubbornly resisted all inducements to that fatal step until they were summoned by the authority of their States. The dogma of State sovereignty in alliance with chattel slavery finally made its appeal to that court of last resort where the laws are silent and where kings and nations appear in arms for judgment. In that awful court of war two questions were tried. Shall slavery live? And is a State so sovereign that it may nullify the laws and destroy the Union? Those two questions were tried on the thousand battle-fields of the war; and if war ever " legislates," as a leading democrat of Ohio once wisely affirmed, then our war legislated finally upon those subjects and determined beyond all controversy that slavery should never again live in this republic, and that there is not sovereignty enough in any State to authorize its people either to destroy the Union or nullify its laws. I am unwilling to believe that any considerable number of Americans will ever again push that doctrine to the same extreme; and yet, in these summer months of 1879, in the Congress of the reunited nation, we find the majority drifting fast and far in the wrong direction by reasserting much of that doctrine which the war ought to have seltled forever. And what is more lamentable, such declarations as those which I read at the outset are finding their echoes in many portions of the country which was lately the theatre of war. No one can read the proceedings at certain recent celebrations without observing the growing determination to assert that the men who fought against the Union were not engaged in treasonable conspiracy against the nation, but that they did right to fight fortheir States, and that, in the long run, the lost cause will be victorious. These indications are filling the people with anxiety and indignation; and they are beginning to inquire whether the war has really settled these great questions. I remind gentlemen on the other side that we have not ourselves revived these issues. We had hoped they were settled beyond recall, and that peace and friendship might be fully restored to our people. But the truth requires me to say that there is one indispensable ground of agreement on which alone we can stand together, and it is this: The war for the Union was right, everlastingly right [applause]; and the war against the Union was wrong, forever wrong. However honest and sincere individuals may have been, the secession was none the less rebellion and treason. We defend the States in the exercise of their many and important rights, and we defend with equal zeal the rights of the United States. The rights and authority of both were received from the people-the qnly source of inherent power. We insist not only that this is a nation, but that the power of the government, within its own prescribed sphere, operates directly upon the States and upon all the people. We insist that our laws shall be construed by our own courts and enforced by our Executive. Any theory which is inconsistent with this doctrine we will resist to the end. Applying these reflections to the subject of national elections embraced in this bill, I remind gentlemen that this is a national House of Representatives. The people of my Congressional district have a right to know that a man elected in New York City is elected honestly and lawfully; for he joins in making laws for fortyfive millions of people. Every citizen of the United States has an interest and a right in every election within the republi.c where national representatives are chosen. We insist that these laws relating to our national elections shall be enforced, not nullified; shall remain on the statute-books, and not be repealed; and that the just and legal supervision of these elections ought never again to be surrendered by the Government of the United States. By our consent it never shall be surrendered. [Applause. ] 7 Now Mr. Chairman, this bill is about to be launched upon its stormy passage. It goes not into unknown waters; for its fellows have been wrecked in the same sea. Its short, disastrous, and, I may add, ignoble voyage is likely to be straight to the bottom. [Applause.] In reply to Mr. Hurd, same day, Mr. GARFIELD said: Mr. CHAIRMAN. Two points were made by my colleague from Ohio [Mr. HURD] to which I desire to call attention. To strengthen his position, that the United States has no voters, he has quoted, as other gentlemen have quoted, the case of Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wallace, page 170. The question before the court in that case was, whether a provision in the State constitution which confines the right of voting to male citizens of the United States is a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution. The court decided that it was not; and, in delivering his opinion the Chief Justice took occasion to say that "the United States has no voters in the States, of its own creation." Now. all the gentlemen on the other side who have quoted this decision, have left out the words "of its own creation," which makes a very essential difference. The Constitution of the United States declares who shall vote for members of Congress, and it adopts the great body of voters whose qualifications may be or have been prescribed by the laws of the States. The power of adoption is no less a great governmental power than the power of creation. But the second point to which I wish to refer, and which has been made by several gentlemen, and very markedly by my colleague [Mr. HURD], is this: He says that the contemporaneous construction of that clause of the Constitution which provides that Congress may at any time.make or alter the regulations in regard to the time, place, and mannerof holding elections, has determined that Congress can never exercise that right so long as the States make provisions for it. So long as the States do not neglect or refuse to act, or are not prevented by rebellion or war from acting, it was their exclusive right to control the subject. That is what my colleague says, That is what is said in the Record of June 3 by a distinguished member of the Senate. Now, mark how plain a tale shall put that down. On the 21st day of August, 1789, in the first House of Representatives that ever met, Mr. Burke, a member from South Carolina, offered the following as one of the amendments to the Constitution. I will read it: Congress shall not alter, modify, or interfere in the times, places, or manner of holding elections of Senators or Representatives, except when any State shall refuse or neglect, or be unable by invasion or rebellion, to make such elections. That was the very proposition which my colleague says is the meaning of the Constitution as it fow stands. This amendment was offered in a House of Representatives nearly one-half of whose membership was made up of men who were in the convention that framed the Constitution. That amendment was debated; and I hold in my hand the brief record of the debate. Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts, approving of the clause as it now stands, said: He thought this one of the most justifiable of all the powers of Congress. It was essential to a body representing the whole community, that they should have power to regulate their own elections, in order to secure a representation from every part, and prevent any improper regulations calculated to answer party purposes only. It is a solecism in politics to let others judge for them, and is a departure from the principles upon which the Constitution was founded. * * * He thought no legislature was without.the power to determine the mode of its own appointment; * * * that such an amendment as was now proposed would alter the Constitution; it would vest the supreme authority in places where it was never contemplated. Mr. Madison was willing to make every amendment that was required by the States, which did not tend to destroy the principles and efficacy of the Constitution; he conceived that the proposed amendment would have that tendency; he was therefore opposed to it. Mr. Sherman observed that the convention was very unanimous in passing this clause; that it was an important provision, and if it was resigned, it would tend to subvert the Governm ent. Mr. Goodhue hoped the amendment never would obtain. * * Now, rather than this amendment should take effect, he would vote against all that had been agreed to. His greatest apprehensions were that the State governments would oppose and thwart the General one to such a degree as finally to overturn it. Now, to guard against this evil, he wished the FedePal Government to possess every power necessary to its existence. After a full debate, in which the doctrine of States rights was completely overwhelmed so far as this subject was concerned, the vote was taken, and 23 voted in faivor of the amendment and 28, voted against it. It did not get even a majority, much less a two-thirds vote, in the House; and it never was called up in the Senate at all. Now, who were the men that voted against it? Let me read some of their honored names: Fisher Ames, of M~assachusetts; Charles Carroll, of Carrollton; Clymer, of Pennsylvania, whose distinguished descendant is a member of this House; Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania; Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania, who was Speaker of the first House of Representatives; Lee and Madison, of Virginia; Trumbull and Sherman, of Connecticut-all those great names are recorded against the very construction of the Constitution which my colleague defends as the correct interpretation of the existing clause on that subject. That is all I desire to say. ENEVA AWAIRD. S P EE C H OF HON. J. WARREN KEIFER OF 01110, INN THE HOUSE OF REPRIESENTATIVES, Decembe.r 17, 1878. WVA SHINYG TON. SPEECH OF HON. J. WARREN KEIFER. Thle House havini restumed the consideration of the bill (IT. R. No. 4553) to pro vide for the faurther distribution of the moneys received under the Geneva awardMr. KEIFER said: Mr. SPEAKER: I can hardly hope to say, in the very few moments I am permitted by the favor of the member from Pennsylvania [Mr. STENGER] to occupy the attention of the House, anything new on this momentous question. The millions of dollars-about $10,000, 000-involved in the issue of this bill demands of each member his best judgment. The wide difference among the distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee at least warns those of us who are not able to say we have spent years in investigating the questions involved that there is room for honest differences of opinion. Principles, however, do not change on account of the importance or insignificance of cases. As to the details of the bills of the majority and minority of the Committee on the Judiciary I am forbidden for want of time to speak. The bill of the majority of the committee proposes to have the claims to the fund of all parties adjudicated by the Court of Claims, with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States; the bill of the minority proposes to revive the court of commissioners of Alabama claims, and submit the claims of some of the claimants to the fund to it, to the exclusion of other of the claimants, and to make the decision of such commissioners final. Stripped of all details and circumlocution, the two propositions coming from the Judiciary Committee may be fairly stated thus: A majority of the committee, as set forth in the bill reported by the chairman, [Mr. KNOTT,r] favors the granting to all claimants to any portion of the Geneva award fund or the interest thereon remaining undistributed a day in court, with a limitation of one year in which to file the claims, with the right of appeal given to each claimant or the United States to the Supreme Court of the United States, these claims to be, in the same manner, prosecuted as other claims in the Court of Claims. All persons are to be deemed claimants and have judgments rendered in their favor who were actual sufferers " by the violation of the laws of neutrality of Great Britain" for such amount as in the opinion of the court they shall severally be "justly entitled to recover under said treaty and award according to the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations, without regard to any rule or principle of allowance, exclusion, inclusion, or distribution heretofore adopted by Congress," or by the Alabama claims commissioners; all payments hitherto made to be deducted from the judgments to be rendered by said court. The judgments so rendered are to be paid ratably if in the aggregate they exceed the total amount of the said fund and the interest thereon still under the control of the United States; all expenses incident to the hearing of said claims to be first paid out of said moneys; and if any part of the same shall still remain it shall be subject to the further action of Congress. A minority of the committee (as set forth in the bill reported by the member from Ohio, Mr. MCMAHON) favors the recreation of a court of commissioners of three persons, whose judgments shall be final, before whom certain designated claimants shall,e granted the 4 right to go, within six months from the organization of such court, and prove their claims, without regard to the " principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations," as the court might find and apply them. In its consideration of the designated claims referred to in the bill of the minority of the committee, the court will have no power in its rule of allowance to exclude or include any claim save as the proposed law directs. No general principle is to be given to such court to guide it. The fiat of the law, arbitrarily applied, is to be the only guide of the court in making its final decrees. There is to be an utter disregard of the rights of all claimants whose claims were adjudged to be valid within the three rules laid down in article 6 of the treaty of Washington, (May 8, 1871,), as interpreted by the distinguished members of the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva. By section 4 of the bill of the minority the claims suffered to be presented to such court of commissioners are divided into three classes, namely: First. Claims described in section 11 of the act of 1874 relating to the distribution of this fund so far as they are not adjudicated, and, to quote from the billClaims directly resulting from damage done on the high seas by confederate cruisers during the late rebellion, including vessels and cargoes attacked and taken on the high seas or pursued by them therefrom, although the loss or damage occurred within four miles of the shore. Also: In cases of the loss of a whaling-vessel and outfit the court shall allow, in addition to the compensation provided for in the said original act, the sum of 10 per cent. in lieu of freight upon the value of said vessel and outfit as found by said court. And upon all judgments heretofore rendered under said act for the loss of a whaling-vessel and outfit there shall be allowed the said sum of 10 per cent. upon the awards as made by the court, with 6 per cent. interest thereon from the day from which said original award bore interest until the date of payment. Second. Claims for additional interest upon judgments of the court of Alabama claims awarded under the act named, on which the new court is to award 2 per cent. additional interest from the time interest was allowed to the time of payment. ThirdThe third class shall be for claims for the'payment of premiums for war risks, whether paid to the corporations, agents, or individuals after the sailing of any confederate cruiser, in determining which it shall be the duty of the court to deduct any sum in any way received by or paid to the claimant in diminution of the amount paid for any such premium, so that the actual loss only shall be allowed. Judgments on claims of the first class are to be first paid out of the fund; judgments on claims of the second class are next to be paid in full, or pro rata if the remaining fund is insufficient; and so of the claims of the third class. Let us analyze these classes of claims a little. The first class includes claims and pretended claims resting on various grounds. Section 11 of the original act provided for the adjustment of claims for direct losses caused by the inculpated cruisers Alabama and Florida and their tenders, and all claims admissible under that act directly resulting from damage caused by the inculpated cruiser Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne, (February 18, 1865.) These claims all ought to agree should be paid, but they are to be coupled in the same class with all claims for direct losses on the high seas during the rebellion caused by exculpated confederate cruisers, of which there were a large number, and without regard to time or circumstances of the loss. The bill under the first classification directs the court to award 10 per cent. upon the value of whaling-vessels and outfit, as found by the old court, in lieu of freights; and the further sum of 10 per cent. upon prior awards for value of whaling-vessels and outfits, with 6 per cent. interest from the date the original award 5 bore interest until payment. The second classification seems to be only for the purpose of fixing 6 per cent. as the uniform rate of interest to be allowed. The third is for L" premiums for war risks," or rather indirect losses, excluded from consideration wholly by the Geneva tribunal, and withdrawn bythe United States without reservation from the "' case" ' before that tribunal. Nothing illustrates more sharply the absolute inequity and injustice of this classification for payment than the fact that nothing is to be included for national losses, damages, or injuries caused by a prolongation of the war, by a transfer of commerce to the British flag on account of the action of the confederate cruisers, and for expenses in the pursuit of such cruisers, &c.; also excluded and withdrawn from the case of the United States before the Geneva tribunal. These national claims, and all private claims for indirect losses, including war premiums, were unanimously rejected by the judgment of that tribunal before the final submission of the case. They should all stand or fall together. The tribunal, through its president, Count Sclopis, (June 19, 1872,) in deciding against such claims, said: The arbitrators think it right to state that, after the most careful perusal of all that has been urged on the part of the Government of the United States in respect of these claims, they have arrived, individually and collectively, at the conclusion that the claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations, and should upon such principles be wholly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the governments as to the competency of the tribunal to decide thereon. The arbitrators being governed by the three rules provided for their guidance in article 6 of said treaty, and as also set forth in said article," by such principles of international law not inconsistent therewith as the arbitrators shall determine to have been applicable to the case," in their final award also found as follows: So far as it relates to the particulars of indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit of the confederate cruisers are not, in the judgment of the tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States. The tribunal is therefore of the opinion, by a majority of 3 to 2 votes, that there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head. And whereas prospective earnings cannot properly be made the subject of compensation, inasmuch as they depend in their nature upon future and uncertain contingencies. The tribunal is unanimously of opinion that there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head. And whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses, and all claims for "gross freights " so far as they exceed " net freights; " and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the treaty of Washington, it is preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for further discussion and deliberation to a board of assessors, as provided by article 10 of the said treaty. The tribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by article 7 of the said treaty, by a majority of 4 voices to 1, awards to the United States the sum of $15,500,000 in gold as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in article 7 of the aforesaid treaty; and in accordance with the terms of article 11 of the said treaty, the tribunal declares that all the claims referred to in the treaty as submitted to the tribunal are hereby fully, perfectly, and finally settled. Furthermore, it is declared that each and every one of the said claims, whether the same may or may not have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the tribunal, shall henceforth be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and inadmissible. The finding and award of the august tribunal is thus set forth at length to enable members to comprehend the completeness with which the arbitrators disposed of possible questions coming within the scope of the treaty of Washington. 6 On what principles of law and justice the private claims rejected by the tribunal are to be admitted and the claim for national losses (also rejected) is to be excluded we are not advised. In the designation of " claims on the part of the United States" national and individual claims were confounded and were all comprehended together, without making separate mention of individual claims. The General Government, for itself and its citizens, as it was bound by usage and national honor, pressed a general claim for all injuries, damages, and losses against Great Britain. The result was an award in gross of a large sum of money, based on valid claims, found to be such by the rules and principles of international law which a great and wise tribunal found should govern it. It is wholly immaterial whether it was, as is claimed by some members, the paramount purpose of the United States to have certain great principles of international law settled authoritatively or not by the treaty of Washington and the tribunal that met thereunder at Geneva. It is unquestionably true that so far as the proper disposition of the money award goes it should at least be first applied to the payment of the claims of parties for such losses as were, under the rules which governed the arbitrators, considered in making the award. There are those who pretend to believe that the award made of $15,500,000 was made to the United States on account of all claims presented by the United States of every kind, name, and nature, and that the arbitrators, in assuming, as they had a right to do under article 7 of the treaty, to make an award in gross to the United States, utterly disregarded the rules which they held applied to claims and included damages for all losses sustained by the United States and all its citizens by reason of exculpated and inculpated cruisers during the whole war. This is so violent a conclusion that it is hard to conceive how it canbe calmly entertained. To reach such a conclusion is to impeach the integrity of all the distinguished arbitrators save Sir Alexander Cockburn, the arbitrator on the part of Great Britain. It is, in the absence of conclusive proof, a most violent assumption to say that these arbitrators laid down with great care rules for the exclusion and inclusion of claims presented, and then in making up an award in gross willfully violated and disregarded them. Had the rules established been allowed to be applied by a board of assessors under article 10 of said treaty, it is conceded that only such claims as would have been valid under them would have been allowed. In a certain sense it is undoubtedly true, as shown by the award already quoted and as required by article 11 of said treaty, that all claims against Great Britain were finally settled by the award. That article is as follows: The high contracting parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration 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 nothave been presented to the notice of, made, perfected, or laid before the tribunal or board, shall, from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the tribunal or board, be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and henceforth inadmissible. It will be observed that if the tribunal had left to a board of assessors to make up an award on each valid claim in detail, all other claims would still have been finally settled. But it does not follow that an award in gross was to be held to be paid on account of invalid and unpresented claims, as well as on account of recognized and valid ones. The reasoning in favor of such a view may possibly be called specious, yet it may lead to absurdity, injustice, and wrong. If only one valid claim had been presented and considered in making up the award together with an hundred wholly groundless ones, the holder of the valid claim, if this view is to prevail, would have to share the sum awarded with the holders of such other claims, even though they 7 were grossly fraudulent. The statement of such a proposition is its own refutation. The bill, Mr. Speaker, of the minority of the committee has no better or broader foundation than can rest upon such an inequitable view. The proposition is captivating, that those who lost their vessels and cargoes on the high seas by all the confederate cruisers, and all those who had to pay war premiums by reason of such cruisers, should be reimbursed, whether the loss resulted or payments were made by reason of exculpated or inculpated confederate cruisers. But it is unsound. It is only because Great Britain was held liable according to international law for the payment of certain private claims for direct losses that any of the claims can be paid at all. It follows irresistably that only such claims as formed the basis of the award against Great Britain should be paid. Losses of any kind occasioned on the high seas by confederate cruisers put afloat through no fault of Great Britain stand on the same footing as all other losses or damages by the enemy whether on sea or on land. Untold millions of dollars' worth of property have been destroyed by the enemy on land belonging to loyal parties North and South that have as much right in law and equity to the Geneva award fund as the holders of rejected or unpresented "Alabama claims." No person, or party, I believe, has yet proposed to pay claims for losses occasioned by the acts of the enemy on land. They are included under the head of "ravages of war," the payment of which is always refused. There were also billions upon billions of dollars' worth of property destroyed by the Union Army which it is not pretended can be paid even where the parties are of undoubted loyalty and resided in the North. The sympathetic argument is not, broad enough. The cloth will not cover all who are naked. It is specially pressed that those who paid war premiums to insurance companies should be reimbursed. It may be that many of them were reimbursed and more too by the war freights collected of the shipper, and hence suffered no loss. The bill of the minority of the committee is on its face a confession of the inequity of many of the claims included in its provisions. All the claimants to this fund either stand abreast iu point of right, or they have no proper standing at all. If the fund was awarded for all the claimants regardless of the merits of their claims, then all should be paid in full or suffer a reduction ratably. The bill itself discriminates not only against the second and third classes named but may operate, yes, its friends admit it will operate, to exclude certain claimants who would be "justly entitled to recover under said treaty and award according to the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations." By the bill of the majority, all persons and corporations claiming on account of losses during the late war a share in the Deneva award fund, no matter how or when such losses occurred, are permitted to have their claims tested finally by the highest judicial tribunal in our Republic, and by the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations. This privilege the bill of the minority denies them. It has been said on this floor that to permit this to be done would give to certain insurance companies a portion, if not all, of the fund. This, as a member of this House, I need not decide; nor have I decided it. The highest court in the land is eminently qualified to determine, judicially, who is in equity and justice entitled to receive the fund. If those who argue so strenuously that the award was made to reimburse all claimants for losses, whether their claims were considered by the tribunal good, bad, or fraudulent, then the court may under the bill of the majority of the committee be bound to include and pay them. If the award was made to pay all claims, why not use the fund to pay all of them? The bill of the minority refuses to do this, and excludes absolutely the claims of parties known to have been regarded by the tribunal as valid. 8 It is a suspicious circumstance that great confidence is expressed in certain things connected with this grave question, and yet there is such bitter opposition made to permitting the highest judicial tribunal in the land to determine them. Legislative adjudication is almost invariably unwise where great principles of law and equity are to be applied among a large number of parties, and it is always a doubtful expedient. The insurance companies, who it is said may have some claims in equity and justice, are so reviled and abused as to put some men in awe and cause them to hesitate to do their duty even here. It has been vehemently asserted that these companies will, under the bill of the majority, get the fund " under the doctrine of subrogation by technical rules of the law," or that by invoking the application of such doctrine they will be admitted to receive a portion of the fund. Is the invocation of the doctrine of subrogation (or substitution) an appeal to the law's technicalities? If so, then the terms of the bill of the majority will rule out these companies. Technical rules are set aside by such bill. But subrogation, if net a head in equity, is a rule of equity, and it has no connection with the law's arbitrary and technical rules. Equity may be invoked where the law fails to do justice; it commences where the law leaves off. Subrogation as a rule in equity, where only it has application, had its origin in and was transferred from the Roman or civil law, and was founded, as says Judge Story, 1" in principles of natural justice." Thus it is made clear that the bill of the minority of the committee proposes to override the principles of natural justice in the distribution of this large sum of money. The assaults upon the insurance companies must not be mistaken for sound logic or argument in favor of a vicious proposition sought to be applied in support of pretended claims of parties who may have no higher rights, though sufferers, than thousands of others who were crushed under the car of Juggernaut, drawn along by the cruelty and fanaticism of war. The eagerness and zeal of a lawyer, sometimes, on account of the extreme exigency of his case, leads him to assail the real or supposed faults of his adversary in person, in lieu of the ability to successfully assail the grounds of his adversary's case. Though some of us may be lawyers, we are called on to do our duty as legislators. Let us try to perform that duty impartially. I am led to the conclusion I have arrived at by my conviction of what is right in the light of what I deem to be the natural justice and equity of the whole question. In conclusion, let me say again that the distribution of this fund, it being the fruits of a treaty between this and a foreign government, comes strictly within the judicial power of the United States, vested under the Constitution in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. (Constitution, section 1, article 3.) This judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States and all treaties made under their authority. (Constitution, section 2, article 3.) Shall Congress, as is intended by the proposition of the minority of the Judiciary Committee of this House, usurp to itself that power, or shall we relegate the whole question from Congress and send it for decision where under the Constitution it appropriately belongs, laying down no principles for the guidance of the court save those founded on the broad and comprehensive basis--justice, equity, and the law of nations? [FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.] False Issue raised by the Democratic Party. SPEE C H OF HON. JAMES G. BLAINE, OF MAINE, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. fMonday, April 14, 1879. --0-- O ---- The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 1,) making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30,1880, and for other purposesMr. BLAINE said: Mr. PRESIDENT: The existing section of the Revised Statutes numbered 2002 reads thus: No military or naval officer, or other person engaged in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, shall.order, bring, keep or have under his authority or control, any troops or armed men at the.place where any general or special election is held in any State, unless it be necessary to repel the armed enemies of the United States, or to keep the peace at the polls. The object of the proposed section, which has just been read at the Clerk's desk, is to get rid of the eight closing words, namely, " or to keep the peace at the polls," and therefore the mode of legislation proposed in the Army bill now before the Senate is an unusual mode; it is an extraordinary mode. If you want to take off a single sentence at the end of a section. in the Revised Statutes the ordinary ivay is to strike off those words, but the mode chosen in this bill is to repeat and re-enact the whole section leaving those few words out. While I do not wish to be needlessly suspicious on a small point I am quite persuaded that this did not happen by accident but that it came by design. If I may so speak it came of cunninig, the intent being to create the impression that whereas the republicans in the administration of the General Government had been using troops right and left, hither and thither, in every direction, as soon as the democrats got power they enacted this section. I can imagine democratic candidates for Congress all over the coun try reading this sectioli to gaping and listening audiences as one of the first offsprings of democr.atic reform, whereas every word of it, every syllable of it, from its first to its last, is the enactment of a republican Congress. I repeat that this unusual form presents a dishonest issue, whether so intended or not. It presents the issue that as soon as the demoerats got possession of the Federa; Government they proceeded to enact the clause which is thus ex-pessed. The law was passed by a republican Congress in 1865. There were forty-six Senators sitting in this Chamber at the time, of whom only ten or at most eleven were democrats. The House of Representatives was overwhelmingly republican. We were in the midst.of a war. The republican administration had a million or possibly twelve hundred thousand bayonets at its command. Thus circumstanced and thus surrounded with the amplest possible power to interfere with elections had they so designed, with soldiers in every hamlet and county of the United States, the republican party themselves plareed that provision on the statute-book, and Abraham Lincoln, their President, signed it. I beg you to observe, Mr. lPesident, that this is the first instance in the legislation of the United. States in which any restrictive clause whatever was put upon the statute-book in regard to the use of itrlbps at the polls. The republican party did it with the Senate and the House in their control. Abraham Lincoln signed it when he was Commander-in-Chief of an army larger than ever Napoleon:Bonaparte had at his command. So much by way cf correcting an ingenious and studied attempt at misrepresentation. The al!ged object is to strike out the few words that authorize the use of troops to keep peace at the polls. This country has been alarmed, I rather think indeed amused, at the great effort made to create a widespread impression that the republican party relies for its popular strength upon the use of the bayonet. This democratic Congress has attempted to give a bad name to this country throughout the civilized world, and to give it on a false issue. They have raised an issue that has no foundation in fact-that is false in whole and detail, false in the charge, false in all the specifications. That impression sought to be created, as I say, not only throughout the North American continent but in Europe to-day, is that elections are attempted in this country to be controlled by the bayonet. I denounce it here as a false issue. I am not at liberty to say that any gentleman making the issue knows it to be false; I hope he does not; but I am going to prove to him that-it is false, and that there is not a solitary inch of solid earth on which to rest the foot of any man who makes that issue. I have in my hand an official transcript of the location and the number of all the troops of the United States east of Omaha. By " east of Omaha," I mean all the United States east of the Mississippi river and that belt of States that border the Mississippi River on the west, including forty-one million at least out of the forty-five million of people that this country is supposed to contain to-day. In that magnificent area, I will not pretend to state its extent, but with forty-one million people, 3 how many troops of the United States are there to-day? Would any Senator on the opposite side liRke to guess, or would he like to state how many men with muskets in their hands there are in the vast area I have named? There are two thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven! And not one more. From the headwaters of the Mississippi River to the lakes, and down the great chain of lakes, and down the Saint Lawrence and down the valley of the Saint John and down the Saint Croix striking the Atlantic Ocean and following it down to Key West, around the Gulf, up to the mouth of the Mississippi again, a frontier of eight thousand miles either bordering on the ocean or upon foreign territory is'guarded by these troops. Within this domain forty-five fortifications are manned and eleven arsenals protected. There are sixty troops to every million of people. In the South I have the entire number in each State and will give it. I believe the Senator from Delaware is alarmed, greatly alarmed about the overriding of the popular ballot by troops of the United States! In Delaware there is not a single armed man, not one. The United States has not even one soldier in the State. The honorable Senator from West Virginia [Mr. HEREFORD] on Friday last lashed himself into a passion, or at least into a perspiration, over the wrongs of his State, trodden down by the iron heel of military despotism. There is not a solitary man of the United States uniformed on the soil of West Virginia, and there has not been for years. In Maryland. I do not know whether my esteemed friend from Maryland [Mr. WHYTE] has been greatly alarmed or not; but at Fort McHenry, guarding the entrance to the beautiful harbor of his beaufiful city, there are one hundfed and ninety-two artillerymen. In Virginia there is a school of practice at Fortress Monroe. My honorable friend who has charge of this bill [Mr. WITHERS] knows very well, and if he does not I will tell him, that outside of that school of practice at Fortress Monroe, which has two hundred and eighty-two men in it, there is not a Federal soldier on the soil of Virginia-not one. North Carolina. Are the Senators from that State alarmed at the immediate and terrible prospect of being overrun by the Army of the United States? On the whole soil of North Carolina there aae but thirty soldiers guarding a fort at the mouth of Cape Fear Riverjust thirty. South Carolina. I do not see a Senator on the floor from that State. There are one hundred and twenty artillerymen guarding the approaches to Charleston Harbor and not another soldier on her soil. Georgia. Does my gallant friend from Georgia [Mr. GORDON] who knows better than I the force and strength of military organiization, the senior Senator, and the junior also-are both or either of those Senators alarmed at the presence of twenty-nine soldiers in Georgia? [Laughter.] There are just twenty-nine there. Florida has one hundred and eighty-two at three separate posts, 4 principally guarding the navy yard near which my friend on the opposite side [Mr. JoNEs] lives. Tennessee. Is the honorable Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BAILEY] alarmed at the progress of military despotism in his State. There is not a single Federal soldier on the soil of Tennessee, not one. Kentucky. I see both the honorable Senators from Kentucky here. They have equal cause with Tennessee to be alarmed for there is not a Federal soldier in Kentucky-not one! Missouri. Not one. Arkansas. Fifty-seven in Arkansas. Alabama. I think my friend from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] is greatly excited over this question, and in his State there are thirtytwo Federal soldiers located at an arsenal of the United States. Mississippi. The great State of Mississippi, that is in danger of being trodden under the iron hoof of military power, has not a Federal soldier on its soil. Louisiana has two hundred and thirty-nine. Texas, apart from the regiments that guard the frontier on the Rio Grande and the Indian frontier, has not one. And the entire South has eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers to intimidate, overrun, oppress, and destroy the liberties of fifteen million people! In the Southern States there are twelve hundred and three counties. If you distribute the soldiers there is not quite one for each county; and when I give the counties I give them from the census of 1870. If you distribute them territorially there is one for every seven hundred square miles of territory, so that if you make a territorial distribution, I would remind the honorable Senator from Delaware, if I saw him in his seat, that the quota for his State would be' three-'"one ragged sergeant and two abreast," as the old s'ong has it. [Laughter.] That is the force ready to destroy the liberties of Delaware! Mr. President, it was said, as the old maxim has it, that the soothsayers of Rome -could not look each other in the face without smiling. There, are not two democratic Senators on this floor who can go into the cloak-room and look each other in the face without smiling at this talk, or, more appropriately, I should say without blushing-the whole thing is such a prodigious and absolute farce, such a miserably manufactured false issue, such a pretense without the slightest foundation ih the world, and talked about most and denounced the loudest in States that have not and have not had a single Federal soldier;. In New England we have three hundred and eighty soldiers. Throughout the South it does not run quite seventy to the million,people. In New England we have absolutely. one hundred and- twenty soldiers to the million. New England is far more overrun to-day by the Federal soldier, immensely more, than the whole South is. I never heard anybody complain about it iin New England, or express any very great fear of his liberties 'being endangered by the,presence of a handful of troops. As I have said, the tendency of this talk is to give us a bad name in Europe. Republican institutions are looked upon there with 5 jealousy. Every misrepresentation, every slander is taken up and exaggerated and talked about to our discredit, and the democratic party of the country to-day stand indicted, and I here indict them, for public slander of their country, creating the impression in the civilized world that we are governed by a ruthless military despotism. I wonder how amazing it would be to any man in Europe, familiar as Europeans are with great armies, if he were told that over a territory larger than France and Spain and Portugal and Great Britain and Holland and Belgium a id the German Empire all combined, there were but eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers! That is all this democratic howl, this mad cry, this false issue, this absurd talk is based on-the presence of eleven hundred and fiftyfive soldiers on eight hundred and fifty thousand square miles of territory, not double the number of the democratic police in the city of Baltimore, not a third of the police in the city of New York, not double the democratic police in the city of New Orleans. I repeat, the number indicts them; it stamps the whole cry as'without any foundation; it derides the issue as a false and scandalous and partisan makeshift. What then is the real motive underlying this movement? Senators on that side, democratic orators on the stump cannot make any sensible set of men at the cross-roads believe that they are afraid of eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers distributed one to each county in the South. The minute you state that, everybody sees the utter, palpable and laughable absurdity of it, and therefore we must go further and find a motive for a~ this cry. We want to find out, to use a familiar"and vulgar phrase, what is " the cat under the meal." It is not the troops. That is evident. There are more troops by fifty per cent. scattered through the Northern States east of the Mississippi to-day than through the Southern States east of the Mississippi, and yet nobody in the North speaks of it; everybody would be laughed at for speaking of it; and therefore the issue, I take no risk in stating, I make bold to declare, that this issue on tje troops, being a false one, being one without foundation, conceals the true issue, which is simply to get rid of the Federal presence at Federal elections, to get rid of the civil power of the United States in the election of Representatives to the Congress of the United States. That is the whole of it; and disguise it as you may there is nothing else in it or of it. You simply want to get rid of the supervision by the Federal Government of the election of Representatives to Congress- through civil means; and therefore this bill connects itself directly with another bill, and you cannot discuss this military bill without discussing a bill which we had before us last winter, known as the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill. I am quite well aware, Iprofess to be as'well aware as any one, that it is not permissible for me to discuss a bill that is pending before the other House. I am quite well aware that propriety and parliamentary rule forbid that I should speak of what is done in the House of Representati.vbs; but I know very well that I am not forbidden to speak of that which is not done in 6 the House of Representatives. I am quite free to speak of the things; that are not done there, and therefore I am free to declare that neither this military bill nor the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill ever emanated from any committee of the House of Representatives at all; they are not the work of any committee of the House of Representatives, and, although the present House of Representatives is almost evenly balanced in party division, no solitary suggestion has been allowed to come from the minority of that House in regard to the shaping of these bills. Where do they come from? We are not left to infer; we are not even left to the Yankee privilege of guessing, because we know. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK] obligingly told us-I have his exact words here-"that the honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. THURMAN] was the chairman of a committee appointed by the democratic party to see how it was best to present all these questions before us." Therefore when I discuss these two bills together I am violating no parliamentary law, I am discussing the offspring and the creatiofi of the democratic caucus of which the Senator from Ohio, whom I do not see in his seat, is the chairman. Mr. WITHERS. I would ask the Senator if this bill was presented to the Senate by the democratic caucus? Mr. BLAINE. No, sir. Mr. WITHERS. I would also ask if it was not reported by the grand Committee of the Whole, the highest committee of all committees, to the House of Representatives by a majority? Mr. BLAINE. Now you are asking me to tell what the House did. I would not do that, because that is against parliamentary law. [Laughter.] Mr. WITHERS. It is probably against policy. Mr. BLAINE. No, against parliamentary law. I will not discuss what the House is doing at all. The Senator cannot lead me into that. When he speaks about its being before a committee here, that is true. Mr. WITHERS. I wanted merely to say that I do not regard it as an improper suggestion, and in view of the broad declaration made by the Senator from Maine, both as to this bill and the other bill, of which the Senate has no knowledge, but which, I see, he proposes to debate, I cannot blame him for it; I cannot find any objection particularly that he should drag in another bill in order to hang a speech upon it. I have no objection to that; but in view of the declaration that it was not reported by any committee, I simply wished to caM attention to the fact that it was reported by the Cbommittpe on Appropriations. Mr. BLAINE. The Senator asked me if it was not referred to a committee in this branch. Does the Senator wish me to answer that question, whether this bill I am discussing before the Senate now was before the Committee on Appropriations? Mr. WITHERS. The Senator can consult his own pleasure in regard to the matter. Mr. BLAINE.T I suppose the Senator asked me what was done. I wil not speak of what took place in the Committee on Appropriations, but I think the Senate can infer what took place there from what took place in the Senate Chamber last Friday, when in solid phalanx the other side would not allow even a grammatical mistake to be corrected; and I repeat that up to this time no committee of either branch of Congress has exercised the slightest discretion whatever upon this bill, or been permitted to do so in either branch of Congress. Mr. WITHERS. I entirely dissent from the statement. Of course, it is not proper for either the Senator or I to disclose what passed in the committee-room, but I deny utterly the accuracy of the statement. Mr. BLAINE. This bill came from the democratic caucus committee. It went to the House of Representatives. What took place there I will not speak of. It came here; it went into the Committee on Appropriations of this body. What took place there I will not speak of; but I know it came back here without dotting an i or crossing a t. If there is any inference to be madeMr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. I ask the Senator whether he wa-s not on a sub-committee to consider the Army bill, the very bill which he has now in his hand. Mr. BLAINE. I was a member of that sub-committee. The honorable Senator, who is chairman of the Appropriation Corn mittee, did me the honor to appoint me upon it; that is true; and I believe there is no impropriety in my speaking of what a sub-committee did. We sat on that bill, and we were never permitted to make any change in it whatever, not the slightest in the world. Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. Will the Senator tell me why he was not permitted? Mr. BLAINE. You ask me the secrets of the democratic prisonhouse, why I was not perritted? I do not know. That is for you to tell. I want you to tell me why I was not permitted. Mr. WITHERS. Because you did not have enough support. Mr. BL A.NE. Because I was outvoted. Mn. WITHERS. That is the whole thing. Mr. BLAINE. Two to one. Mr. WITHERS. The Senator said no opportunity was offered for any modification or amendment. It was from that statement I dissented; and I wish to call his attention to the fact that the broad way in which he has stated it cannot be sustained by the facts within his own knowledge. Mr. BLAINE. Now I really get at the point made bythe Senator. Mr. WITHERS. The majority oply exercised that control over the bill which they have always the right to do. Mr. BLAINE. The Senator has told so much now that he really forces me to tell more, and that more is, that when I offered several amendments ii the sub-committee they said " we really agree to these, and if we permit the bill to be altered at all we will let these in, but we do not intend to let this bill be touched." That was what was said in:ur committee. They did not object to several 8 suggestions I made. in regard to amendments to the bill, but they simply sat and voted me down. That is the reason why I could not amend it. Now, Mr. President, I say you cannot possibly debate one of these bills without debating the other, because when you come to read this new section 2002 in the military bill, it is to prevent any civil officer of the United States being present on election day. I am not now talking about military officers; there is not a Senator on that side of thd Chamber who ever saw a military force at the polls, in my judgment. Mr. WITHERS. The Senator is mistaken. Mr. HEPREFORD. I desire to say in that connection-- The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maine yield? Mr. BLAINE. I will yield for testimony on that point. Mr. HEREFORD. The Senator in making the assertion that he has made is not only assuming to himself the power of omniscience, but ubiquity, that he at all times has been at all the pollsMr. BLAINE. Do not delay on that. Tell me if you ever saw anybody there. Mr. HEREFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. BLAINE. That is what I want to know. Mr. HEREFORD. Prior to the time that the State of West Virginia passed from under the control of the republican party we always had the military there, and I have seen them at the polls making arrests on the day of voting in my own town. Mr. BLAINE. When? Mr. HEREFORD. When? Mr. BLAINE. Yes, when did you ever see a military man in the uniform of the United States making arrests at the polls? Mr. HEREFORD. I have known of them making arrests in Mercer County. Mr. BLAINE. When? Mr. HEREFORD. If you stop a moment, I can look back'and think. Mr. BLAINE. I want to know when? Mr. HEREFORD. In 1870, sir. Mr. BLAINE. Ten years ago? Mr. HEREFORD. About that. Mr. BLAINE. Or before that? Mr. HEREFORD. It was after the war. I saw this: We had a company of soldiers stationed in the town where I lived within one hundred steps of the voting place, and that company on the day of election were divided up, a part of them sent to an adjoining county, the county of Mercer, where they expected to control the voters. Mr. BLAINE. One company? Mr. HEREFORD. And were placed there within seventy yards of the place of voting. Mr. BLAINE. What did they arrest anybody for? Mr. HEREFORD. For the purpose of intimidation. 9 Mr. BLAINE. Oh, yes! Mr. HEREFORD. For the purpose of intimidation. Mr. BLAINE. I should be glad to hear any other testimony on that side. Mr. WILLIAMS. I can tell the honorable Senator that I saw soldiers marched into the public square and stack their arms, since the war. Mr. BLAINE. What time since the war? Mr. WILLIAMS. Eighteen hundred and sixty-five. Mr. BLAINE. That is a good while ago, and Kentucky was in a condition of upheaval about that time, 1865. Mr. WILLIAMS. And I know from information that they were stationed at a number of polls in other portions of the State. Mr. BLAINE. Has the Senator seen any since that time? Mr. WILLIAMS. This I saw with my own eyes. I saw men go up in the presence of soldiers to vote. Mr. BLAINE. Has the Senator seen any since 1865? Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir. Mr. BLAINE. The Senator then has had fourteen years to brood over that, and he cannot stand it a minute longer. Mr. WILLIAMS. The power to put them there is still in the law; and it is to deprive the President of the authority to take them to the polls for which we now contend.. Mr: BLAINE. The Senator tells us that he is particularly sensitive about what he saw when the country was still fn a disturbed condition fourteen years ago, while to-day there is not and has not been for years a solitary Federal soldier in Kentucky, not one. That is his testimony. Has any other Senator a statement to make. Mr. WITHERS. The Senator will recollect that he denied that any Senator on this side of the Chamber had ever seen a soldier at the polls. Mr. BLAINE. No; I queried it; I did not deny it. Mr. WITHERS. I understood the Senator to make the statement broadly. Mr. BLAINE. I was not so broadly ubiquitious as the honorable Senator from West Virginia supposed. I wanted to know whether any Senator there would rise up and say he had seen it. Mr. WITHERS. I am willing to abide by the reporter's record of the remarks of the Senator. Mr. BLAINE. If I made a slip of the tongue I will gladly correct it. I could not be at every polling place in the South. There are thirteen thousand polling places in the South, and there are eleven hundred and fifty-five soldiers down there, and this great intimidation is to be carried on by one soldier distributing himself around to twelve polling places. That is the intimidation that threatens the Soiath just now; and I am just reminded by the honorable Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER] that the Supreme Court decided -a fact I did not recall at the moment-that the war did not close till April, 1866; a state of peace \had not come, and therefore the honorable Senater from Kentucky does not bring himself within 10 he hne of evidence. He only saw troops there in 18.65, during he war. Has he seen them since April, 1866, in time of peace? Mr. WILLIAMS. No. Mr. BLAINE. He has not. [Laughter.] Then I should like some other Senator, if there is any one that has any testimony to give; I should like some other Senator that has seen troops aroumi the polls bulldozing and browbeating and intimidating and controlling the popular wish, to rise if he has any testimony to give on the subject. Mr. LOGAN. If the Senator will allow me, perhaps I can make a statement about soldiers in Kentucky in 1865 myself. I happened to be in Louisville in 1865 at the time of an election for Congress, when General Rousseau was a candidate for Representative in Congress. I was stationed at Louisville and had sixty-five thousand soldiers under my command. I was there on the day of election, and I made a speech there the night before the election. Those sixty-five thousand soldiers were stationed all around Louisville, and I never saw a more quiet, peaceable election in my life, and under orders the soldiers were kept from the polls and out of the city during the day of the election, under my own orders. Mr. BLAINE. All we get, then, in the testimony is, that the Senator from Kentucky says he saw troops in his State during the war, and the Senator from West Virginia says he saw them in his State once since the war-ten years ago. That is the amount of actual testimony we get on the subject. Now, Mr. President, Isay this bill connects itself directly with the provisions which are inserted by the' democratic caucus in the legislative, executive, and judicial bill. The two stand together; they cannot be separated; because if to-day we enact that no civil officer whatever shall appear under any circumstances with armed men at the polls-I am not speaking of Federal troops or military or naval officers-I should like to know how, if you strike that out to-day in the military bill that is pending, you are going to enforce any provisions of the election laws, even if we leave them standing. Take this section of the election law, section 2024 of the Revised Statutes: The marshal or his general deputies, or such special deputies as are thereto specially empowered by him, in writing, and under his hand and seal, whenever he or either or any of them is forcibly resisted in executing their duties under this title, or shall, by violence, threats, or menaces, be prevented from executing such duties, or from arresting any person" who has committed any offense for which the marshal or his general or his special deputies are authorized to make such arrest, are, and each of them is, empowered to summon and call to his aid the bystanders or posse comitatus of his district. I should like anyone to tell me whether a marshal can call together armed men under that if you repeal this section in the military bill. Under heavy penalties, you say that no civil officer whatever, no matter what the disturbances, at an election of Representatives to, Congress-no civil officer of the United States shall keep order. You do not say that in that same election the State officer may not be there with all the force he chooses, legal or illegal. You say that the United States, in an election which specially concerns the Federal 1i Government, shall not have anything whatever to do with it. That is what you say, although the Constitution, as broadly as language can express it, gives the Government of the United States, if it chooses to exercise it, the absolute control of the whole subject-familiar to school-boys who have even once read the Constitution, in the clause: " 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 places of choosing Senators." And everyone knows that the contemporaneous exposition of that part of the Constitution, familiar also to everyone in the country, the exposition by Madison and Hamilton, was to the effect that " every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation;" and according to Mr. Madison, quoting a Southern authority, it was " more consonant to just theories to intrust the Union with the care of its own existence than to transfer that care to any other hands." There is not the slightest possible denial here that this is a constitutional exercise of power. If there is such a denial it is a mere individual opinion. There has been no adjudication in the least degree looking to the unconstitutionality of these laws. Your individual -opinion is no bletter than mine; mine is no better than that of any other man who can hear a horn blown from the front steps of the Capitol. No individual opinion is worth anything. We have a department of the Government to pass upon the question. The legislative department has enacted these laws under what it believed to be a clear and explicit grant of power, and you have never had it judicially determined otherwise. But now you propose to assault the election laws, the supervisors, and the marshals in this military bill; and under the pretense of getting rid of troops a-t the polls you propose that no Federal officer-no civil officer of the Federal Government-shall be there. That is the design; that is the plain, palpable object. An amendment that will be ofered here will test your sincerity on that subject; whether you will allow the Federal Government to be present at all. I believe you do propose to allow two men of straw to stand.up without any power; to be present as witnesses; to be counted themselves but not. to count, as my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] well suggests; with no power whatever; mere spectators on sufferance, not to be hustled out nor kicked nor clubbed if they behave themselves, but entirely at the mercy of the mob; guests standing there by the courtesy of the State, not standing there armed with the panoply of the Federal Government and commanding in its great name an observance of law and of justice. You propose simply to permit, and permit is the word, two officers to be designated by Federal authority to be present, that is all; not to have one particle of power, not to be clothed with a solitary attribute of authority, not to have any force, not to have any legal statue beyond that of casual spectators; and, therefore, I say that you cannot debate this question without associating these two bills together. The one runs right into the other; and I go so far as to say that if the military bill should go through in its present form and become the law of the land, the remainder of this law on election day is not worth anything at all. The whole law of marshals and supervisors is worth nothing unless the civil authority of the United States has the power there to enforce its edicts. We are told, too, rather a novel thing, that if we do not take these laws, we are not to have the appropriations. I believe it has been announced in both branches of Congress, I suppose on the authority of the democratic caucus, that if we do not take these bills as they are planned, we shall not have aniy of the appropriations that go with them. The honorable Senator from West Virginia [Mr. HEREFORD] told it to us on Friday; the honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. THURMAN] told it to uslast session; the honorable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK] told it to us at the same time, and I am not permitted to speak of the legions who told us so in the other House. They say all these appropriations are to be refused-not merely the Army appropriation, for they do not stop at that. Look for a moment at the legislative bill that came from the democratic caucus. Here is an appropriation in it for defraying the expenses of the Supreme Court and the circuit and district courts of the United States, including the District of Columbia, &c., "$2,80,000:" "Provided "-provided what? That the following sections of the Revised Statutes relating to electionsGoing on to recite thembe repealed. That is, you will pass an appropriation for the support of the iudiciary of the United States only on condition of this repeal. We often speak of this Government being divided between three great departments, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial-co-ordinate, independent, equal. The legislative, under the control of a democratic caucus, now steps forward and says, "We offer to the Executive this bill, and if he does not sign it, we are going to starve the judiciary." That is carrying the thing a little further than I have ever known. We do not merely propose to starve the Executive if he will not sign the bill, but we propose to starve the judiciary that has had nothing whatever to do with the question. That has been boldly avowed on this floor; that has been boldly avowed in the other House; that has been boldly avowed in democratic papers throughout the country. And you propose not merely to starve the judiciary but you.propose that you will not appropriatea solitary dollar to take care of this Capitol. The men who take caie of this great amount of public property are provided for in that bill. You say they shall not have any pay if the President will not agree to change the election laws. There is the public printing that goes on for the enlightenment of the whole country and for printing the public documents of every one of the Departments. You say they shall not have a dollar for public printing unless the President agrees to repeal these laws. 13 There is the Congressional Library that has become the pride of the whole American people for its magnificent growth and extent. You say it shall not have one dollar to take care bf it, much less add a new book, unless the President signs these bills. There is the Department of State that we think throughout the history of the Government has been a great pride to this country for the ability with which it has conducted our foreign affairs; it is also to be starved. You say we shall not have any intercourse with foreign nations, not a dollar shall be appropriated therefor unless the President signs these bills. There is the Light-House Board that provides for the beacons and the warnings on seventeen thousand miles of sea and gulf and lake coast. You say those lights shall all go out and not a dollar shall be appropriated for the board if the President does not sign these bills. There are the mints of the United States at Philadelphia, New Orleans, Denver, San Francisco, coining silver and coining gold-not a dollar shall be appropriated for them if the President does not sign these bills. There is the Patent Office, the patents issued which embody the invention of the country-not a dollar for them. The Pension Bureau shall cease its operations unless these bills are signed and patriotic soldiers may starve. The Agricultural Bureau, the Post Office Department, every one of the great executive functions of the Government is threatened, taken by the throat, highwayman-style, collared on the highway, commanded to stand and deliver in the name of the democratic congressional caucus. That is what it is; simply, that. No committee of this Congress in either branch has ever recommended that legislation-not one. Simply a democratic caucus has done it. Of course this is new. We are learning something every day. I think you may search the records of the Federal Government in vain; it will take some one much more industrious in that search than I have ever been, and much more observant than I have ever been, to find any possible parallel or any possible suggestion in our past history of any such thing. Most of the Senators who sit in this Chamber can remember some vetoes by Presidents that shook this country to its center with excitement. The veto of the national-bank bill by Jackson in 1832, remembered by the oldest in this Chamber; the veto of the national-bank bill in 1841 by Tyler, remembered by those not the oldest, shook this country with a political excitement which up to that time had scarcely a parallel;. and it was believed, whether rightfully or wrongfully is no matter, it was believed by those who advocated those financial measures at the time, that they were of the very last importance to the well-being and prosperity of the people of the Union. That was believed by the great and shining lights of that day. It was believed by that man ot imperial.character and imperious will, the great Senator from Kentucky. It was believed by Mr. Webster, the greatest of New England Seniators. Whean Jackson vetoed the one or Tyler vetoed the other,, did you ever 'ear a suggestion that those bank charters should be put on appropriation bills or that there should not be a dollar to run the Government until they were signed? So far from 14 it that, in 1841, when temper was at its height; when the whig party, in addition to losing their great measure, lost it under the sting and the irritation of what they believed was a desertion by the President whom they had chosen; and when Mr. Clay, goaded by all these considerations, rose to debate the question in the Senate, he repelled the suggestion of William C. Rives, of Virginia, who attempted to make utpon him the point that he had indulged in some threat involving the independence of the Executive. Mr. Clay rose to his full height and thus responded: I said nothing whatever of any obligation on the part of the President to conform his judgment to the opinions of the Senate and the House of Representatives, although the Senator argued as if I had, and persevered in so arguing after repeated correction. I said no such thing. I know and I respect the perfect independence of each departrnent, acting within its proper sphere, of the other departments. A leading democrat, an eloquent man, a man who has courage and frankness and many good qualities, has boasted publicly that the democracy are in power for the first time in eighteen years, and they d& not intend to stop until they have wiped out every vestige of every war measure. Well, "forewarned is forearmed," and you begin appropriately on a measure that has the signature of Abraham Lincoln. I think the picture is a striking one When you hear these words from a man who was then in arms against the Government of the United States, doing his best to destroy it, exerting every power given him in a bloody and terrible rebellion against the authority of the United States and when Abraham Lincoln was marching at the same time to his martyrdom in its defense! Strange times have fallen upon us that those of us who had the great honor to be associated in higher or lower degree with Mr. Lincoln in the administration of the Government should live to hear men in public life and on the floors of Congress, fresh from the battle-fields of the rebellion, threatening the people of the United States that the democratic party, in power for the first time in eighteen years, proposes not to stay its hand until every vestige of the war measures has been wiped out! The late vice-president of the confederacy boasted-perhaps I had better say stated-that for sixty out of the seventy-two years preceding the outbreak of the rebellion, from the foundation of the Government, the South, though in a minority, had by combining with what he termed the anti-centralists in the North ruled the country; and in 1866 the same gentleman indicated in a speech, I think before the Legislature of Georgia, that by a return to Congress the South might repeat the experiment with the same successful result. I read that speech at the time; but I little thought I should live to see so near a fulfillment of its prediction. I see here to-day two great measures emanating, as I have said, not from a committee of either House, but from a democratic caucus in which the South has an overwhelming majority, two-thirds in the House, and out of forty-two Senators on the other side of this Chamber professing the democratic faith thirty are from the South-twenty-three, a positiVe and pronounced majori'ty, having themselves been participants in the war against the Union either in military or civil station. So that as 15 a matter of fact, plainly deducible from counting your fingers, the legislation of this country to-day, shaped and fashioned in a democratic caucus where the confederates of the South hold the majority, is the realization of Mr. STEPHENS' prophecy. And very appropriately the House under that control and the Senate under that control, embodying thus the entire legislative powers of the Government, deriving its political strength from the South, elected from the South, say to the President of the United States, at the head of the Executive Department of the Government, elected as he was from the North-elected by the whole people, but elected as a northern man; elected on republican principles, elected in opposition to the party that controls both branches of Congress to-daythey naturally say, "You shall not exercise your constitutional power to veto a bill." Some gentleman may rise and say, "Do you call it revolution to put an amendment on an appropriation bill?" Of course not. There have been a great many amendments put on appropriation bills, some mischievous and some harmless; but I call it the audacity of revolution for any Senator or Representative, or any caucus of Senators or Representatives, to get together and say, " We will have this legislation or we will stop the great departments of the Government." That is revolutionary. I do not think it will amount to revolution; my opinion is it will not..I think that is a revolution that will not go around; I think that is a revolution which will not revolve; I think that is a revolution whose wheel will not turn; but it is a revolution if persisted in, and if not persisted in, it must be backed out from with ignominy. The democratic party in Congress have put themselves exactly in this position to-day, that if they go forward in the announced programme, they march to revolution. I think they will, in the end, go back in an ignominious retreat. That is my judgment. The extent to which they control the legislation of the country is worth pointing out. In round numbers, the Southern people are about one-third of the population of the Union. I am not permitted to speak of the organization of the House of Representatives, but I can refer tothat of the last House. In the last House of Representatives, of the forty-two standing committees the South had twentyfive. I am not blaming the honorable Speaker for it. He was hedged in by partisan forces, and could not avoid it. In this very Senate, out of thirty-four standing committees the South has twentytwo. I am not calling these things up just now in reproach; I am only showing what an admirable prophet the late vice-president of the Southern Confederacy was, and how entirely true all his words have' been, and how he has lived to see them realized. I do not profess to know, Mr. President, least of all Senators on this floor, certainly as little as any Senator on this floor, do I pro fess to know, what the President of the United States will do when these bills are presented to him, as I suppose in due course of time they will be. I certainly should never speak a solitary word of disrespect of the gentleman -hlding that exalted position, and hope 16 1 should not speak a word unbefitting the dignity of the office of a. Senator of the United States. But as there has been speculation here and there on both sides as to what he would do, it seems to me that the dead heroes of the Union would rise from their graves if he should consent to be intimidated and outraged in his proper constitutional power by threats like these. All the war measures of Abraham Lincoln are to be wiped out say leading democrats! The Bourbons of France busied themselves, I believe, after the restoration, in removing every trace of Napoleon's power and grandeur, even chiseling the "N" from public monuments raised to perpetuate his glory; but the dead man's hand from Saint Helena reached out and destroyed them in their pride and in their folly. And I tell the Senators on the other side of this Chamber,-I tell the democratic party North and South-South in the lead and North following,-that, the slow, unmoving finger of sorn, from the tomb of the.martyred President on the prairies of Illinois, will wither and destroy them. Though dead he speaketh. [Great applause in the galleries.] The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHONY in the chair.) The Sergeant-at-Arms' Will preserve order in the galleries and arrest persons manifesting approbation or disapprobation. Mr. BLAINE. When you present these bills with these threats to the living President, who bore the commission of Abraham Lincoln and served with honor in the Army of the Union, which Lincoln restored and preserved, I can think only of one appropriate response from his lips or his pen. He should say to you with all the scorn befitting his station: Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing? SPEECH OF ][ON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN, OF MAINEp ON THE PROPOSITO)N TO ADMIT CALIFORNIA AS A STATE INTO THE UNION. DKLIVERED IN THE SENATE 0 THIE UNITED STATES, MARCH 5, 1850. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSION-L GLOBE OFFICE. 1850. ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA AS A STATE. Mr. HAMLIN said: Mr. PRESIDENT: You and the Senators present are fully sensible that I have rarely trespassed upon the patience of the Senate. But for the extraordinary character of the proceedings of this body-but for the unparalleled opposition which has been offered, in this incipient stage, to the admission of another sovereign State into this Union -1 should have remained silent. But from a sense of duty to those citizens who have gone from the State, which it is my duty in part here to represent, into that distant country, and who have gone there to make it their home in future life-a uty which I owe to the people who inhabit that territory-I should have remained still silent. The question before us is on referring the message of the President, accompanying the constitution of California, to its appropriate committee. I would myself have preferred to have met the discussion of this question upon a bill, after it should have been reported by a committee. In my opinion, such a course would have been more pertinentmore appropriate. The Senate, however, have deemed it expedient to pursue a different course. The whole merits, upon this question of reference, have been open and discussed; and every view which could properly pertain to the question of the admission of California as a State, has been entered into by Senators upon this preliminary question of reference to a committee. Under the direction which Senators have seen fit to give it, I have sought this occasion to give the reasons why I shall favor the admission of that State into this Union, as one of its sovereign and independent States. In this discussion, the whole broad field has been opened-slavery in all its forms, the question relating to the formation of territorial governments, the question of the boundary of Texas, the question of the restoration of fugitive slaves, and every other question conceivable, and almost inconceivable, connected with them, have been permitted to mingle in the discussion of this body. Sir, with all these questions, I have nothing to do; with all these questions, upon the proposition which is now submitted to us, I have nothing to say. Let them bide their time; and when they shall properly and pertinently come before the Senate, then, if I shall deem it expedient, I may have something to say upon some of those measures. The question of slavery in the territories, or slavery in the States, has no connection with the admission of California-it should have had no connection with it, in my humble judgment, in our discussion here. What are, or what are not, the boundaries of Texas, has as little to do with the question which is directly before us. Nor has the subject of territorial governments any more connection wtth the admission of California than these other questions I have named. When these questions are legitimately submitted to us, I shall be ready to act upon them. Let the question of slavery in the territories be settled according to the spirit of the Constitution, and the previous action of the Government, and let us deal with Texas, in reducing her boundaries-one of these sovereign States-justly; ay, if you please, generously; but let these matters be discussed and settled where they appropriately belong; and let not the admission of California, as a State, here be either retarded in its progress, or finally prevented - by them. The people of California ask no entangling alliances with these or any other questions. They ask the aid of no fortuitous circumstances not directly connected with them. They ask not to be affected by any circumstances calculated to retard or defeat them. Let each question depend upon itself, and let each issue be met in its proper and appropriate manner. I am happy,Mr. President, to know, that in expressing this opinion, it is but a concurrence in opinions which have been expressed by the oldest and the ablest Senators upon both sides of this chamber. This, then, being the view which I take upon this question, I am decidedly in favor of the amendment which has been offered by the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON,] that this question shall be referred to the appropriate committee-that it shall there be considered and reported back, disconnected with any and every other subject. When it shall come back, then will be the time for us to give our final action, although the discussion of the question has been entered into in this preliminary stage. Let each stand upon its own merits, or fail for the want of merit. The maxim of Tacitus-par negotiis, neque suprais as true now as when it was uttered. But, sir, in passing along, while I have no disposition to connect any subject which is not properly connected with California, I may be permitted to make a single remark or two, in relation to what we have so often witnessed and heard in this hall. I allude to that cry of Disunion! disunion F which has so often resounded in our ears. Sir, I have no eulogiums to pronounce upon this Union. It furnishes its own best eulogy. The progreao 4 __ of art, of science, of literature, and of everything I the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State he formed that serves to elevate a people; its impress upon i by the junction of two or more States or parts of States, without th e. conepnt of the iegislatures of tla States couour arts and our arms; the respect which our flag cer ed: as as w ell ofthe Congiessi. commands in every portion of the habitable globe; Under this clause of the Constitution, the simthe busy hum of thrift and enterprise that comes pie question cf the admission of a State is the one up from the marts and market places of twenty whic w to decide. Congress cannot create a nillions of people, peak a more nobie eulogy than State. t is not within the p wer or jurisdiction ere. ir, all these things pronounce is greatness, have learn to be surprised at no opinion. It has its glory, and its grandeur. I would rather, sir, been called the age of progress. So great has that my acts as a Senator, and the acts of the peo- been that progress, and so various are the opinions pie whom I represent, hould speak their devotion whichhave been expressed, that I have long since to that Union which was formed by the wisdom ceased to be surprised at the expression of any of our fathers, and vwhich shall be perpetuated by opinion. But whoever has examined the debates Us. of the Convention which formed our Constitution, Sir, there is one other matter to which I wish annod t t he question of the formationor to refer in this connection. I allude to that state erection of new Stat es by Ctongresswas one which of alarm which has been created here by Senators nver entered into the minds or thoughts of the in speeches of an extraordiunarycharacter, or else- never entered into the minds or thoughts of the in speeches of an extraordinary character, or else- men who constituted that Convention. The only hereby thepublic press, or by the aidofsuch stage territory then belonging to the Government of machinery as could be put in motion. Sir, there is the United States was that which was covered a method in all this madness. No man can doubt by the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance itself the design which it is attempted to accomplish, provided the mode and manner in which new by first alarming the public mind, and producing States should be erected from it and admitted into through that alarm those results which are desired. this Union. The Constitution is silent as to any I feel that I owe it, sir, to myself, and to those power to create a State. The Convention that who sent me here, to declare that from all the in- frmed the Constitution did not consider any propvestgation which I have been able to bestow upon osition of that sort. It clearly never entered the this subject, and from all the evidence which I minds of that body, to insert any provision for have been able to obtain from everything which I creating new States. Mr. Madison, in the 43d can see and hear, this so much talked-of alarm is number of the Federalist, expressly states, "that entirely unfounded and factitious. There need be the eventual establishment of new States, seems no alarm. There is no cause for real alarm; and 'to have been overlooked by the framers of that none should be created by unnecessary fear. 'instrument." SFear admitted into public councils betrays like treason." It was only at the last session of Congress, that We, in the non-slaveholding States, are deter- a proposition was made to admit California-the mined that there shall be no cause for disturbing whole of California-as one State, and the whole the harmony of the States; and we are equally matter was referred to the Committee on the Judiconfident that the sound sense and patriotism of ciary. Upon that question, the learned Senator the people of all the States, will determine that from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN] made a report, and there shall be no disunion. Weoncehad in upon this very question-this very power of Conthat section of the Union from which I come, a gress to create new States. I read from that reclass of men who were known to be disunionists. port: Those who shall pattern after their example (and "The power conferred by the Constitution on Congress is, there are some) must occupy the same page of his- to admit new States, not to create them. According to the tory which tey have occupied. There s no real theory of our overen, te creation of a tate is aact tory which they of popular sovereignty, not of ordinary legislation. It is by alarm-there is no cause or fear of disunion. I the will of the people, of whom the State is omtposed, ashave never felt the slightest alarm at any time, setbled in convention, that it is created."' and I think we can all now see that the bubble has That doctrine, I believe, met with the approbaburst. This Union will stand as a monument tion of nearly the whole Senate. It certainly is a of grandeur, and glory, and greatness, long, doctrine to which I fully subscribe-it is the doeclong after every Senator here shall have crum- trine of the Constitution. bled into dust. The affections of our people will Mr. BERRIEN, (interposing.) Is it the purcling to it, and eustain it, in spite of the mad- pose of the Senator to deduce from that report theinees of party and of politicians. The true ques- inferenve, that it was the opinion of the Judiciary tion, then, Mr. President, when separated from Committee that ibelonged to the Territories, withall these extraneous matters which have been out the sanction of Congress, to erect themselves forced into this discussion, is, whether another into States? If so, he misunderstands that report. star shall be added to our flag-another sister to The sovereignties, in the view of that committee, our Union? We must come to this, the only real only become incipient with the authorization of question before us; and in considering it, I pro- Congress to form a Constitution. When that aupose to examine-first, the right of the people of thorization is obtained, then, and not until then, California to form the constitution which they the territory can proceed to act in the erection ofa. have presented to us; and, secondly, having the State and the formation of a government and conright to form that constitution, have they so exer- stitution. cised it, that we, in the discharge of our duty, Mr. HAMLIN. I do not think that there was should admit them as another of the States of this any necessity for the honorable Senator from GeorConfederacy? The Constitution of the United giato interrupt me. I mpeak in all kindness. I was states, in article 4, section 3, declares that not speaking of the power of the Territory to "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this erect a Territorial or a State government, whether Inion; but no new state shall be formed or erected within authorized to do so by Congress or not, but of the power of Congress to create a State.overn- i know and feel that they constituted a part of the meent. I quoted the report made by the Senator State itself, r, ould have ever thus formed themfrom Georgia, for that and for no other purpose; selves, as have the peopleý of California, into a but, taking the languare of thLat report, I musltbe State. Without that education and training permitted to declare, that I find in it no such ex-c which they have received in the various States planation as that which the Senator has Just now frona which they went, it would have been true seen fit to give us. It is the undoubted right of I that the revolver and the bowie-knife would have the Senator from Georgia to make whatever ox- been the common law of that land. It is, indeed, planation he may now deem fit; but the report a sublime spectacle, to witness the order and deitself nowhere affirms or denies the power of the portment of that people. It should excite a just people of the territories to erect themselves into a pride in every breast, and produce a living faith ii 'S&ate, without the previous ascent of Congress; the capacity of man for self-government. nor does it claim that such assent must be given. 1 Now, sir, Ihold that the people of that terriThat belongs to the explanation of the Senator tory have, by the law of nature-by that law from Georgia. which God gave man-a right to form themrselves Mr. BERRIEN. That was not the question into a government, for the protection of life, libbefore the committee. It was, whether an un- erty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our Governauthorized body could erect a State? ment is based upon that right; its foundations are Mr. HAMLIN. That report has been quoted laid deep and broad upon that principle. It was for the purpose I have already stated; but I pro- in the assertion of that right-the right of the peo-pose to inquire into the very point which the Sen-'I pie to self-government-the right to institute a ator from Georgia has suggested in his interrup- government to suit themselves-a government tion. =1 which should protect them in their lives, their My first proposition is, that Congress has not.liberty, and their property-it was in the recognithe power to create a State. My second one is, tion of that principle-that the first blood of the that the people of this territory have. Congress 1I Revolution fertilized the soil of Lexington. It Iaving failled to make a territorial government for was in reco~nition of that principle that the Decdathe people of that territory, it is clearly withlin ration of 1776 wits signed. It was in recognition the power of the people inhabiting that territory i of that very principle that our Government, great, to create a Statt, government, as they have done, 1 and hroad, and extensive as it is, was ieared; ant aand to present their constitotion here, and ask l1 it is by the iscoenition of that principle that it is to be admitted into this U1nion as one of the 1 at totsý day sutsiained. Sir, allow me to read fron-k sovereign States. They are the persons who are I the chart of our liberties, the Declaration of Indeto act, not us; they are the persons morn_. directly pendence: interested, and who have this, " ouwer. We havs 4We bhld thlee truaths to bs elTfevident: that atl icen are none. Californiah ag acted from riht as well as created e]qual; that they are enctowed by their Creator wiila from necessity. The people of that territory, I frtio iati enable Ierighrits; thiat amoa these are tile,libe rty, Sn!Cue tI- pu-i t of hiat,pness; thtat to secure these righta hold, have first the right, anwl, scondly, undlr t under ":venc~cs care iitiwnted amorg n en,,riving, their just that ric~latI thet e was a necessity for exercising it. t)o-,vee fronThe c ene of the governed; that whenever We have been told, within these halls, that we have -an N frtor of govce ninent bee toes doestuctive of these ends, no power to create a territo-ial government. That!it is this ri-i of this opts to alter or to a elic t it, and to is one doctrine. Another is, now1:, that the people titutpie new (fovernrnenCtltayin, its foundation on such is one doctrine. A~av@ nothoer is, nw, tht the pep principles, cnd or-sniezin its isowees in sucac form, as to,of the territory have no power to eerectthemnselves heni snall seenm mjt bItIely to ef-ceL their safely and Ihapinto a State. Taking both propositions, and pm- I piness.1 aenting them to the people of the territory, in It is too late in this eay to controvert or to deny what manner are they to institute a government, or these doctrine.So strongly have these princiin what manyner are they to become a part of this ples been cherishet in the hearts of our people, Union? We speck, sir, in just praise of the char- i that in almos9 every SIate in this Union, they have acter of our country-its influence upon other been incorporated as the fundamental principles of nations and other people; but, to my mind, there the State. The Senator from Alabama, [Mr. is no one single feature in all our guvernment, or Csi@.EmENs,] the other day, if I understood him in ito history, better calculated to spread abroad i1 right, controverted and denied thece propositions. its true character-there is no one incident in the Allow me to read, sir, from the constitution ot whole history of our people, or our govemanient, Alabama:,of which we may be more justly proud, than the "c Alt political power is inherent in the people, and all free institution of this government in California, governments are fotunded on their authority, and iistituted among a people assembled from every State ofri for their henert; and therefore they have, at all ttnes, an his Union, virtually without lasv. And when it 1 inalienable and iiidefeasible right to alter, reform, or aboliqS their foriti of government, in such manner as tbey may think was declared that the bowie-knife and the revolver e'qsediet"t nCbstitittica of SlabaEtnof would be the common law of the land, they, in Ii I will also read from the constitutions of Arobedience to the institutions under which they had kansas and Maine brief extracts: been taught to understan~d that they were ae reopon, Ceen t u d yhat all power is inherent in the people, and all free aible part-in obedietce to those lessons of civil governrents are founded on their authority, and instituted government and the rights of man which they had i for their peaee,safety,aand iappiasse. For the adv;incemnent learned vhile citizens -of the States-they asset - of these ends) they have, at all tiine-, an unqualified right, ~leanedwhie ctizns f te Sate-thy aseia- o~lteP rr~irefr or iabolishr their grover-ninent, ine such mawa 'bled themselves together, and from that necessity toi altr, reforni, ert5 ao shtir gov e is such anJiner as they thin proper."--Con-841htisao of Alrkansas. which existed, erected themselves into a State. It ccAll wiv-3 inherenit in the people; all free govern; is one of the finest features of our government. IImer are founded in their authoitty, anti instituted for their PNo other people up~on the face of th~is g~lobe, thus bene~ict They have, therefore, ani inalienarble and mm~'brought toehr aetho ~e who have been edu- fe ~ibis ri hIt to institu~te government, and to alter, reform, togthr, av or totallly rhlanee the: cam,when their safetyr and halppiness: eated in our States, and whv~o have bee~n mfade to r eqautre ito" O~,ua~i;t shea of Maisez. --- ~ ~ _ __ 6_I.-------- - _____ _Tll I --I--^-- Masschun setts,N ew Harpshirc,Verront, Con- sir, I have no lance to break here in the Senate vecticut, Pennsylvania, Dellawai-e, Miaryland, Vir- in defence of the Executive. Its champions on ginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, this floor will be found on tile other side of the Ohio, Indiana, Mlississippi, Illinois, Michigan, chamber. And while 1 have no defence to make Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, and other States, affilrn I for tlhe Executive, I have no reproaches to cast the same severei~gn and ettliatited capacity, of the I upon it, when it shall have done only its legitipeople to fhrm their constitutions. Nlow, we are niate duty. As to what is really the tree state of told that the people of California, having ocen de- ' the case, 1 believe we are all in doubt. The evivied by Congress any government, have no right 11 dence which has been submitted to us is yet with to erect theniselvwa into a State. The rilght of the the printer. I have been unable to learn precisely people to form a State, in such a case, is a propo- the character of tho ats of thia or of the past AdLition which I do not see fit to argue. It is a prop- ministration; but so far as I am authorized to osition which I am not disposed to discuss; it is judge by the declarations of General Riley him.. too well established, and the argument would self, the inference might well be drawn, that it was certainly add nothing to, if it did not weaken, the under the direction of the late, as well as the presproposition. I prefer rather to giva authorities ant Administration, that he saw fit to act so far at and precedents. he has acted in the formation of that government. But we must not forget that Oregon, the other Mr. KING, (in his seat.) Not at all. sister territory upon the Pacific slope, proceeded Mr. HAMLIN. The Senator from Alabamria precisely in the sarne course, in relation to her says notatall. I say again, so farasthe language early organization. She formed, under the right used by General Rile is concerned, we might be which the law of nature and of nature's God gave to justified in drawingthle inference, that whatevet tier, a government, until it was deemed proper and instructions he might have received, wers received expedient for ihis Government to extend to her a under the late, and not the present, Administration. territorial organization, and throwing the burden I say so, because I find this language used in the of that organization upon the General Govern- proclamation of General Riley: Iwent. " The method here iedies'ed to attain what is de'ired by My friend from Iowa [Mr. DODna] wouldtellIall, viz., a more pcrr-cte political organization, is deemed you, that in the early settlement of that country, 11 tile mocst direst ta(i saf. that can be adopted, and one Ilfly precisely similar goveranasoms existed, and that authorized by lIw. tt is the course advised by the Presipenalties of death were inflicted by the govern- dciii a h4 the Secretaries or State and of War of the United States. and is calculated to svoit the innumerable meat which they thernselves created, long ere the %vils ~vt7ieil inust noce-sariy rcsulat ron, say attempt at Government of the United States had thrown its iltegal treat tecgtation. it is therefore hoped, that it"wilt shield and protection, in the fermet of a territorial rneet the approbation of tile peopte of California, antd that government, over that countryt.It isbait the law ofI all goad citizeits till unite in carrying it into excution." xight, it is but the law of necessitj, 9which compels 1; Now, sir, that proclamation was issiied by Gennlca, when they are thus throwet togpther, in any eral Riley ttpon the 3d day of June, 1849. 1 learn country without law, to associate themselves to- 1! in the correspondence of Thomas Butler King, gether for cornmen bene'it, for comtmon protection, and from other sources, that on his first arrival in and for common lcfense. Sir, the people of Cali- California, subsequent to the inauguration of the fornia ehad that power, and they have exercised it. I present Chief Magistrate, he met this proclamai t is the exercise of a r.ght which they properly; tion by General Riley one day subsequent to that ossess; it is but the exercise of thtat rigrht which upon which it was isetled; or, in other words, that Eas been exrcised by nearly all the territories Mr. T. Butler Kinw the first individual who end all the States of this Union. Under the exer- arrived at California after the inauguration of eise of that right, they have come here, and ore- I President Taylor; consequently, there could have.vented to us their constitution for admission. been no such information as that to which General But I could go still further. I could quote from Riley could have referred as coming from the presthe most eminent statesmen in tha land. I could ent Administration. I am aware that both Mr. 4quote fromi the most learned jurists that our Buchanan and Mr. Marcy, (late Secretaries ofcountry ever produced. There is a concurrence Departments,) in this morning's paper, deny clearof opinion of statesmen, of politicians, of jurists, ly and unqualifiedly that any orders were issued -upon this point. I can find hardly a dissenting under either of these several departments, justify-,opinion until this latter day-in this day of prcr- inag the inference which General Riley draws. ress-when a few individuals have attempted to What the orders were which were issued frorn 'controvert the position, and to deny the doctrines i that department, remains for us to see when they *f the Declaration of Independence. With such shall be printed. They are not yet printed. It is,doctrines, sir, I have no sympathy, and in such enough for me to say, that the case stands thus. opinion, I have no belief. General Riley claims to have drawn from those inI will quote one single opinion from Justice atructions this authority or these directions. The Patterson, one of the justices of the Supreme Secretaries, upon the other hand, declare to us that Court of the United States: no such instructions were issuEd. We are bound. "The Constitution is a form of government delineated to believe, as I myself most fully believe, that no iy the mighty hand or ithe peopte. It is paramount to the such instructions were issued, as intending to give will of the legislature, anti is liable only to be revoked or to General Riley power or authority to draw such altered by those who made it."3 deductions from them as he he has drawn. The Now, it was in accordance with this very au- instructions are in our possession; and when they Almority, in accordance with this very right, that shall have been printed, we shall know precisely the people of California have acted in the forms- what they are. I have already stated that I have tion of their government. It is said, I know, been unable to learn precisely what they were; hiat that there hae been Executive interference. Now, it i6e enough fur me to say, that General Rileiy, iC he acted under any instructions, acted under some K gestive influence" on the part of the presert Adother than those of the present Administration. If ministration. Now, whatever may or no have you take his word for it -- been the influence of this Administration, I have Mr. KING. Will the Senator allow re to in- nothino- to say about it. But, granting th,ýt, it is terrtpt him? I am sorry to do so, but the tenor precisely as tho.--se who raise the objectior state, of his speech would lead me to believe that the late that there has been a "1 suggestive influence" used Administration, through the Secretary of State, or by the presett Administration in relation to the of the War Department, had given such instruc- formation of this gover-nment, and that "1 s-i.,,, esttions to General Riley as authorized him to act as ive influence" from1 tlhis Administration was, that he has done. Now, we have in our possession- the people possessed the power, and that they though it is true that the papers, have been sent to should organize theirselves into a government and the printer-a letter of the Secretary of State, Mr. seek admission as a State, who are they that make Buchanan, in which lie expressly advises the peo- these objections? Sir, they are men who are prepie of California to remain under the laws then in eluded by the record from raiAsing them here. The force, to wit, the Mexican laws-to get along as Senator from XWistconsin, [Mr. WALKER., very near well as they can, until Congress shall see fit to the last day of the last session of Congress, offered give them a territorial government. Mr. Marcy's an amendment to the appropriation bill, conferinstruction is of the same description, ring full and plenary, not to say despotic, power We have more, sir. General Persifer Smith's I upon the President of the United States, authorstatement is to this effect, whatever Mr. T. Butler izing him to establish all rides and regulatioas King may state: That the first steamer that ar- necessary for the government of that trritory. rived after the adjournment of Congress, broughit did not vote for that amptidendent. I did not bethe information that no action had taken place on lieve it was justifiable. Those who voted to put the part of Congress, giving a territorial govern- into the hands of the President full and plenary, meat; in consequence of which, General Riley not to say despotic, power, certainly cannot turn took the step he hlas. Now, if that was the first i round now, and say that the people of California arrival which took out Mr. Kingý, the statement( of ai are to be Ikept out of this Union,c simn1y because Gen. Peceifer Si-nth con flicts -,oi.- th that. of 1Thomyl as14, they acted ond~r a merely a't oeStm e inufluence" Butler King. ot the Executive. Senators whUo voted,as the Mr. DOWNS. if the Senator will pardon me, recotd shows, for conferring tall and plenary powI will state what I untlerstood to be the fact. The ers upn the President, authorizing bin to adopt fact wan, I believe, that Mr. King Qarrivein the a les and rehulations necessary for the (ovfirst steamer sent by order of the Government to c1 ei nent of that territory I sav have no right to San Francisco. 'But before that, a steamer had accuse the Executive ot exeresming the merely arrived at that place, and it was that one which it" su;estive influence" which lie n wy have extook out the first news that Conoress had ad- I erted tnere. They have no r,,eht t o complain of jouried without action; and, on the reception of the influence ofrthat sugacsion. If the President that news, as I am told by tie Senator elect fronmi has conducted himself improperly-if he has gone California, General Riley issued his proclamra- he)ond tle scope and poer of the Constitutiontion. i tf'ev may anraign hotim, and. others may defend Mr. HAMLIN. I have only stated what. I re- him-I will not. Bu. if I vote to puet full powers peat aaain. I made no charee avainst the late Ad- into the hands of any man, and if, stibse.-juently, Ministration, even if the matter were precisely as he exerctses a suggestive influence, I am the last Mr. Riley says lie understood it. I only sav that man on earth to complain of that influence, thur Mr. Riley has drawn that deduction from the int exercinad although I may cotplain of the maa structions which he received. That is all I need thui exercising it. The thing itself they have no say-all that I am justified in saying. That I right to complain of, though they may complain think is clearly evident from the fact, that this proc- of the President for doing it, and his friends on lamation of Gen. Riley, dated on the 3d of June, the other side of the chamber may defend him. was issued at an earlier date than any instructioin Mr. WALKER, (interposing.) If the Senator could have reached him from the present Adnlinis- pleases, I will remark, that it has been so often tration. That there were any such instructions, I repeated that my amendment gave plen -ry, if not do not pretend to say-I have never said. On the despotic, power to the President, that It is, perhaps, other hand, I have already stated that we have the neessary formet to say, that the aendmen, necessary for me to say, that the amendet authority of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Marcy for properly read and understood, will not warrant saying that no such instructions were issued, let such a conclusion. the instructions he what they may. It was only Mr. HAMLIN. I will read that part of the from these instructions that General Riley has iSenator's mendment on which I have been corndrawn his deductions. It is for him to answeir, f mentin--.not for me. Whether lie has drawn them proper- "f e I donot nderake o sa. Bu K Tied President or the united States is hewreby authior ly or improperly, I do not undertake to say. But ized to prescribe and establislh all proper and needful rules had the late Administration seen fit to have in- and regulations (in e. aformiy witti the constitution of the structed Gen. Riley to aid the people in the forma- United States) for the enforcement of said laws in said tertion of a Government there, leaving the people to 1ritory, aid for the preservation of order and tranquillity, act perfectly free, Iwould not have complained, and the establishmnent of jusaice therein; and fromn time to ujtime to modify or change the said rules and regulations in.but would h~ave justified it. sch manner as may sein et ohim*discreet and proper, and But there is one other point in this matter. Oh- to establish, temporarily, quei divisions, districts, posts, jections against the action of the people of the Ioffices, and all arrangrements proper for the executi~n of territory, are raised upon this side of the chamber sadIw" by another class of individuals, who say, as I un- IMr. WALKER. The Senator will find that derstand, that there may have been a merely " sug- 2i the Executivre irS limited to a "dconflormlity with the Constitution of the United States, and with "Those who shair prefer to remain in the Paid territories said law s."' may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or MN1r. HAMLIN. Precisely: I so understand it. acquire those of ciiizens of the United States. But they shail be tndrr tie oIfiigatirn to make their electionl within I did not understand, that the Senator designed to one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of travel 5utside of the provisions of the Constitution; this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territobut I did understand, that the power which was ries after the expii-ation of that year, without having deo conlrred upon the President by that amend- elared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, to c shall be consideted to have elected to becoin citizens of the ient, was to establish such needfttl rules and reg- United &tatei."1 ulations, in conform-nity with the Constitution of Now, sir, under the proclamation of General the United States, as he should deem fit and proper, Riley, I find that the qualifications of voters were making hitm not only the Executive, but Legis- thus defined lative, power to that Gov.rnrnent-giving him "Every fiee male citizen of the United States and of plenary power, within certain limits, to do just tpperiCaiforiia, twenty-one years of age, and actuaily a what he pieased. re ident in the district, hereafter has, and will be entitled to, the right of offarage; also clitzenc, of Lower California, who What were 11 proper and needful rudes and reg- have been forced t) go to that country on account ofhaving ulations?" The President was made the sole rendered assistance to the Aimierican army." *udge; it was placing a discretionary power in his The qualifications of voters, prescribed in that hands, and did authorize him- to determine, by his proclamation, are of two classes: first, American own will and judgment, what rules and regula- citizens residing in California; and second, citizens tions should govern that territory. Yet men who of Lower California, who have been forced to go voted for this, are alarmed at a 11 suggestive infou- to that country on account of having rendered asence" now. sistance to the American arty. I in told, that But, sir, in relation to this interference of the in consecqtence of the services which a certain Executive with the people of California, I wish to poltion of the Mexicans in Lower California rensay a single word. That there has been any in- dered to our vrmnies in the late war with Mexico, terference by the Executive of any Administration, somee four or five hundred did leave Lower Caliwhich would materially clittnge, or in any material fornia, iad establish themselves in Upper Califorsense affect, the action of that pteople, I do not be- nio. Then, sir, there was that crass of persons, lieve. They have acted tpon their own responsi- who were nut, by thee Laws of tihe laid,citizens of bility, and in conformity with their rights. They the cotntry. They were not Airnrican citizenw3 have so acted as has pleased themselves,nd tno other They did not possse@ s the rights, tof Amertcan citipower. What is the history of this matter? Some zens. But t f the Mexicans, who were reatime before the proclamation of General Riley was idents upon that territory at the ratification of the issued, the people in the;r primary meetings, with- 1 treaty of peace, were Amerie~an cit lens. The out even a sucruestsve influence fromn any Adoinre- I very tcrnms of the 8th article, to which I have attration, took prelinminary steps for the orartiszation ready referned, mke o thern citizens of this counof a government. Subsequently to the organiza- try. " Every Mexican citizen, residing, in that tion of these primary meetingci, Ge.eral Riley territory for the term of one year, is, and ehall be, issues his proclamation; and the tiie fixed by) considered to have made an election to beet me a General Riley is the very titus fixed by the people citizen of the United States." At the adoption of themselves in their own meetings, gotten up itt th) t constitution, more tho twelve months had opposition, if you please, to the proclansation of I elapsed, and every Mexican, no residing in that General Riley, or gotten up without any connection territory of Upper California, was an American with it. Sir, I discaid entirely all this talk about citizen, and had the sa me right to vote, that Amerinterference, either directly, indirectly, or suggest- ican citizens had, who tad gone there fromn tha ively, of any Administration, in relat ion to the peo- States. That eiass of Mexican, who had corme pie of that territory. They were a people who into the territory from Lower California, were, by knew their rights. They were a people calculated, the very article of the constitution, precluded fronm after knowing and understanding their rightS, to voting on its adoption. It.was ratified and conexercise themn, as they have already done, without firmed by American citizens only-by thos. who rcgard to any influence from any quarter. There had the right, as Anerican citizens, of voting. is in my mind, then), not the slightest force or im- The final ratification or adoption of this constituportance to be attached to this' declaration, that tion, was by tIre act of American citizens. This there has been any interference whatever, either was the last act in the progress of events. Who directly or suggestively. instituted the first proceedings-what influences But, it is said, that in the formation of this terri- operated before-is really of no practicu1 importtorial government, the people of all classes, climes, ance. The final act was that of tile people themand complexions were allowed to participate. A selves. That, at least, is enough for me. little examination into that matter, together with But, sir, there is a word to say in relation to this such information as I draw from the Senators and right of voting. The right of voting in our terRepresentatives who are here from that country, i ritories, in the formation of constitutions, is as will, I believe, show that this suggestion is totally varied as the right of voting in the States. I doubt incorrect. A part of the 8th article of the treaty if you can find, in any two territories of the is as follows: United States, that the same rule has been laid "Mexteans now established in territories previously be- down as regards the righrt of elective franchise. tonging to Mcxite, and. which remain for the future withiin the limits of tie United States, as defined by the present - Who voted in rAme when she become an indetreaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or pendent State, anti prepared her constitution for to reniove at any time to tre Mexican republic, retaining the admnission into tie Union? Sir, the negro voted property which they pos~sesrs in the said territories, or din- there; and was there any objection raised?. No, pos~ing thereof and removin~g the proceeds wherev~er tIteyrsr ews1eonz~f a t mrcn ctzn please, without their bseing sutijecied on this aecoutat to any sr ewsrcgie sa mrcnctzn contnibuation, tax, or charge whatever. Ind, voted titers then, as he votes t~here now. IL 9 was a question with which Congress had no right [Mr. CLEMENs] was pleased to rely-somewhat, to interfere. It was a question which belonged to as I thought, with an air of triumph-upon the that sovereign power to determine; and in her acts of this body in regard to the admission of judgment she saw fit to confer the right of voting Tennessee as one of the States of this Union. upon the colored man; and he exercised it then, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Maine, Arkanand exercises it to this day. Then, sir, when we sas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, and Iowa, were come to the State of Illinois, we find that foreign- admitted without any previous act of Congress ers voted there-that the very law of Congress, authorizing them to form a constitution; and Ohio, authorizing the admission of Illinois as one of the Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alasovereign States into this Union, made provision, bama, Missouri, and Wisconsin, with a previous that foreigners should vote for the adoption of act-making nine without an act, and eight with that constitution-in indirect terms, perhaps. It a previous act. prescribed-first, that every American citizen of There are some features in relation to these States twenty-one years of age, who had resided in that to which I beg leave to call the attention of the Senterritory for six months previous, should have the ate. First, that of Vermont. Senators will not forright of voting; and then provided, that every get that, under the clause of the Constitution which other person, that the people of that territory I have already read, new States may be admitted should see fit to bestow that right upon, should into the Union, but no new States shall be carved have the right to vote. The people of the territory out of old States, or be made by the junction of two did confer that right upon foreigners then residing or more States, without the consent of the Legislawithin her limits, and they did participate in the tures thereof, and of Congress. The point I raise formation of that- constitution, and have exer- is, that if sufficient reasons exist for a prior act of cised the right of elective franchise under that Congress for the admission of a State into this cqnstitution until within about two years. We Union, it applies with just as much force to a come to Michigan; and what do we find there? State coming, as Vermont, Kentucky, and Maine Michigan is a State which formed her consti- come, as to any of the other States, out of a territution without the consent of Congress pre- tory. There was just the same necessity for a viously given. 1 find in her constitution a pro- prior assent of Congress, in relation to the formavision, securing to foreigners the right to vote; tion of a State out of an existing State, as there and when she come here with her constitution, was for the making ofa constitution by the people asking admission of Congress into this Union, of a territory. I cannot see any real difference. by an express provision in her constitution, the There is none-there can be none. Then, in the foreigner in that State had the right of voting, early action of the Government, we find that VerWhy, sir, the rights of the people in these terri- mont, which was in fact an independent State, tories, in relation to the elective franchise, have during the Revolutionary war, although exercising been as varied as the rights in the States; and this is a jurisdiction conflicting somewhat with that of the first time that I ever heard an objection raised New York, presented herself here in '91, and was in the Senate, or in Congress, or an attempted in- admitted as one of the States of this Union-New terference, as to who should possess that right in York assenting simply for the purpose of quieting the territories, when they framed their constitu- the conflicting jurisdiction that existed between tions, or when they exercised the powers granted the two States. Her constiution was never preto them under a territorial government by Con- sented to this body for its consideration. gress. But suppose that foreigners were allowed, Kentucky was the next State admitted into this in the incipient stages, to vote upon the adoption Union. She was formed of a part of Virginiaof a constitution. The authorities to which I the Legislature of that State giving its consent. have alluded, I think, will satisfy every Senator, Virginia gave her consent December 18, 1789. An that it is a question which has never before been act passed Congress February 4, 1791, for the adraised-it is one which we cannot control: the mission of Kentucky as a State into the Union, to people of the territories themselves must de- take effect on the first day of June, 1792. When termine this question, and not us. i Kentucky applied for admission, she had not even There is another class of authorities, to which formed a constitution at all; nor had she done anyI beg leave to call the attention of the Senate: it is thing of the kind when the act passed admitting to those States which have been admitted into this her. But before that act took effect, she did meet Union. Now, sir, of all the States which have in a convention of her people and form a constitubeen admitted into this Union, nine have been ad- tion; but that was never presented to Congress. mitted without any previous assent of Congress to There was no consent either asked by Kentucky form a constitution, and eight with it. The rule is or given by Congress, for the formation of a conin favor of admitting States without the previous stitution in Kentucky. Officially, Congress inconsent, and not in accordance with a previous deed never knew whether Kentucky had a constiact. It is true, that in these various States I find tution or not. This is the history of the admission a difference. They are of several classes, dif- of Kentucky. fering somewhat, and hardly any two coming Now, sir, comes the next in order, Tennessee; within precisely the same rules. But I assert, and to that case I beg leave to call the particular and I have the authorities here by me, that nine attention of the Senate, because it is, as I think, of the seventeen States that have been admitted perfectly parallel in its bearings to that of Califorinto this Union, have been admitted without any nia I confess that I was much surprised at the previous authority having been given on the part remarks which fell from the Senator from South of Congress for the people thereof to form consti- Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] yesterday. He tells us tutions, and to erect themselves into a State, for that Tennessee, upon presenting herself here, was admission into the Union. The rule, then, is remanded back to her territorial condition. Let against that assent. The Senator from Alabama me tell the Senator that be is mistaken; that he has ____ 10 __ ___ not looked closely at the authority upon which he I all that territory which Congress had a right to has relied, and upon which he asks us to reject erect into two. She defined her own boundaries, that sister State upon the Pacific. After enumer- and took her own census. ating our duties, and after alluding to the case of Iowa formed her constitution November, 4, Tennessee, as one parallel in its character, the Sen-!1844, describing and defining her boundaries. ator from South Carolina tells us that we should pur- Under this constitution, on her application for adsue the course now which Congress pursued then. mission,'Congress passed a law, admitting lowa In that conclusion I concur. But the course which with different boundaries. This act was absoCongress did pursue then, is not the one which lutely refused by Iowa, and she was thrown back was indicated by the Senator from South Caro- into her territorial form of government. lina. No, sir. Tennessee was ceded to the United On the 18th of May, 1846, Iowa formed another States by North Carolina; and in that deed of ces- constitution, again describing and defining her sion, there was contained an express provision that boundaries. August 4, 1846, Congress passed an it should be admitted into this Union as one or act, defining the boundaries of Iowa, and taking more States, as Congress should determine, when the same boundaries named in the constitution of there should be sixty thousand inhabitants within I Iowa. December 28, 1846, she was admitted as the territory; and a territorial government was a State. formed in 1790 for the territory, by Congress. In It will be seen that Iowa thus erected her State 1796 there was the requisite number, and a cen- without the assent of Congress, defined her own sus was taken by the people of that territory, and limits, and took steh a part of the Tcrrior7y rof it was found that its population exceeded the Iowa as she chose, leaving what she did not see fit number specified in the deed of cession by North to include in the State. Carolina. She come here with her constitution i Sir, there are facts in relation to the other formed, and which defined her limits as including States, which would be pertinent, and would show the whole of that territory, which might be ad- a great analogy between California and them. mitted as two States, if Congress should so deter- But, as I have already enumerated a number mine. of States which have come in, without the au. Who settled that question? The people in that thority of Congress, to form a constitution, I wiltl territory settled it. Who formed their constitu- leave it there, with a single remark in relation to tion? They formed it without any prior consent, Texas. I include that in the number. There was or without asking the prior consent of Congress. a prior assent of Congress that she should be inWho fixed the boundaries? The people of that corporated within this Union. She was a foreign territory fixed their boundaries. And I agree with State. But the question which is now put in issue the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] -the question which we are called upon to dethat the action of Congress now, should be what it cide-is, whether the people of this territory have was then. What was that action? I take issue the natural, inherent right, and, having that right, with the Senator. He is wrong in his historical whether it was their duty, to exercise that power facts. I find, sir-but I will not trouble the Sen- of forming a constitution? So far, then,as the adate by reading: I have it here-I find that that mission of Texas was concerned, it certainly has constitution, upon the 8th of May, 1796, was pre- that analogy to this case. But while we gave an sented to the Senate in a manner precisely as this assent to her admission prior thereto, there was no has been presented, accompanied by a message assent to the formation of her constitution, learof the then President of the United States. It had ing that to the people, and without our interferbeen formed, and all the transactions attending it ence, precisely in the same way that it was left in have been as I have narrated. It come here. It the territories. There is another view in this conwas"referred to a committee of this Senate. That nection. The people, I hold, in California have committee reported. That report in substance-I higher claims upon us; and we are bound to recogwill not cite it at length-did lay down the posi- nize their acts with warmer commendation than tion, that, inasmuch as there had been no census we should the acts of those who have exercised taken of the people of that territory by the United the power of forming a constitution under a terriStates, and inasmuch as Congress had not deter- torial government. Under a territorial governmined whether there should be one or more States ment, there is a recognition of the power of the -that report did come to the conclusion that General Government, to give them the form at least the proceedings of the territory were informal, and of a territorial government, acting under that governthat she should be remanded back to her territorial ment which comes from the United States-acting condition. After a debate in this body, that re- under the authority which has been given to them port was accepted upon a vote of eleven to thirteen. by the General Government. There is a greater A bill in accordance with that report was pre- assumption of power upon those thus acting under sented, and passed-no division. It went to the a territorial government, if there could be an as.House. The kHouse took that bill, amended it sumption of power anywhere. There is a greater by striking out all after the enacting clause, and assumption of power by persons acting under a inserting two sections, admitting Tennessee as previous territorial government, than there is ii one of the States of this Union. That come back the people who have acted in California. In the to the Senate. The Senate insisted upon their territories to which I have alluded, they have a former vote. Conferees were appointed, and, in complete government, which protects them in all accordance with their report, the Senate receded their rights, which secures to them liberty, and from their former vote-thus admitting Tennessee, guarantees to them protection in everything whicl the first session she applied, and never remanding they enjoy. Not so in California. Coldly and her back to her territorial condition-never send- cruelly-I had almost said, wickedly-you have ing her back, but affirming her acts after she had refused to her any government at all; and then, thus embraced, within her own limits as one State, after having thus neglected to furnish her any government, you turn round and deny to her '10Mr. 1-JAM UN. No, sir; it was not to mnale a the authority to create a State for herself. If the State. It was a territorial bill-the teiritorial bill people of a territory come to Convre-s, and which come from the louse, with tho ordinance of ask for cur bounties ard our protection under 17187 in it. That it;the very hill. Thst insall thA a territorial government, which is a mere an- idfcilrence between nieoauz end fuloat. pendage to thip, Union, and which, as such, is Sir, in this conuectot), and as af'ectintr bspe-, supported, and protected, and guarded, and fo- p 'ipe of California, I have another autliority, to tered by the Government, they would have less which I beg lcave to call the attention of the Seanecessity for forming a State for themselves, than 1 ate. It is an extract which I make from the the people of California have; yct in such casca, "'Union," a newspaper published in thts place, of their acts and their right to act have Ueen fully February 4, 1849, a little more than one year since: recognized, as we have seen. "The Swouth denies thit Congress has any jurisdiction Mr. TURNTLY, (interposing.) I should like over the. jter 6of stavery, avd conteads that tho people of to inquire whether the Senator was not in faivor the lrrdlsries alone., whenathee frame a ennatitutiet, preof no territorial government for' thlis territorFy a paratory to admi-sion into the Unaion, have a right to speaA, afl ie he eard eo that neltlr. Tinis FACT BEING CSTTLEDe it the last Congress? I would inquire whether he really ceens to us that sties exeitiag question might be has voted for any bill proposing such a govern- speedily adjusted, if calmn counsels prevail. The South ment, or whether the gentleman himself did not 'I onteat for her hoane, and for the great principles of ionI intervention and State equatity. Why, then, cannot al? uniformly vote against any bill giving her such a unite, antd permit California to coine into the Union as sooni territorial government? as ushe cn JOrin, a. constjtstioa l Mr. HAMLIN. I recollect, Mr. President, Now, air, what was the influence which suchi what the Senator refers to. I do not design to be 1! an article, published its the official organ oif the drawn from the thread of my argument here, but Government, was calculated not only to have I will answer, briefly, that 1 recollect very -well upon the people of that country, but Upon the how I voted upon a motion submitted by the hot)- peo ple who should Igo there? Why, sir, it was orable Senator from Illinois. The motion wvas recognilizing, ittall its length and breadth, the power made by that Senator [Mr. DOUGLAs] that the for xvhich I coitend-the l-ower to forrm a State as Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill he shall see fit. f nt, Now, v ita infchittee of that givieg a ci ritorial goteminent, to Cal-i-o-nia, press must have I eon i It even upOn the Pacific at the last session. For that motion I voted coast, laying down the doctrine, that the people with great cheerfulness-l refer to the bill that 11 had a right to forrm- that goverumetit-nay, gootg had passed the House. For that bill I sittauld as far as the people hotve gone-ihat they had a have voted. I think the Senator from Teennessee rigo-h tso admit or reject the in-stitution of slaveery, [Mr. TURNEY] was found voting in the negative, as they should see fit. Let sue asik now, in) the thus preventliag tIe Senate front acting on that bilH. language of the " Union,'' why all this excitemnent Another thing: I have voted on all occasions for 11 cannot subside, and why cannotl all unite anvdpesgovernments to those territories-such govern- mit California to conic 1in10 this Uitios WhySir, ments as 1 believed the people of those teiritories whatever cny be sy opinions in relation to the. themselves wanted, and such as I believe(] were powers or the duties of this Governtatent over the right. It is true, the Senator from Teninesser. and territories, I have a right to insist, that those who mryself lhave riot always agreed in our opinions promulgated such doctrines, are hound by the acts as to what bills wvere best adapted to the tern-i of that people, having been instrumental in intories- ducing thenm to perform these very acts. Mr. TURNEY. I would ask of the Senator But, sir, let me reaid another extract from ths whether he voted for the Clayton bill, which last annual message of the late Executive, Presi. neither admitted nor excluded slavery in the dent Polk, and see what was the langruage then establishment of a territorial government for Cali- held upon this question, whether Congress shall fornia, hut left it to the judiciary? legislate or not: Mr. I-lAM LIN. I did no such thing. I did!I Eriractforen the iannuatl Mesa -e of President Peol, pDfcm - not vote for the Clayton bill. I regarded it as no e rer n 5,t848. compromise of the saestion at ll btlt as a sto l translate or not, the People to qu at,cuts- the acituireit territories, when assembled in conventioit to ning device to spread slavery in that territory. nobrn state constitutons, wiil possess ttie sole and exclusive And for such a bill the Senator from Tennessee power to detennine for themscives wvlether slavery shall, or knew well that I never would vote. Such was my shalt not, e"ist within ther lirmats. If Conresse shall abofewwellthatbIll.n OtherwoulSvotenatoSuc wary stain froun itierfering with the question, the people of these opinion of that bill. Other Senators, I am aware, 1 territories wilt Its left fres, to adjust it as they may trink entertained a differert opinion. I think that biil did i proper, vhen tltey apply for admissiot as States into the not leave it to thejudiciary even. There was nO way Uniot." by which to reach the judiciary provided in the bill. Here is clear and certain authority for the people If there had been, it would have been perfectly to do just what they have done-exclude slavery nugatory. That proposition was most admirably from the State. And yet vho doubts that she is, ridiculed in the speech of the Senator from Ohio, in fact opposed it her admission, for having done "during the last Congress, now in my eye, [Mr. that very thing? Was not this an inducement for CoRwtIN.] He asked whether the slave would the people thus to act? and, followed up by its have power to come on here from California to official organ, recognizing the doctrine of the right protect himself by an appeal to the Supreme I of the people thus to act, inducing them by this Court? The idea was so preposterous, that I sup- 11 very course thus to act, are we to turn routd now, posed it was admitted on all hands, that that bill and coldly say that they are to be remanded contained no such provision as would give to the bback-not to a territorial government, for they alave any practical rights in the Supreme Court. had ssone-but backr to a quasi civil government, Mr. BU6TLER, (in his seat.) This was a bill or where what is precisely the, law none seem to to make a State, for wdInch the Senator voted, kj nowi And, sir, 1 have an~other extract to read, It is from. a speech delivered by the Senator from nacy with which individual, as well as nations, South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] in February, 1849. have adhered to their boundaries, has been the It says: cause of the shedding of more blood than any 1 Sir, [rsaid fie] I hold it to be a fundamental principle of' other, save that of religion, in the history of the our political svstein, that the people have a right ta establimob liworld. Of all wars that have deluged the earth, what gove,-nment they rosy think proper for thermieelves; sore blood has been shed in the defense of the -that every State, shout to become a menber of thins Union, boundaries of nations, than for any other cause, has a right to form its own governrmnt ras it p aEndes; n save that to which I In e alluded. that, in order to be admitted, there is tut one qualileation, and that is, that the overnrnent. shall be repimblica. There Sir, the fable of the Garthagenian, Philwnii, is is no express provision to that efiret, but it results fmiom that not without its instructive lessons. Where they important section which guarantees to every State in this fell, monuments were erectet to their memory; Union a republican form of government." and there was the boundary of Carthage. Now, Now, sir, even the Senator from South Carolina, sir, the aroument 1 deduce from nall this is, if there one year since, standing here as an exponent of is so nuch implortance to be attached to houndathe institutions of the South, then raised his voice, riea of nations, then we should give our assent to encouraging the people to go there-people to the admission of California, and not circumscribe whom we had furnished no government-encour- t her because she may not have fixed precisely the aging them to perforn the very acts which they limits that might have been preferred by some of have now performed. What may be his opinion us. To prevent that very conflict which night upon the right of the people to form a constttution, 1 arise from changing the boundarie5, is the very I do not know; but I hold, that the people in Cali- reason, of all others, why we should accept her as formia might well claim to act under such opinions she is. as are here expressed. But, sir, what are her boundaries? It is true Sir, I could quote from now until the sun goes tLat she contains from one hundred and forty to one down-I could quote until it rises to-morrow hundred asd fif.y thousand square miles. She is mriorning-from statesmen, orators, and news- boundedt upon the north by Oregon-I suppose papers of the South, recogniziig the very doctrine no Senator will chasge the limits of that territhat they were willing to leave tsis question to tory: she is boun ded upon the east by thfe Great the people of the territory. After having thus Desert; she is bounded upon the soutla by Mexico, encouraged theim to perform nthe very act, which and upon the southeast by a desert. Now, sir, was admitted as legitimate and proper for theam to lsoloing at the description of that country, there do, it is too late in the day,' atec this, Setsators, tc would, in the opinion of 'some, be a better boundattempt to resist the admission of Colifornkl, for ary, to take tse crest of the Sierra Nevnda for no other or better reason, than that ese has not'her eastern bouttdry; but frona the isformatior acted in conformity with a prior act of Congotrss. wk7h I Ch has been Inparted, to me by Senators and There mrust be an assert of Cottyrcse, it I' true, Renrtesent.- ives of that State, I learn, that rpona and in thiN 3cotection I beg leave to say, that it is tlb- eiestern slope of the Sierra Nevada, there is far better in all eases that there should be a prlorl a long belt oflandt, varying frona tot to thirty application to Congress, that no qtestions 4of: tes in breadth, which can be attached to no boundaries, that no other questions tending to other State is ttat sectios, asd it is valueiess, enproduce corsfict, may ar-ie, wl-en s!el cornes to timely, unless connected with California. Whether ask her final admission. It would be vastly beter it willle valuable there, tinse alone can deterthat there should be, in all cases, a, prelinilnary ate-s mio,- For grazing and for agricultural purposes, taken by Congress. But as California lies seen-l it may have some'e lioht value; but as a mere belt fit to adopt for herself a constitution witsout this of lansd lying West of, and bordering, that desert, vpreliminary act'Why, every osan know that when it could be inlcorporatec into no other Stale in this we do adrmit her, that Is tse aswent of Congres, I Unios, yave the State of California, where it is as broad, as clear, as positive, as if it had preceded to be incorporated. Yes, sir, the very construeit. Here I leave the question of the right of the l ion of that country renders it so horftooeneous, people to form a constitution, without the consent' while it is so large that it should retain its present -of Congress. 1 bound-ries. Look at its situation. Ilere is the Having the right to form a constitution, has that Sacramento rising in the north, and the San Joaquin right been so exercised that she should be admit- risinsg in the south, coming to a commors centre, ted as a State? The first objection raised is one and finding their outlet upon the Pacific. You may relating to her boundaries. The Senator from erect newStates upon the slope ofthat country, and South Carolina, [Mr. BUTLER,] now before roe, if you choose, you may dot it over with States no upon this, speaks with much emphasis. This larger than Delaware and Rhode Island. But question of boundary is one of importance; it is every man knows, from tlse homogeneous charone in which the governments interested are to be actem of the country, that while the Sma Joaquilt eonsulted. I concur in all the importance of the must run north, and the Sacramientto run south, its boundaries of a State-in all the importance which commerce, its products, its wealth, its everything, the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. must float down those rivers to a comnimon centre. BUTLER] attaches to them. I hold it is just as. You may as well speak of preventing the proeluccompetent for us to give our assent to the bound- 11 tions of the mighty West from going down to aries now, as it would have been to have given New Orleans. You may as well attempt to divert our consent at the outset. I know the tenacity them by your artificial communications overland; with which individuals, as well eas nations, adhere while thte M4isissippi shall rums to New Orleans, to monuments. We all know that god Terminusts that dep6t must be the one where all the commerce has been an obstinate god, from tIme very creation, west w~ill go. So5 in rel Ation to this State ofCaliforlie might as well be celled, and for atlght Ii kisow ni:tishmgeo;te mmrefth is, the legitimate offpring of Mlars. The obsti- I coniatry and evmoeryhngos connected wi th ims find its outlet upon the coast of the Pacific,. t the port of San Francisco; and w;hat rautets it so far as we may be concerned, wChe-ther that river hAall water one or more Statec:i? The people of that country will be 'hou nd together by a common int er'est, and should be embraced in one State. But, sir, it is said, beceuse s1e pý,asseses an area of one hu n J riAd and fP-rty, or oce h und rd and fifty, thousand equsre mi te, that we are not to receive her at this time as a State of this Union. I think, Mr. President, neither you nor 1, nor any other Senator, heard these startlino cam plaints, when our,siter T(,xas come in as one Of the States of this Union. There was noGthing to startle or alarm the public inind then. Texas with her three hundred and twenty-five thousand square miles, was not rejected because she was too large a State. No attempt was made to keep her oui of the folds of this Union, because she possessed an area about five times as large as our largest State. No complaints or objections then of this sort were made. Novv, sir, taking the bill of the Senaton from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON)-! thinkc that cireumscribes Texas within the asaallest limitstaking that bill, and reducing the territory of Texas, with her consent, to the limits which that bill proposes, you will fird that Texas still remains with one hundred atid fifty thousand square miles, and is larger than California with a territory that has the capacity to sustain a population ten times as large as that of California. And where is the alarm at the bill offered by the senator from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON?] Where is the alarm that it does not reduce T'exas down to a proper limit? But it may he said, that there is contained in that bill, as there was in the orginal articles of annexation, a provision that she may be divided. Granted, sir. You have no more jurisdiction over her than if she were not admitted with that provision. We might, if we please, put it in the bill adlmitting California. She may be divided at some subsequent period, with her content. That gives us no greater power to make a division at some subsequent time, than if such a provision were not contained in it. It would be a matter of agreement between the government of the United States, and the people of that State, whether she should be -evered or not-whether the plovision contained in her act of admission chould be carried out or not: she holds, the power within her own hands. So long -as Texas shall insist that she will not be reduced, it is not within our power to touch her. \Vhenever she shall grant thtt assent, it ma ny be done. So with Cadlifornia; if, at any subsequent ppriod of time) it should be deemed ey pedient or pI)oper to circumscribs her in her limits, with the assent of thle people of that State, it can be done. Without her consent, it could not be done. Again: judging from the inform1ation -we can gather from that country, there cannot be a single doubt, that the cspacity of Illinois, the capacity of Indiana, of Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or any of our firet-class agricultural States, is vastly greater to sustain a population, than the territory embraced within the limits of California. One of those best acquainted with the mnatter has asserted that there is more arable land in the State of Massachusetts, amall as she is, than is to be found within the whole limits of California. However that may be, it is beyond a doubt, that one of our first-class States contains the el-cements of a vastly greater pnpulation, andd poseessere a vastly greater numberof acres of arable lant. Then, srs, takincg her homogeneous character, taking the quality of her soil, w1;e can h ave, I apprehend, no doubat upon our minids, that we shall an t only be justifitd in admitting', b-ut that we are imperiously called upon by every p)rinciple of reason and justice to admllit California, as one of oar sister States, in this Republic. But it is said that no census ha been taken of her population, end tlacrefo-e she should be rernandced bacIt to her ot iginal. condition. Who. heard these arguttents, of perfect equality in population, so eloquently enfarced by the honorable Senator from1 Alabarna, [LMr. CLEMENS,] when Florida came here asking for admission? The honorable Senator from Alabama was not here then to raise his voice against the admission of Florida, because she did not present a perfect equality in population; or, in other words, because she did not, to a certainty, possess a population which would entitle her to one Representative in the popular branch of Congress. Now, we find that, of all colors and complexions, in 1840, she had only fifty-four thousand, while more thart seventy thousand inhabitants were needed as the basis for one Representative. Deducting two-fifths, not representable, of the colored population, and she had only about forty thousand. Was there any individual then alasmed, lest the compromises of the Constitution would be trodden down, if Florida come in vith her population thus limited r This was her population in 1840. Allowing her for a progressive increase, and she could not have had fifty thousand at the time of her admission. When Texas came in, no provision was made to ascertain, by act of Congress, her population, for the purpose of coming down to that rule of perfect equality which was so forcibly illustrated by the honorable Senator from Alabama, [Mr. CLEMENS.I Well, how was it in relation to Texas? Was there any particular allarm in relation to that territory, lest it should not have a population large enough to entitle it to an admiission into this Union? Was there any fear that the compromises of the Constitution were to be broken down, and that she wooq to be remandled back to her independent position until a census should Ie taken? No. There never had been a census taken, at any preomits time to that when sloe canoe and knocked at the door foridmi-nio n into this Union; and the hionorable @ Senntor from Texas [Mr. Rosx] told us the othar day, in his, placa liee, that they had a populatiot less than thirty tlhousand with which to achieve thwir independence. Well, sir, shie had a nopulation, in fact. sliglttly beyontl that which would have entitled her to one representative. Thic honorable Setotor front Texas Imimnseif remnarked to me, in anaswer to an interrogatory, thati-Lhe probably had about eighty thousand. California, from info-Ihrmation upon which reliance can well be placed, tns a population from 110000 to 120,000 inhabitants, and is increasing with astonishing rapidity. There is, in the 9-,h article of the treaty of peace with Mexico, a stipulation that the territories ceded to our Government shall be incorporated into the union of the United States. There should he no obligation of a nation more sacred, or more faithfully complied with. than that which is con 14 tained in its treaties with other governments. Our treaty with Mexico imposes upon us an obligation which we cannot disregard at this time, unless we mean to be faithless to oan treaty stipulations. THere is the article to which I refer: "A'r.. 9 The Mexicans, who, in the Territories afore said, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican republic, eonforrnably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to tije enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the Unite l States, according to the principles of the Constitution; aond in the mean time, shall be mnaiitainied and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion, without restriction.'" Now, such Mexicans as remained in the territory for twelve months after the ratification of the treaty of peace with Mexico, became thereby American citizens. Under the 9th article, it is expressly stipulated that they shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States. Taking the existing state of things into account, who can doubt for a single moment what is our duty, and whether we should not give our assent now? True, we are made the tribunal which is to judge of the time. In the exercise of that power we are to deal justly; and with the population now in California, and with its rapid increase, we are bound by the highest consideration to admit California. To my mind, there can be no reasonable doubt. It is certainly no more than fair to admit that, when California has a population as large as she now has, we should admit her at once and without delay. Taking the history of the Government, the manner in which States have been admitted, the character of the country, its population, its homogeneous character, our obligations to admit them, the right which the people of the country had to act, the manner in which they did act, it seems to me there cannot rest upon the mind of any individual a doubt that we should admit this State. And the question, the only question, under the view which I take of this matter is, " Is the constitution which she has presented to us republican in its form?" That, sir, it appears to me, is the simple question which we are to determine- Such, I believe, is the constitution of California. She has created it in pursuance of her rights. It is, to all intents and purposes, a State, so far as her action is concerned; it is a State, and it will be a State of this Union, when we shall have admitted it within our limits, and when we shall have passed the necessary laws to make it so, as we will. The simple, plain question then is, "Is the constitution presented here republican in its character?" I have heard no exception to it. I have heard no Senator interpose that objection; and from a careful examination of all its features, no man can come to any other conclusion than that it is republican, and that it has within it many features which challenge our admiration. It has many features which might well excite admiration, and induce older and other States to follow its example. She has, first and foremost, already provided for i| the educraion of her children, and there is nothing that serves so much to elevate the character of a people, and promote the best interests of a State, as general education. Wherever education is promoted, and the character of the people is elevated, we have lorng since learned that the duties and services of the recruiting sergeant will be much less required. She has secured the right of suffrage to every freeman. She has prohibited slavery within her limits. Other States of the South have guarantied it. There are a variety of other features in the provisions of her constitution well worthy of commendation and imitation. There is one other point which Senators should not lose sight of. She must come in, if she comes in at all, with her present limits-her present boundaries. Any change in her boundaries will remand that State back to her former condition. The provisions of her constitution are such that, if changed, all that she has done in the election of her representatives, the formation of her constitution, the creation of her government, must fall, and she go back again to her natural rights-again to prepare another constitution, which shall conform to the will or wishes of Congress, if this does not. We are not, then, to lose sight of the fact, that any change, however slight, in relation to the boundaries of this territory, is a rejection. We may as well reject her in terms as to reject her indirectly. We may as well refuse to admit her at all as thus to refuse to recognize her boundaries, and thus to reject her indirectly. It cannot, it seems to me, remain doubtful as to what is our duty to those whom we represent, as well as to the people of California. We should admit her, and admit her at the earliest day possible; and the earlier the day the better, not only for her, but for the whole country. There have been various reproaches cast on the people of these territories. A sufficient answer to all this might be found in the character of the Senators andRepresentatives which she has sent here, and who are worthyand true representatives of that people. Any State might well be proud of such a delegation. Yet the people have been denominated squatters and vagabonds, and almost every opprobrious epithet has been cast upon them. But who are they who have gone to that land, and are thus vilified? Why, this constitution which they have presented here is the evidence of their handiwork; it is an evidence of the character of the people; and I may aay, from what I know of that people, that they may challenge a comparison with the constituents of any Senator on this floor. They are intelligent, worthy men, who have gone there to build up a Republic, and to make it one of the marts of commerce, which shall connect us with the fardistant East. They have gone there to adorn that land, and make it bud and blossom as the rose. They have gone there and asserted their rights as citizens of our country, and have come here asking us to admit them into this Union as one of its sovereign States. That, sir, is the question for our decision. Judging from indications which cannot well be mistaken-judging from the indications which are all around us-1 have no doubt that she is to be welcomed into this Union, and the State of California is to be known as one of our sisters, and her star is to stud with other stara our national flag. ~-----` ~ - '-----~I-- -- ----~- - THE WAR WITH MEXICO. SPEECH OF. HON. JOHN A. DIX, OF NEW YORK, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 26, 1848, On the Bill reportedfrom the Committee on.Military Affairs to raise, for a limited time, an additional Military Force. Mr. DIX said: Mr. President, it was my wish to address the Senate on the resolutions offered by the Senqtor from South Carolina, [Mr. CALnHOi,] and not on this bill. I should have preferred to do so, because I am always unwilling to delay action on any measure relating to the war, and because the resolutions afford a wider field for inquiry and discussion. But as the debate has become general, and extended to almost every topic that can well be introduced under eitherthe force of the considerations by which I have been influenced, has become so weakened, that I have not thought it neceseary to defer longer what I wish to say. Two leading questions divide and agitate the public mind in respect to the future conduct of the war with Mexico. The first of these questions is, Shall we withdraw our forces from.the Mexican territory, and leave the subject of indemnity for iujuries and the adjustment of a boundary between the two Republics to future negotiation, relying on a magnanimous courseof conduct on our part to produce a corresponding feeling on the part of Mexico? There are other propositions, subordinate to this, which may be considered as parts of the same gqneral scheme of policy, such as that of withdrawing from the Mexican capital and the interior districts, and assuming an exterior line of occupation. I shall apply to all these propositions the same arguments; and if I were to undertake to -distinguish between them, I am not sure that I should make any difference in the force'of the application. For whether we withdraw from Mexico altogether, or take a defensive line which shall include all the territory we intend to hold permanently as.indemnity, the consequences to. result from it, so far as they affect the question of peace, would, it appears to me, be the same. The second question is, Shall we retain the possession of the territory we have acquired until Mexico shall consent to make a trqaty of peace which shall provide ample compensation for the wrongs of which we complain, and settle to our satisfaction the boundary m dispute?, Regarding these questions as involving the permanent welfare of the country, I have considered them with the greatest solicitude; and though never more profoundly impressed with a sense of the responsibility which belongs to the solution of problems of such mggiitude and difficulty, my Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. reflections have, nevertheless, led me to a clar and settled conviction as to the course which justice and policy seem to indicate find demand. The first question, in itself of the highest importance, has been answered affirmatively on this floor; and it derives additional interest from the fact, that it has also been answered in the affirmative by a statesman, now retired from the busy scenes of political life who,. from his talents, experience, and public services,justly commands the respect of his countrymen, and whose opinions on any subject are entitled to be weighed with candor and deliberation. I have endeavored to attribute to his opinions, and to those of others who coincide with him wholly or in part, all the importance which belongs to them, and to consider them with the deference due to the distinguished sources from which they emanate. I believe I have done. so; and yet I have, after the fullest reflection, come to conclusions totally different from theirs. I believe it would be in the highest degree unjust to ourselves, possessing, as we do, well-founded claims on Mexico, to withdraw our forces from her territory altogether, and exceedingly unwise, as a matter of policy, looking, to the future political relations.of the two countries, to withdraw from it partially, and assume a line of defence, without a treaty of peace. On the contrary, I am in favor of retaining possession, for the present, of all we have acquired, not as a permanent conquest, but as the most effective means of bringing about, what all most earnestly desire, a restoration of peace; and I will,.with the indulgence of the Senate, proceed to state, with as much brevity as tha magnitu&Au ~of theaulheit admits, my objections to the course suggested by the first question, and my reasons in favor of the course suggested by the other. I desiie, at the outset, to state this proposition, to the truth of which,-I think, all will yield their assent: that no policy which does not carry with it a reasonable assurance of healing the dissensions dividing the two countries, and of restoring, permanently, amicable relations betweeh them, ought to receive our support. We may differ in opinion, and, perhaps, hopelessly', as to the measures best calculated to produce this result; but if it were possible for us to come to 'an greement in respect to them, the propriety of their adoption could 2 scarcely admit of controversy. This proposition period exceeding fifteen thousand men, and against being conceded, as I think it will be, it follows, that forces from three to five times more numerous than if the measure proposed-to withdraw our forces those actually engaged on our side, in every conflict from Mexico-be not calculated to bring about a since the fall of Vera Cruz. speedy and permanent peace; but, on the contrary, I had occasion, on presenting some army petiif it be rather calculated to open a field of domestic tions a few weeks ago, to refer to the brilliant sucdissension, and possibly of external interference, cesses by which these acquisitions were made; and in that distracted country, to be followed, in all I will not trespass on the attention of the Senate probability, by a renewal of active hostilities with by repeating what I said at that time.* But I canus, and undei" circumstances to make us feel se- not forbear to say, that there is a moral in the converely the loss of the advantage which we have test, the effect of which is not likely to be lost on gained, and which it is proposed voluntarily to ourselves or others. At the call of their country surrender,-then, it appears to me, it can present our people have literally rushed to arms. The no claim to our favorable consideration. I shall emulation has been to be received into the service, endeavor to show, before I sit down, that the pol- not to be excused from it. Individuals from the icy referred to is exposed to all these dangers and plough, the counting-house, the law-office, and the evils. workshop, have taken the field, braving inclement I do not propose to enter into an examination seasons and inhospitable climates without a murof the origin of the war. From the moment the mur; and, though wholly unused to arms, withcollision took place between our forces and those standing the most destructive fire, and storming of Mexico on the Rio Grande, I considered all hope batteries at the point of the bayonet with the coolofan accommodation,withoutafull trial of strength ness, intrepidity, and spirit of veterans. I believe in the field, to be out of the question. I believed I may safely say, there has been no parallel to the peculiar character of the Mexicans would ren- these achievements by undisciplined forces since der any such hope illusive. Whether that colli- the French revolution. I am not sure that hission was produced in any degree by our own mis- tory can firnish a parallel. As to the regular takes, or whether the war itself was brought about army, we always expect it to be gallant and heroic, by the manner in which Texas was annexed to and we are never disappointed. The whole conthe Union, are questions I do not propose to (is- duct of the war in the field has exhibited the cuss now; ant if it were not too late, I would sub- highest evidence of our military capacity. It conmit whether the discussion could serve any other purpose but to exhibit divided councils to our ad- * The reference alluded to is contained in the following extract: versary, and to inspire him with the hope of ob- r will not detain the Senate by entering into any detailed taining more favorable terms of peace by protracting review of these events with a view to enforce the appeal his resistance. No one can be less disposed than contained in the petition on the attention. I hope,however, myself to abridge, in any degree, the legitimate I may be indulged in saying, in justice to those who bore a part in them, that the first conquest of Mexico cannot, as it boundaries of discussion. But I am not disposed appears to me, be compared with the second, either as to the to enter into such an investigation now. The obstacles overcome, or as to the relative strength of the inurgent concern is to know, not how the war origi- vaders. The triumphs of Cortez were achieved by policy nated, not who is responsible for it, but in what and by superiority in discipline and in the implements of warfare. The use of fire-arms, until then unknown to the manner it can be brought to a speedy and honor- inhabitants of Mexico, was sufficient in itself to make his able termination; whether, as some suppose, we force, small as it was, irresistible. In the eyes of that simought to retire from the field, or whether, as ap- ple and superstitious people he seemed armed with superears to me, the nly hope of an accommodation human power. Other circumstances combined to facilitate ears to me, the only hope o an accommodat his success. The native tribes, by whom the country was lies in a firm and determined maintenance of our possessed, were distinct communities, not always acknowlposition. edging the same head, and often divided among themselves The probable consequences of an abando'nment by implacable hostlity and resentments. Cortez, by his consummate prudence and art, turned these dissensions to of the advantages we have gained may be better un- his own account; he lured the parties to them into his own derstood by seeing what those advantages are. I service, and when he presented himself at the gates of the speak ki a military point of view. While address- city of Mexico, he was at the head of four thousand of the ing the Senate in February last on an army bill most warlike of the natives, as auxiliaries to the band of Spaniards, with which he commenced his march from Vera then under consideration, I had occasion to state, Cruz. Thus his early successes were as much the triumph that the whole of northern Mexico as far south as of policy as of arms. General Scott, and the gallant band the mouth of the Rio Grande and the 26th parallel he led, had no such advantages. The whole population of of latitude was virtually in our possession, co- the country, from Vera Cruz to Mexico, was united as one rof latitude was virtuall i our tpossetssion, con- man against him, and animated by the fiercest animosity. prehending about two-thirds of the territory of that He was opposed by military forces armed like his own, republic, and about one-tenth of its inhabitants, often better disciplined, occupying positions chosen by themOur ac"cuisittons htnv aincw beti aunmented by the elvr-, atrg by nature, and fortified according to the reduction of Vera Cruz and the Castle of San uan stritst rules of art. These obstacles were overcome by reduction of Verahis sill as a tactician, aided by a corps of officers unsurde Ulua, the capture of Jalapa, Perote, and Puebla, passed for their knowledge of the art of attack and defence, the surrender of the city of Mexico, and the occu- and by the indomitable courage of their followers. With,pation of the three States of Vera Cruz, Puebla, half his force left on the battle-field or in the hospital, and S i i r millions and a half o ith less than six thousand men, after a series of desperate and Mexico, with nearly two millions and a half of conti~ts, he took possession of the city of Mexico, containsouls. It is true, our forces have not overrun every ing nearly two hundred thousand inhabitants, and defended portion of the territory of those States; but their by the remnant of an army of more than thirty thousand chief towns have been reduced, the military forces soldierp. I confess I know nothing in modem warfare which exceeds in brilliancy the movements of the American army which defended them captured or dispersed, their from the Gulf to the city of Mexico. I shall not attemlt to civil authorities superseded, their capital occupied, speak of them in the language of eulogium. They are not a and the whole machinery of government within the fit theme for such comment. Like the achievements of tates transferred to our hands. General Taylor and his brave men on the Rio Grande, at conquered States virtually transferred to our hands. o ey ounnad h o et S this has been acieved wit an a at no on Monterey and Buena Vista, the highest and most appropriate AI. this has been achieved with an army at no one praise is contained in the simplest statement of facts." 3 firms an opinion I have always held-that a soldier is formidable in ratio of the importance he possesses in the order of the political system of which he is a part. It establishes another position of vital importance to us: that, under the protection of our militia system, the country may, at the termination of every contest, lay aside the more massive and burdensome parts of its armor, and become prepared, with energies renewed by that very capacity, for succeeding scenes of danger. Mr. President, the political condition of Mexico has been gradually approaching a dissolution of all responsible government, and of the'civil order, which constitutes her an independent state. This lamentable situation is not the fruit alone of our military successes. The factions, by which that country has been distracted, each in turn gaining and maintaining a temporary ascendency, and often by brute force, lie at the foundation of the social and political disorder which has reigned there for the last twenty years. To most of the abuses of the old colonial system of Spain, she has superadded the evils of an unstable and irresponsible government. The military bodies, which have been the instruments of those who have thus in succession gained a brief and precarious control over her affairs, though dispersed, still exist, ready to be re-united and to renew the anarchy which we have superseded, for the time being, by a military government: and this brings me to the first great objection to the proposition of withdrawing our armies from the field. I have already said that no policy can deserve our support which does not hold out the promise of a durable peace. Nothing seems to me more unlikely to secure so desirable a result, than an abandonment of Mexico by us at the present moment without a treaty., leaving behind a strong feeling of animosity towards us, with party divisions as strongly marked, and political animosities as rancorous, perhaps, as they have been at any former period. Even when her capital had fallen, humbled and powerless as phe was, party leaders, instead of consulting for the common good, were seen struggling with each other for the barren sceptre of her authority. Our retirement as enemies would, in all probability, be the signal for intestine conflicts as desperate and sanguinary as those in which they have been engaged with usconflicts always the most disastrous for the great body of the Mexican people, for, on what side soever fortune turns, they are certain to be the victims. You know, sir, there are two great parties in Mexico, (I pass by the minor divisions)the "Federalistas" and " Centralistas." The former, as their name imports, are in favor of the fedeiative system; they are the true republican party. With us, in former times, the terms " Federal" and "Republican" designated different parties; in Mexico, they are both employed to designate the friends of the federative system. The Centralists are in favor of a consolidated Government, republican or monarchical in form, and are composed of the army, the clergy, and I suppose a small portion of the population. I believe our only hope of obtaining a durable peace lies in the firm establishment of the Federal party in powerthe party represented by Herrera, Anaya, Pefia y Pefia, Cumplido, and others. I understand Herrera has been elected President of the Republic; and this is certainly a favorable indication. But, unfortunately, I fear this party would not succeed in maintaining itself, if Mexico were left to herself at the present moment with an imbittered feeling of hostility towards us. The military chiefs, who controlled the army, and who might rally it again, for political uses, if we were to retire without a treaty, are for the most part enemies of the federative system, and conservators of the popular abuses, to which they owe their wealth and importance. Nothing could be more unfortunate for Mexico than the reestablishment of these men in power. It would bring with it a hopeless perpetuation of the anarchy and oppression which have given a character to their supremacy in past years-a supremacy without a prospect of amelioration in the condition of the Mexican peoplea supremacy of which the chief variation has been an exchange of one military despot for another. Calamitous as the restoration of this party to their former ascendency would be for Mexico, it would hardly be less so for us. Relying on military force for their support, their policy would be to continue the war as a pretext for maintaining the army in full strength, or, at least, not to terminate it till peace would ensure their own supremacy. It is believed that these considerations have been leading motives in the resistance they have opposed to us. It is true, the republican party has been equally hostile, so far as external indications show; but the fact is accounted for by their desire to see the war continued until the army and its leaders, the great enemies of the federative system, areoverthrown. Undoubtedly the obstinate refusal of Mexico to make peace may be very properly referred to the natural exasperation of every people whose soil is invaded; but there can be little doubt that it has been influenced, in no inconsiderable degree, by considerations growing outof party divisions, and the jealousy and animosities to which those divisions have given rise. My confidence in our ability to make an amicable arrangement with the federal party, if it were in undisputed possession of the Government, arises from the belief that their motives are honest, that they have at heart the public welfare, and that they must see there is no hope for Mexico but in a solid peace with us. My utter distrust of the Centralists arises from the belief that their objects are selfish, and that, to accomplish them, they would not hesitate to sacrifice the liberties of the people and the prosperity of the country. But whether I err in these views or not, I feel quite confident I do not err in believing that if our armies were to be withdrawn from Mexico, without a peace, the flames of civil discord would be rekindled in that unhappy country, and burn with redoubled violence. I should greatly fear that the military chiefs would succeed in reistablishing their ascenidency, and that no probable limit could be assigned to the duration of the war. If I am right, our true policy is to stand firm, and, if possible, united, until wiser counsels shall prevail in Mexico, and a disposition shall be shown to come to an amicable arrangement with us on reasonable terms. The objection I have stated to the proposition of withdrawing our forces from Mexico, concerns only the relations which now exist, or may exist hereafter, between the two countries. If there were no other objection, the question might be decided upon considerations touching only their domestic interests and their mutual rights. 4 But I come to the second objection-one perhaps pose between us and Mexico. Is it not, then, apof graver import than the first, because it sup- propriate briefly to state what this right of interposes the possibility, if not the probability, of an vention is, as it has been asserted in Europe, what interference in her affairs by other countries, if it has been in practice, and what it would be likely we were to retire without a treaty and without to become, if applied to the States of this conticommercial arrangements, which it would be in nent? I trust it will be so considered. our power to enforce. The President alluded to The doctrine of intervention to maintain the balthe subject in his annual message at the opening of ance of power is essentially of modern origin. Congress,and expressed an apprehension of danger From the earliest ages, it is true, occasional comfrom that source. I participate in it. I shall as- binations have been formed by particular States for sigh the grounds on which it rests; and I only mutual protection against the aggressions of a powregret that, in stating them with the minuteness erful neighbor. History is full of these examples. necessary to make them fully understood, I shall Such a cooperation is dictated by the plainest be compelled to draw much more largely than I principles of self-preservation, for the purpose of desire on the patience of the Senate. guarding against the danger of being destroyed in Senators are doubtless aware that.the right of detail; and it is founded upon such obvious maxintervention in the affairs of this continent was ims of common sense, that it would have been reformally asserted in the French Chamber of Depu- markable if it had not been resorted to from the ties, in the year 1845, by M. Guizot, Minister of moment human society assumed a regular form of Foreign Affairs, as the organ of the Government organization. These defensive alliances were deof France. He regarded the great powers on this ficient in the permanence and methodical arrangecontinent as divided into three groups, namely: ments which distinguish the modern system of Great Britain, the United States, and the States of intervention. Hume saw, or fancied he saw, in Spanish origin; and he declared that it belonged them the principle of the right of intervention to to France "to protect, by the authority of her preserve the balance of power which is asserted at name, the independence of States, and the equilib- the present day. But it could only have been the rium of the great political forces in America." To principle which was developed; they certainly this declaration, I have thought it not out of place, never attained the maturity or the efficient force of in connection with the subject under discussion, to a regular system. call the attention of the Senate; not for the pur- The modern doctrine of intervention in the afpose of undertaking the formal refutation, of fairs of other States, which has sprung up within which I think the whole doctrine of intervention, the last two centuries, is far more comprehensive as it has been practically enforced in Europe, is in its scope. It hasgrown into a practical system clearly susceptible, but for the purpose of dent- of supervision on the part of the principal Euroing it as founded upon any well established prin- pean powers over their own relative forces and eiples of interniational law, and, if it had such a those of the other States of Europe; and though foundation, of denying its applicability to the po- it may, in some instances, have been productive of litical condition of this continent. To enter fully beneficial effects in maintaining the public traninto the examination of this important subject, quillity, it has as frequently been an instrument of would require more time than it would be proper the grossest injustice and tyranny. From the first for me to devote to it. I propose only to pass extensive coalition of this nature, which was rapidly over a few of the principal considerations formed during the long series of wars terminated it suggests. by the peace of Westphalia, in 1648, down to the The declaration of M. Guizot was the first pub- interference of Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, and lic and official intimation, by a European govern- France, in the contest between the Sultan and Mement, of an intention to interfere with the political hemet Ali, in 1840, a period of nearly two centucondition of the independent communities on the ries-an interference designed, in some degree, to continent of America, and to influence by moral, prevent what was regarded as a dangerous protectif ndt by physical agencies, their relations to each orate over the affairs of the Porte by Russia-the other. And if it had been presented in any other exercise of the right has been placed, theoretically, form than that of an abstract declaration, not ne- on the same high ground of regard for the trancessarily to be followed by any overt act, it would quillity of Europe and the independence of States. have behooved us to inquire, in the most formal Practically, it has often been perverted to the worst manner, whether this asserted right of interposi- purposes of aggrandizement and cupidity. tion derived any justification from the usages of If we look into the writers on international law, nations, or from the recognized principles of inter- I think we shall finct no sufficient ground for the national law; orwhether it was not an assump- right of intervention. Grotius, who wrote in the tion wholly unsupported by authority, and an en- early part of the seventeenth century, denied its croachment on the independence of sovereign existence. Fenelon, who wrote about halfa cenStates, which it would have been their duty to tury later, denied it, except as a means of self-prethemselves and the civilized world to resent as an servation, and then only when the danger was real injury a wrong. and imminent. Vattel, who wrote nearly a century Am I in error in supposing this subject derives after Fenelon, and a century before our own times, new importance from our existing relations with regarded the States of Europe as forming a political Mexico, one of the states of Spanish origin, which system, and he restricted the right of entering into M. Guizot grouped together as constituting one of confederacies and alliances for the purpose of interthe great political forces of this continent, among vention in the affairs of each other, to cases in which the " equilibrium" was to be maintained? which such combinations were necessary to curb Sir, more than once, in the progress of the war, the ambition of any power which, from its superithe governments of Europe have been invoked, by ority in physical strength, and its designs of opleading organs of public opinion abroad, to inter- pression or conquest, threatened tobecome danger 5 ous to its neighbors. De Martens, who wrote half two or more weaker states to protect themselves a century ago, acknowledges, with Vattel, the ex- against the designs of an ambitious and powerful istence oftheright under certain'conditions, though neighbor. In its practical application, it has more he hardly admits it to be well settled as a rule of frequently resulted in a combination of powerful international law; and he limits its exercise to states to destroy their weaker neighbors for the neighboring states, or states occupying the same augmentation of their own dominions or those of quarter of the globe. But, according to the two their allies. From a mere right to combine for last writers, who have, perhaps, gone as far as any self-preservation, they have made it in practice a other public jurists, of equal eminence, towards a right to divide, dismember, and partition states at formal recognition of the right, it only justifies a their pleasure-not for the purpose of diminishing union of inferior states within the same immediate the strength of a powerful adversary-but under sphere of action, to prevent an accumulation of the pretence of creating a system of balances, which power in the hands of a single sovereign, which is artificial in its structure, and, in, some degree, would be too great for the common liberty. incongruous in its elements, and which a single I am confident, Mr. President, that no one can political convulsion may overturn and destroy. Do rise from a review of the history of modern Eu- we need examples of the abuse of the power, I rope, and from an examination of the writings of will not call it a right? They will be found in the her public jurists, without being satisfied that the dismembermentofSaxony,theannexationofthe reright of intervention, as recognized by civilized public of Genoa to the kingdom of Sardinia, and the nations, is what I have stated it to be-a mere absorption of Venice by Austria. There is another right, on the part of weaker states, to combine and a more aggravated case of abuse to which refor the purpose of preventing the subversion of cent events have given new prominence. In 1772, their independence, and the alienation of their ter- Russia,Prussia, and Austria,under the pretence that ritories, by a designingand powerful neighbor; a the disturbed condition of Poland was dangerous to right to be exercised only in cases of urgent and their own tranquillity, seized upon about one-third immediate danger. It is simply a right of self- of her territories, and divided it among themselves. preservation, undefined, undefinable, having no set- In 1793, notwithstanding her diminished proportled or permanent foundation in public law, to be tions, she had become more dangerous, and they asserted only in, extreme necessity, and when arbi- seized half of what they had left to her by the first trarily applied to practice, a most fruitful source of partition. Sir, she continued to grow dangerous abuse, injustice, and oppression. One clear and as she grew weak; and in two years after the seccertain limitation it happily possesses-a limitation ond partition, they stripped her of all that remained. which, amid all its encroachments upon the inde- In 1815, the five great Powers, at the Congress of pendence of sovereign States, has never until our Vienna, from motives of policy, and not from a day been overpassed. By universal consent, by returning sense of justice, organized the city of the unvarying testimony of abuse itself, it is not Cracow and a portion of the surrounding territory, to be exercised beyond the immediate sphere of with a population of about one hundred thousand the nations concerned. It pertains rigidly and ex- souls, into a republic, under the protection of Ausclusively to states within the same circle of politi- tria, Russia, and Prussia, with a guarantee of its cal action. It is only by neighbors, for the pro- independence in perpetuity. Russia pledged hertection of neighbors against neighbors, that it can, self, at the same time, to maintain her share of the even upon the broadest principles, be rightfully spoil, as the kingdom of Poland in name and form, employed. When it traverses oceans, and looks with a constitutional government. She kept her to the regulation of the political concerns of other pledge seventeen years, and then virtually incorcontinents, it becomes a gigantic assumption, porated it as an integral part into the Russian emwhich, for the independence of nations, for the pire. The little republic of Cracow was all that.interests of humanity, for the tranquillity of the remained as a monument of the dismembered kingOld World and the New, should be significantly dom. A year ago, it was obliterated as an inderepelled. pendent state by the three great powers of eastern Mr. President, a review of the history of Eu- and northern Europe, in violation of their solemn rope during the last two centuries will bring with guarantee, and assigned to Austria. The name of it another conviction in respect to the right of in- Poland, the fountain of so many noble and anitervention-that no reliance can be placed on its mating recollections, is no longer to be found on restriction in practice to the objects to which it is the map of Europe. The three quarters of a cenlimited by every public jurist who admits its ex- tury which intervened from the inception to the istence at all; and that nothing could be so dis- consummation of this transaction are not sufficient couraging to the friends of free government a an to conceal or even to ohscure its true character. extension of the system to this continent, if the The very magnitude of the space over which it is power existed to introduce it here. Though the spread only serves to bring it out in bolder and combinations it is claimed to authorize may, in darker relief from the pages of history. some instances, have protected the coalescing par- If the United States, in the progress of these ties from the danger of being overrun by conquer- usurpations, has not remonstrated against them, ing armies, the cases are perhaps as numerous, in and contributed by her interposition to maintain which their interposition has been lent to break the integrity of the states thus disorganized and down the independence of states, and to throw dismembered in violation of every rule of right, whole communities of men into the arms of govern- and every suggestion of justice and humanity, it ments to which their feelings and principles were is because we have been faithful, against all movealike averse. The right, as has been seen-(and ments of sympathy, against the very instincts of it cannot be too often repeated)-with the utmost nature, to the principle of abstaining from all interlatitude claimed for it by any public jurist, goes no ference with the movements of European powers, further than to authorize a league on the part of which relate.exclusively to the condition of the 6 quarter of the globe to which they belong. But when it is proposed or threatened to extend to this continent and to ourselves a similar system of balances, with all its danger of abuse and usurpation, I hold it to be our duty to inquire on what grounds it rests, that we may be prepared to resist;ll practical application of it to the independent states in this hemisphere. Mr. President, the declaration of M. Guizot could hardly have been made without the previous approbation of the government, of which he was the organ. The same sovereign occupies the throne of France-the same minister stands before it as the exponent of his opinions. Is the declaration to be regarded as a mere idle annunciation in words of a design never intended to be carried into practice? Let me answer the question by the briefest possible reference to circumstances. France was the coadjutor of England in the attempt to induce Texas to decline annexation to the Union. Failing in this, she attempted to accomplish the same object indirectly, by persuading Mexico torecognize the independence of Texas, on condition that the latter should remain an independent state. These terms were offeied to Texas, and rejected. In the year 1844, I believe less than twelve months before. Guizot's declaration was made, (and the coincidence in poin't of time is remarkable,) a book on Oregon and California was published in Paris by order of the King of France, under the auspices of Marshal Soult, President of the Council, and M. Guizot, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and written by M. de Mofras, who was attached to the French legation in Mexico. The first part of the work is devoted to Mexico, and certainly contains some remarkable passages. He speaks of the establishment of a European monarchy as a project which had been suggested as the only one calculated to put an end to the divisions and annihilate the factions which desolated that beautiful country.* He says the Catholic religion and family relations, with the ancient possessors of the country, would be the first conditions required of the princes, who should be called to reconstruct there a monarchical government. He then adds: "The infantas of Spain, the French princes, and the archdukes of Austria, fulfil these conditions, and we rpay affirm that, from whichever quarter a competitor should present himself, he would be unanimously welcomed by the Mexican people. ( What, then, are the interests of France in these questions? "The establishment in Mexico of a monarchy of any description whatever,.resting upon a solid basis, should be the first object of our policy; for we know that the instability attached to the actual form of its government, brings with it disadvantages for our commerce, and inconveniences for our people." He adds, that if Mekico is to preserve her republican form of government, her incorporation into the Union of the North would seem more favorable to France than her existing condition, on account of the development of commerce and all the guarantees of liberty, security, and justice, which his compatriots would enjoy; and that England would lose, under such an order of things, what France would gain. Thus, though the dismemberment and absorption of Mexico by the United States, are regarded by M. de Mofras as preferable to the commercial monopoly and the " species of political sovereignty," as he denominates it, which England has exercised in that country, the first object of France, according to him, should be a reconstruction of monarchy in Mexico, with a foreign prince on the throne,and this prince from some branch of the Bourbon family. The opinions contained'in this book are not put forth as the mere speculations of a private person. They are the opinions of an agent of the government: the publication is made by order of the king, and under the auspices of his two chief ministers, and so stated in the title page. I do not mean to hold the government of France responsible for all the opinions contained in that work; but, can we believe that those I have quoted, concerning as they do so grave a subject as the international relations of France with Mexico, and of Mexico with the United States, would have been put forth without modification under such high official sanctions, if th'ey had been viewed with positive disfavor? It appears to me, that we are constrained to view them, like the declaration of M. Guizot, though certainly to a very inferior extent, as possessing an official character, which we are not at liberty wholly to disregard, when we consider the one in connection with the other. And now, sir, 1 ask, do not these opinions and declarations, especially when we look to the open and direct interference of Great Britain and France, by force of arms, in the domestic affairs of some of the South American republics within the last' two years, furnish a just ground of apprehension, if we should retire from Mexico without a treaty and as enemies, that it might become a theatre for --- * The day after this speech was delivered, Ms. D. received have also to lament the money lost and thrown away upon from a friend in New York, who could have had no knowl- Mexican soil. And in order that the Cortes may not believe edge of his intention to speak, much less of the topics he I am about to make accusations of so grave a character withdesigned to discuss, a translation from a speech delivered to out possessing proofs to corroborate them, I now hold in my the Cortes of Spain on the 1st of December, 1847, by Sefior hand a statement of the sums expended and drawn from the Olozoga, a man of distinction, and supposed to be the treasury in Havana in the year 1846, signed by the Senor same individual who was a few years since first minister of Navarro as auditor, and Mugica as treasurer. In this statethe Crown. By this epaeeh it nppears itat as recently as ment there is an item which says: ' Paid bills of exchange 1846, a year after M. Guizot's declaration was made, and remitted by the minister plenipotentiary of her Majesty in two years after M. de Mofras's book was published, large Mexico for matters belonging to the service, $100,000. But sums were expended by Spain for the purpose of establishl- much greater than this was the authority our minister in ing a monarchy In Mexico, and of placing a Spanish prince Mexico possessed for disposing of the public funds. I do not on the throne. The close connection of the governments of know whether he has made use of it. I do not even know France and Spain by the marriage of the Duke of Montpen- his name. I suppose he will employ themn with serupusier, the son of Louis Philippe, to the sister of Queen Isa- lous honesty; but is the Spanish people so bountifully supbella, gives additional importance to these developments: plied with millions that they can afbfrd to send them to the " No one, either on this floor or elsewhere, can deny that New World, for the purpose of sustaining political intrigues the project has been entertained of establishing a monarchy in that distant region? How many meritorious military men, in Mexico, and to place a Spanish prince on the throne, who have shed their blood for the good of their country, and This project, conceived in the time of the Conde Aranda, whose means of support have been cut down to the lowest would have saved our colonies from the sad fate they have possible point, might have been aided by these large sumis suffered; but brought forward on this occasion, it was the How much misery mizlit have been alleviated by the money most absurd idea that could have been conceived. But we which has been thrown away in this manner? And where have not only to deplore having excited political animosities do they find authority for squanderiug millions to foster fora ud the consequences this has produced in that country; we eign intrigues?" 7 the exercise of influences of a most unfriendly character to us? With the aid of the monarchical party in Mexico, would there not be danger that the avowed design of establishing a throne, might be realized? The chances of open interposition are unquestionably diminished by the results of the war; but I am constrained to believe the chances of secret interference are increased by the avidity imputed to us for territorial extension. Ought not this danger to influence, to some extent, our own conduct, at least so far as to dissuade us from abandoning, until a better prospect of a durable peace shall exist, the advantage we have gained as belligerents? We know a great majority of the Mexican people are radically averse to any other than a republican form of government; but we know, also, the proneness of a people among whom anarchy reigns triumphant, to seek any refuge which promises the restoration of tranquillity and social order. Mr. President, any attempt by a European power to interpose in the affairs of Mexico, either to establish a monarchy, or to maintain, in the language of M. Guizot, ' the equilibrium of the great political forces in America,' would be the signal for a war far more important in itsconsequences, and inscrutable in its issues, than this. We could not submit to such interposition if we would. The public opinion of the country would compel us to resist it. We are committed by the most formal declarations, first made by President Monroe in 1823, and repeated by the present Chief Magistrate of the Union. We have protested, in the mostsolemn manner, against any further colonization by European powers on this continent. We have protested against any interference in the political concerns of the independent states in this hemisphere. A protest, it is true, does not imply that the ground it assumes is to be maintained at all hazards, and if necessary, by force of arms. Great Britain protested against the interference of France in the affairs of Spain in 1823; she has more recently protested against, the absorption of Cracow by Austria as a violation of the political order of Europe, settled at Vienna by the allied sovereigns, and against the Montpensier marriage as a violation of the treaty of Utrecht; but I do not remember that in either case she did anything more than to proclaim to the world her dissent from the acts against which she entered her protest. It has always seemed to me to be unwise in a government to put forth manifestoes without being prepared to maintain them by acts, or to make declarations of abstract principle until the occasion has arrived for enforcing them. The declarations of a President having no power to make war without a vote of -Congress, or even to employ the mi9itary force of the country except to defend our own territory, is very different from the protest of a sovereign holding the issues of peace and war in his own hands. But the former may not be less effectual when they are sustained, as I believe those of Presidents Monroe and Polk are, in respect to European interference on the American continent, by an undivided public opinion, even though they may not have received a formal response from Congress. I hold, therefore, if any such interposition as that to which 1 have referred should take place, resistance on our part would inevitably follow, and we should become involved in controversies. of which aao man could foresee the end. Before I quit this part of the subject, I desire to advert to some circumstances recently made public, and, if true, indicating significantly the extent to which Great Britain is disposed to carry her other encroachments on this continent, as in every other quarter of the globe. On the coast of Honduras, in Central America, commonly called the Musquito coast, there is a tribe of Indians bearing the same name, numbering but a few hundred individuals, and inhabiting some miserable villages in the neighborhood of Cape Gracias a Dios, near the fifteenth parallel of north latitude. Several hundred miles south is the river San Juan, running from Lake Nicaragua to the Caribbean sea, a space of about two degrees of longitude, with the town of Nicaragua at its mouth, and a castle or fort about midway between the town and the lake. The lake is only fifteen leagues from the Pacific, and constitutes, with the river San Juan, one of the proposed lines for a ship canal across the isthmus. Great Britain has recently laid claim to the river San Juan and the town of Nicaragua, if she has not actually taken possession of the latter. I have seen a communication from the British consul-general at Guatemala, asserting the independence of the Mosquitos as a nation. 1 have also seen a communication from the British consul at Bluefield, on the Mosquito shore, asserting that " the Mosquito flag and nation are under the special protection of the crown of Great Britain," and that " the limits which the British Government is determined to maintain as the right of the King of the Mosquitos" " comprehend the San Juan river." By Arrowsmith's London Atlas, published in 1840, the Mosquito territory covered about 40,000'square miles, nearly as large an area as that of the State of New York; but it did not extend below the twelfth parallel of latitude, while the river San Juan is on the eleventh. I have seen the protest of the State of Nicaragua against the occupation of the town of Nicaragua on the river San Juan, which, as the protest declares, has been from time immemorial in her quiet and peaceable possession. The state of San Salvador, one of the Central American republics, also unites in the protest, and declares her determination, if the outrage shall be carried into effect, to exert her whole power until the usurper "shall be driven from the limits of Central America." I understand, for I speak only from information, that Great Britain has for some time claimed to have had the Mosquitos, a mere naked tribe of Indians of a few hundred persons, under her protection.* Through her influence they appointed a king, who was taken to Belize, a British station on the bay of Yucatan, and there crowned. It is said, also, that on the decease of the king, he was found to have bequeathed his dominions to her Britannic Majesty. It appears to be certain that she has, under this pretence of protection, extended her dominion over an immense surface in Cen-, *Extract of a letter from the Supreme Government of the State of Nicaragua t) the Supreme Government of the State of San Salvador. "t A tribe with no recognized form of government, without civilization, and entirely abandoned to savage life, is suddenly made use of by enlightened England for the purpose of planting one of her feet upon the Atlantic coast of this State; or rather, for the purpo-e of taking possession of the port for communicalion between Europe, America, and Asia, and other important countries at the point where tih grand inter-oceanic canal is most-practicable." 8 tral America; that ghe has at least one vessel of taking the steps urged by his noble friend, because war, the Sun, commanded by an officer bearing an she was " afraid of these states, or all of them put English name, " Commander Trotter, of the Mos- tog~ether;" that it was not to be supposed the Britquito navy," as he is styled in a letter written by ish Parliament, or the British nation, would long the British consul at Bluefield, and that she is still remain patient under the wrong, and that they had further extending herself, against the remonstrance ample power and means to obtain justice. of the Central American States. But these states, I pass over the doctrines put forth in the speech besides being physically weak, are distracted by of Lord George Bentinck, and sanctioned by Lord internal feuds; and if the proceedings complained Palmerston, though I believe it not perfectly clear of be not the unauthorized acts of British agents, that they can be maintained to the full extent, by which Great Britain will disavow, it is hardly to an appeal to any well established principles of inbe expected that a usurpation, so unjustifiably con- ternational law. You know, sir, that we have summated, will be abandoned on an appeal to the sometimes found British statesmen, even those justice of the wrong-doer. Whether our govern- holding places nearest to the throne, at fault, both ment should remain quiescent under this encroach- in respect to matters of principle and matters of ment upon near and defenceless neighbors, is a fact, though it is certainly but justice to concede question worthy of consideration. Under any to them the possession of more enlarged views of circumstances, it seems to me to afford little assu- policy, combined with greater practical talent and rance of non-interference with the affairs of Mexi- tact, than is often to be found in the councils of co, if our forces were to be withdrawn without a European sovereigns. I pass over also an offentreaty.. sive allusion to the failure of two or three of the There is another consideration which ought not States of this Union to pay their debts, "as a to be overlooked. In July last, Lord George Ben- stain upon the national character," (I use his own tinck made a motion for an address to her Britan- language,) when it is well known that the suspennic Majesty, praying her to take auoh measures as sion of payment was temporary,'and from overshe might deem proper to secure the payment of ruling necessity; that in most instances resumpthe Spanish government bonds held by British sub- tion has taken place; and that, in all, the most jects. Those bonds amount to about three hun- earnest efforts have been made to resume the disdred and eighty millions of dollars, and on about charge of their obligations. This imputation was three hundred and forty millions no interest what- cast upon us at the moment when our people, with ever has been paid; and including this debt nearly one heart, were sending abroad their agricultural seven hundred and thirty millions of dollars are surplus to feed the famished population of Iredue to British subjects by foreign governments-a land, not merely in the way of commercial exsum equal to about one-fifth of her national debt. change, but in the form of donations,in ship-loads, He contended, that "' by the law of nations, from public and private. And so far as the commercial time immemorial, it has been held that the recov- portion is concerned, I believe our merchants have ery of just debts is a lawful cause of war, if the for months been draining our banks of specie, to country from which payment is due refuses to send abroad to meet their own pecuniary obligalisten to the claims of the country to whom money tions, while for a time at least they were unable to is owing." He quoted authorities to show that draw on their debtors in England for the proceeds of the payment of the debt, or the interest on it, the breadstuffs by which her subjects had been fed. might be enforced without having recourse to But I pass by all this, and come to the important arms, though asserting the right to resort to force fact that Mexico was among the indebted foreign to compel it. He referred to the rich colonies of States enumerated in a report, on which the moSpain, and especially Cuba, to show that there tion of Lord George Bentinck was founded. What was wealth enough in its annual produce and rev- is the extent of her indebtedness I do not know, enue "to pay the whole debt due by Spain to but I understand about seventy millions of dollars British bond-holders." He referred to the naval -and I believe it was but recently that the public force which Spain possessed to show that there domain in California was mortgaged to the creditwould not be "any very effective resistance," ors for a portion of this amount, though the lien and that " the most timid minister" need not fear is now said to be discharged. it. Having, in the course of his remarks, called I appeal to honorable Senators to say, with the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to these facts before them-with this public and offithe subject, Lord Palmerston, in responding to his cial assertion of a principle, which, according to call, entered into an extended statement in respect Lord Palmerston, the British government has only to the foreign debt due to British subjects. He abstained from practically enforcing through mere drew a distinction between transactions by one considerations of policy-whether, if our forces government with another, by British subjects with were withdrawn from Mexico, and that country a foreign government, by British subjects with the should become a prey to the anarchy and confusion subjects of another government, and between debts which has reigned there so long, and which, if and acts of injustice and oppression. This dis- renewed, would in all probability become univertinction, however, he treated as matter of expedi- sal and hopeless-whether, I say, there would not ency and established practice. He assented to the be a temptation too strong to be resisted to reduce doctrine laid down by the noble lord who made the principle thus proclaimed to practice? whether the motion for an address, and he said, if it were some portion of the Mexican territory might not the wise policy of England to lay down a rule that be occupied as a guarantee for the payment of the she would enforce obligations of this character debt due to British subjects, and thus another prinwith the same rigor as those of a different charac- ciple be, violated, which we are committed to ter, she would have a full and fair right, according maintain? I do not mean to say that this considto the laws of nations, to do so. And he conc!ud- eration, if it stood alone, should absolutely coned by saying that England had not refrained from tral our conduct. But as auxiliary to the graver 9 considerations to which I have referred, it appears to me that it may properly be allowed some weight -enough, sir, perhaps, to turn the scale, if it were already balanced-though, I think, there is sufficient without it to incline us decisively to the side of continued occupation. Besides, British subjects have other extensive pecuniary interests in Mexico: they have large commercial establishments and heavy investments of capital in the mining districts. If the political affairs of that country should fall into inextricable confusion, it is not to be supposed that these great interests will be abandoned by Great Britain; and yet it is extremely difficult to see by what interposition on her part they could be secured without the danger of collision between her and us. Mr. President, in what I have:said in respect to the danger of foreign interposition, I have not relied upon the ephemeral opinions of the day, or on opinions expressed in public journals abroad, however intimately thosejournals may be supposed to be connected with governments, as the organs of the views which it is deemed advisable to throw out, from time to time, for the public consideration or guidance. I have resorted to no irresponsible sources. I have presented opinions and declarations proclaimed with more or less of official sanction, and for the most part, with the highestI mean the-declarations of ministers, speaking for their governments to the popular body, and as the responsible representatives of sovereigns, holding in their own hands the authority to enforce, or attempt to enforce, what they proclaim. How far these declarations, taken in connection with the acts referred to, should influence our conduct, is a question on which we may not all agree. But it appears to me that it would be a great error in statesmanship to treat them as wholly unworthy of our consideration. Jealousy of our increasing power, commercial rivalry, political interests, all combine to give them importance. It is the province of a wise forecast o provide, as far as possible, that these adverse influences shall find no theatre for their exercise. To abandon Mexico would, it seems to me, throw wide open all the avenues for their admittance-one power for commercial monopoly, and the other for political control-and perhaps impose on us the difficult and dangerous task of removing evils which a proper vigilance might have prevented. It may be, Mr. President, that we shall have an early peace. I sincerely hope so. In this case, we must withdraw from Mexico; and it may perhaps be said that the dangers I have referred to as likely to result from our absence at the present moment may possibly be realized. These dangers, whatever they may be, we must incur whenever she shall tender us a peace, which we ought to accept. But there is a wide difference between retiring as belligerents and enemies without a treaty, and as friends under an amicable arrangement, with solemn obligations on both sides to keep the peace. In the former case, probably one of the first acts of Mexico would be to reassemble her army, and her government might fall under the control of her military leaders. In the latter, amicable relations being restored, and military forces being unnecessary, at least to act against us, the peace party would have better hopes of maintaining themselves, of preventing the army, which is now regarded as responsible for the national disasters, from gaining the ascendency, and also of excluding influences from abroad, which would be hostile to her interests and fatal to the common tranquillity of both countries. In the references I have made to France and Great Britain, I have been actuated by no feeling of unkindness or hostility to either. Rapid and wide-spread as has been the progress of the latter, we have never sought to interfere with it. She holds one-third of the North American continent. She has established her dominion in the Bermudas, the West Indies, and in Guiana, on the South American continent. She holds Belize, on the bay of Yucatan, in North America, with a district of about fourteen thousand square miles, if we may trust her own geographical delineations. We see her in theo occupation of territories in every quarter of the globe, vastly, inordinately extended, and still ever extending herself. It is not easy to keep pace with her encroachments. A few years ago the Indus was the western boundary of her Indian empire. She has passed it. She has overrun Affghanistan and Beeloochistan, though I believe she has temporarily withdrawn from the former. She stands at the-gates of Persia. She has discussed the policy of passing Persia, and making the Tigris her western boundary in Asia. One stride more wbuld place her upon the shores of the Mediterranean; and her armies would no longer find their way to India by the circumnavigation of Africa. Indeed, she has now, for all government purposes of communication, except the transportation of troops and munitions of war, a direct intercourse with the east. Her steamers of the largest class run from England to Alexandria; from Alexandria there is a water communication with Cairo-some sixty miles; from Cairo it is but eight hours overland to Suez, at the head of the Red Sea; from Suez her steamers of the largest class run to Aden, a military station of hers at the mouth of the Red Sea, from Aden to Ceylon, and from Ceylon to China. She is not merely conquering her way back from Hisdoostan. She has raised her standard beyond it. She has entered the confines of the Celestial Empire. She has gained a permanent foothold within it; and who that knows her, can believe that pretexts will long be wanting to extend her dominion there? Though it is for commerce mainly that she is thus adding to the number and extent of her dependencies, it is not for commerce alone. The love of power and extended empire is one of the efficient principles of her gigantic efforts and movements. No island, however remote, po rock, however barren, on which the cross of St. George has once been unfurled, is ever willingly relinquished, no matter how expensive or inconvenient it may be to maintain it. She may be said literally to encircle the globe by an unbroken chain of dependencies. Nor is it by peaceful means that she is thus extending herself. She propagates commerce, as Mohammedanism propagated religion, by fire and sword. If she negotiates, it is with fleets and armies at the side of her ambassadors, in order to use the language of her diplomacy, " to give force to their representations." She is essentially and eminently a military power, unequalled on the sea and unsurpassed on the land. Happily, the civilization, which distinguishes her at home, goes with her and obliterates some of the bloody traces of her march to unlimited empire. 10 Much less has any unkind feeling dictated my reference to France. Our relations with her have usually been of the most friendly character. Prom the foundation of our Government there has existed, on our side, a strong feeling of sympathy in her prosperities and her misfortunes, which no temporary interruption of our friendship has been able to eradicate. There is reason for this feeling: it would not have been creditable to us as a people if it had proved a transient sentiment. She stood forth at a critical period in our contest for independence, and rendered us the most essential service by her co6peration and aid. The swords of Washington and Lafayette were unsheathed on the same battle-fields. Our waters and our plains have been crimsoned with the generous blood of France. The names of Rochambeau, De Grasse, and D'Estaing are identified with our struggles for freedom. They have become, in some degree, American, and we give them to our children as names to be remembered for the gallant deeds of those who bore them. It is not surprising, under such circumstances, that in the survey of the European system, we should have been accustomed to regard France as the power moat likely, in the progress of events, to become the rival of England on the ocean as she has been on the land: and with a large portion of our people, if the wish has not been "parent," it has, at least, been companion " to the thought." For this reason, the declaration of M. Guizot was considered, independently of all views of right, as peculiarly ungracious, and as a demonstration of feeling totally inconsistent with the ancient friendship by which the two countries have been united. I have never believed it to be in accordance with the sentiments of the French people. And so strong has been my reliance on their right judgment and feeling, that I confess I have thought it not unlikely that an interposition in our affairs, so completely at variance with amicable relations, which ought to be held sacred, might be arrested by a more decisive interposition at home against its authors. I repeat, I have spoken in no spirit of unkindness either towards Great Britain or France. I desire nothing but friendship with them-close, cordial, constant, mutually beneficial friendship. I speak of them historically, as they exist and exhibit themselves to the eyes of the civilized world.' Thus far, I have considered the probable consequences of retiring from Mexico, as they are likely to affect our political relations with her, and possibly with other States. I now turn, for a single moment only, to a different class of considerations-I mean considerations arising out of our claims to indemnity for injuries. Although the war was not commenced to secure if this is one of the avowed objects for which it has been prosecuted. Shall we abandon the position we have taken, and leave this object unaccomplished? Shall we not rather retain what we have acquired, until our just claims are satisfied? To do otherwise would be to have incurred an enormous expenditure of treasure and blood to no purpose-to have prosecuted the war till we had the means of indemnifying ourselves in our own hands, and then voluntarily to relinquish them. Such a course seems to me utterly irreconcilable either with justice to ourselves or with sound policy. If I am not mistaken in the views I have expressed, it would be an abandonment of indemnity without getting rid of the war, on which we must now rely to procure it. These considerations do not apply to the policy suggested by the honorable Senator from South Carolina. He proposes to take indemnity into our own hands by occupying a portion of northern or central Mexico, and holding it without a treaty. My remarks are only applicable to the policy of withdrawing from Mexico altogether, and leaving the adjustment of differences to future negotiations. Having thus declared myself in favor of the occupation of Mexico until she shall consent to make peace, I deem it proper to say, in connection with this subject, that I have been uniformly opposed, and that I am still opposed, to all schemes of conquest for the acquisition of territory. In this respect, I concur in what the Senator from South Carolina has said, and for nearly the same reasons. I am opposed to all such schemes, because they would be inconsistent with the avowed objects of the war; because they would be incompatible with justice and sound policy; and because, if successful, they would be utterly subversive of the fundamental principle of our political system, resting as it does on a voluntary association of free and independent States. I have been uniformly in favor of the most energetic measures in the prosecution of the war, because I believed them most likely to bring it to a close. In carrying our arms to the enemy's capital and occupying his territory, I can see nothing inconsistent with the principles of justice or the usages of civilized States. In the prosecution of a war undertaken to procure a redress of injuries, the territories or property of an enemy may be seized for the express purpose of compelling him to do justice. More may be taken than would constitute a fair indemnity for actual injuries, provided it be done with the intention of restoring the surplus when he shall consent to make peace on reasonable terms. It is in this spirit, and with this intention, that my co6peration has been given to the vigorous prosecution of the war. We have a right to insist on a fair boundary; we may exact indemnity for injuries; we may demand indemnification for the expenses of the war, if we please. But here all right ceases; and if, when this is conceded, we have more on our hands, we are bound, on every principle of law and good conscience, to make restitution. It is admitted on all hands that Mexico is incapable of indemnifying us in money. But she may do so by ceding to us territory which is useless to her, which she has not the ability to defend, and which may be useful to us. I have always been in favor of acquiring territory on just terms. The acquisition of California has always appeared to me very desirable, on account of its ports on the Pacific. I have uniformly voted for aclquiring it, when the proposition has come before us. I believe, on the first occasion, I was in a minority of ten or eleven. My opinion is unchanged. Indeed, it is confirmed by the fact, that California has, by our military operations, become forever detached from Mexico. If it were to be abandoned by us, its forty thousand inhabitants would undoubtedly establish an independent government for themselves, and they would maintain it if undisturbed by foreign interference. I take the actual condition of things as I find it, and with an earnest desire to fulfil all the obligations it devolves on us in a spirit of justice towards Mexico and towards the people of California. 11 I concur also in what the honorable Senator strife and contention with neighboring States. Refrom South Carolina has said in relation to the'in- garding the success of our institutions as affecting fluence of war on our political institutions. No deeply the welfare of our race, and vindicating the man can deplore it under any circumstances, more competency of mankind to self-government, I have than myself. Independently of the evils which it always esteemed it peculiarly unfortunate that any always brings in its traip, there are considerations cause of alienation should have existed of sufficonnected with our political organization and the cient magnitude to induce the two principal repubnature of our social progress, which render it lies of the western hemisphere to turn their arms doubly pernicious in its tendencies. The final suc- against each other. The cause of liberal governcess of the experiment we are making in free gov- ment is injured, and far more deeply injured, than ernment may depend, in some degree, on a steady it has been by the dissension of the republics in maintenance of the spirit of peace, in which our the southern portion of the American continent. political system had its origin, and in which it has These are considerations which it were well for thus far been administered. Great as is our ca- us always to keep in view-in peace, that we may pacity for war, our whole scheme of government not rush hastily into war; in war, that we may is averse to it. The greatest possible economy in spare no honorable effort for a restoration of expenditure; the least possible patronage in the peace. hands of the Executive; the smallest pecuniary There is yet another consideration of a kindred exactions from the people, consistent with our ab- character. While the monarchies of Europe are solute wants; the absence of all demands on the at peace with each other, and social improvement public treasury, which call for unusual contribu- is advancing, on the continent at least, with unpartions of revenue or promote excessive disburse- alleled rapidity, almost the only wars now waging ments; the exemption of the country from all among neighboring States are between us and exigencies which devolve on the legislative and Mexico, and between some of the South American executive departments of the government the ex- republics. I desire, as much as any one can, to ercise of extraordinary powers;-these are the con- see these dissentions composed, and to see these ditions under which the ends of our political or- republican States resume the fulfilment of their ganization are most likely to be fulfilled. Sir, none great mission among the nations-the maintenance of these conditions belong to a state of war. Ex- of the principles of political liberty, and the cultitravagant disbursements; extraordinary contribu- vation of the arts of civilization and peace. tions of revenue, present or prospective-present, In these views I concur with the Senator from in augmented burdens of taxation, prospective, in South Carolina. But here I am constrained to the shape of loans and anticipations of income, separate from him. When we come to practical leading ultimately to taxation; extraordinary pow- measures, our paths lie wide apart. ers summarily, and sometimes arbitrarily exer- It is for the very reasons I have just stated, cised;-these are the inseparable companions of that I cannot assent to the policy he proposes. I war; and they are inimical to the very genius of believe it calculated to prolong the war, not to our social system. terminate it; to keep alive the spirit of animosity There are considerations, which, in my judg- which divides us from Mexico, instead of restoring ment, render a war with Mexico peculiarly unfor- the friendly relations which ought to exist between tunate, and which justify all the efforts we have us. I am in favor, then, of standing as we are. made to bring it to.,n amicable termination. We And, sir, if she shall refuse to make peace; if we are mutually engaged in carrying out on this con- must continue in the occupation of her capital and tinent the experiment of free government, which three-fourths of her territory, it may be in the in all other ages has proved abortive. We are try- order of Providence that we shall, through this ing it under eminently auspicious circumstances. very necessity, become the instruments of her poWe have no strong Governments around us, found- litical and social regeneration. In the partyconed upon antagonist principles, and adverse in their flicts which distract her, the means may be found example and influence to the success of ours. We of consolidating her government on a republican are sustained by the faculty of popular representa- basis, of healing her dissensions, and of uniting tion, which was unknown, or at least imperfectly her to us in bonds of friendship by an exercise of known, to the free states of antiquity, and by magnanimity and forbearance in the final adjustforce of which we have been enabled to carry out, ment of our difficulties with her. I believe even on geographical areas of indefinite extent, an now something of the salutary influence of our organization which had previously been deemed presence in her capital and principal sea-ports, applicable only to communities of limited popula- begins to be felt. The abolition of transit duties, tion and territory. It is natural, under these cir- the reduction of the impost on foreign articles of cumstances, that the friends of free government, necessity and convenience, and a freer commerce wherever they are to be found, should turn to us among the Mexican States, may, if continued, as the last hope of liberal institutions. They look strike a fatal blow at the anti-complercial system to us for examples of moderation and forbearance by which her people have been oppressed, and the in our intercourse with foreign nations-especially internal abuses by which her rulers have grown. those having forms of government analogous to rich-a system of mal-administration not even our own-and for an exemption from the evil pas- equalled by that which exists in old Spain. The sions which have embroiled the countries of the Old higher improvement in government, in the arts, World, and involved them, century after century, and in civilization under all its forms, which diswith brief intermissions, in wars of ambition and tinguishes our own people, may, by force of actual revenge. In asserting the superiority of our own contact, be communicated to the Mexicans, and form of government, the strength of the argument lay the foundation of an improved social order. will be weakened, if we shall be found no more Startling as the reflection is, it is nevertheless exempt than those, which are less popular, from true, that civilization, and even christianity, have 12 sometimes been propagated by arms, where they mining operations in those States, and the agriculwould otherwise have been hopelessly excluded. tural districts near the city of Mexico, to command Thus, the very passions which seem fitted only to supplies for the army. 1 should consider an army desolate human society, may, in the hands of of twenty-five thousand well-disciplined, effective Providence, become the agents of its advancement, men, the smallest number adequate to the purpose Let us, then, hope and trust that the cobtest in of maintaining positions, keeping open communiwhich we are engaged with a neighboring power, cations from the coast'to the interior, and dispersdeplorable as we all consider it,.may be an instru- inrg the enemy's troops if they shall be reimment of social and political amelioration to our bodied; but in order to keep up such a force, we adversary. should require a nominal organization of at least The Senator from South Carolina has said, in his forty thousand men, with full thirty thousand unemphatic language, that we are "tied to a corpse." der pay. Without the general staff, the twentyIt is a striking figure, Mr. President, and partakes five regiments of regulars now in service, and the strongly of the boldness in which the illustrations ten new regiments proposed by the bill, will conof that distinguished Senator are always conceived. stitute such a force; and when the latter shall Mexico is, indeed, prostrate-almost politically be raised abd brought into the field, a portion of inanimate, if you please-under the oppressions the volunteers may be discharged, if it shall be which have been heaped upon her, year after year, found prudent to do so. Many of the regiments by unscrupulous rulers. But I should be sorry to are gatly reduced in numbers, and, as I underbelieve her beyond the power of resuscitation, stand, are anxious to return home. I doubt no\v even by human means. I do not expect, as our whether there-are more than twenty-five thousand contact with her becomes more intimate, to see effective men in all Mexico, though the rolls show her, like the dead body touched by the bones of over forty thousand. [General CAss, chairman the prophet, spring, at a single bound, to life and of the Committee on Military Affairs, here said, strength. But I hope to see her-possibly through the Adjutant General was of opinion that they did our instrumentality-freed from the despoticsway not exceed twenty-four thousand.] Some of the of her military rulers, and rising, by sure degrees, returns, on which the Adjutant General's report is tb the. national importance I wish her to possess- founded, are of as early a date as August last. It order and tranquillity first, next social improve- will be recollected that last summer, when there ment and stable government, and at last an honor- was great anxiety in relation to General Scott, able rank among the nations of the earth. I con- statements of the number of his troops were pubtemplate no direct interference with her govern-. lished here. They were founded on the returns in ment-no permanent system of protection to be the Adjutant General's dffice-and in his official exercised over it-no alliance with her beyond report of the battles before the city of Mexico, what may be necessary to secure ton s the objects General Scott complained that his force had been of peace. But I do contemplate a treaty, stipulat- greatly overstated. He said it had been " trebled" ing for commercial arrangements, for protection in these returns, if I recollect rightly, and that the and security to our own citizens in their future in- army had been "disgusted" by the exaggeration. tercourse with her, and no withdrawal of our forces The returns of the army now should, in like manwithout it, at least until all chance of obtaining ner, be subjected to great deductions in order to one slall prove hopeless. If we were to retire obtain the real effective force. If the ten regiments now, all commerce between her and us Would cease proposed by the bill are authorized, months will and be transferred to our rivals, ourfrontier wbuld be required to raise them; 'they will not probably, be a line of war, not a boundary between peaceful as the chairman of the Committee on Military neighbors; and unless the tide of conquest should Affairs has stated, give many more than seven be poured back upon her under the provocations 'thousand men, and in the mean time the army will such a condition of our relations would almost ne- become constantly diminished by the casualties of cessarily superinduce, no citizen of the United service. For these reasons,and for those given'States could be expected, for years to come, to plant and so ably given-some days since by nly honorahis fodt on Mexican,soil. War 'dissolves the ble friend from Misssippi, [Mr. DAviS,] Isupport:political and commercial relations of independent the bill. I support it for anotheir reason, which States, so far as they rest upon voluntary agree- has governed me from the commencement of' the ment. It is only by a treaty of peace that they can war: to place at the control of the Executive the be revived, or new relations be subptituted for the men anid means deemed necessary-to bring it to old. an honorable termination. Mr. President, advocating as I do the occupa- As hostilities arenow suspended, the chief provtion of Mexico until she shall consent to make ince of the army will be to maintain internal tranpeace, it may be incumbent on me to state in what quillity, support-the civil authorities in the execumanner I think it can best be maintained. And tion of the laws, to free the country from the robber -here I must say, I think the estite t he of the effect- and guerrilla bands by which it is infested,anl subive force in the, field have been greatly overstated. serve the great purposes of government by afford-.I propose no specific plan for adoption. I leave ingsecuritytoliberty,property,and life-asecurity all practical measures in the 'hands of those to the Mexicans have not often fully enjoyed. The whom they belong. - I only purpose to state what very exercise of these beneficent agencies will tend suggests itself to my-mind, as advisable. I think to disarm hostility towards s uwith the thinking we should find it most advantageous to remain portion of the population. It will place our armies much as we are, excepting to occupy such ports in a most favorable contrast with hers, which have on the Pacific as our fleet may reduce and maintain been scourges rather than protectors to their own as commercial avenues to the interior. It may, countrymen. 'I would, if possiblJ, have no more however, become necessary to occupy San Luis bloodshed. I would make our.armies the protectPotosi and:Zacatecas for the protection of the ors, not the enemies of the Mexican people, and 13 render them subservient to the eradication of abuses and to the institution of a better civil administration, under Mexican magistrates, abstaining from all interference with the frame of the government, and changing in its action only what, by universal consent, requires to be changed. If this course were to be adopted and steadily pursued, I should earnestly hope its effect would be, at no distant time, to make the capital, under our protection, the centre ofan influence which would lead to the reestablishment of the federative system on a durable basis, and give to that distracted country the settled order which is alone necessary to make her happy and prosperous. To abandon the city of Mexico would, I fear, put an end to all these prospects and hopes. That city is the political as well as the financial centre of the Republic. It is there governments have been instituted and deposed, armies levied, revenue systems devised and carried into execution. So long as. we hold it and control the adjoining districts, I believe nothing but imprudence or mismanagement can raise up a formidable opposition to us. If we abandon it, all the resources of the country, which it commands, will again be at the control of its rulers, to be employed against us in the renewal of active hostilities. Before it was captured, energetic movements seemed to me our true policy. Now that it is in our undisputed possession, our leading object should be to introduce better commercial and financial systems, and let themp work out under our protection their legitimate results. Great qualities are necessary in him who is charged with the execution of these delicate and responsible functions. He should have prudence, self-control, a knowledge of civil affairs, of the country, of the people, and their character, and, if possible, their language. Established institutions, existing usages, sometimes prejudices, even, must be respected. Some of the most disastrous reverses which have befallen armies of occupation, have had their origin in violations of the prevailing customs and feelings of the people. To avoid this fatal error, everything depends on the discretion and wisdom of the directing authority. It may be, that all reasonable expectations will be disappointed; that the hostility of Mexico will prove unappeasable; that she will prefer the political disorganization, which now exists, to an amicable arrangement with us. If so, circumstances must dictate the course to be pursued when this conviction shall be forced on us. But, sir, let us not adopt such a conclusion hastily. Let us rely on the influence of more rational motives to give us peace. And now, sir, I submit whether this course had not better be pursued for a while, if I am right in supposing the temporary occupation of Mexico, under discreet officers, may lead to a stable peace, rather than to withdraw our forces, and leave the adjustment of difficulties to the uncertain chance of a restoration of a responsible government, to be terminated at last, perhaps, by the renewed arbitremerit of arms. I have thus stated with frankness the views I entertain in respect to the future conduct of the war. Notwithstanding the anxious consideration I have given to the subject, they may be erroneous. It is a question of great difficulty, on which differences of opinion may well exist, and on which a mistaken course of policy may lead to the most unpleasant consequences. Whatever faith I may entertain in the soundness of the opinions I have advanced, I certainly should have more if they were not totally at variance with those of gentlemen possessing, from longer experience, much higher claims than myself to public confidence. But I have not on this account thought proper to withhold them, knowing, as we do, that, from the very contrariety and conflict of thought and conviction, valuable deductions may sometimes be drawn. Mr. President, I feel that I have already trespassed too long on the indulgence of the Senate; but I am unwilling to close without asking its attention for a very few moments to some considerations connected with our future growth and progress, and with the influence we must, in spite of ourselves, exert over the destinies of Mexico. They are no new, opinions: they have been expressed years ago, both in public and private. Sir, no one who has paid a moderate degree of attention to the laws and elements of our increase, can doubt that our population is destined to spread itself across the American continent, filling up, with more or less completeness, according to attractions of soil and climate, the space that intervenes between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This eventual, and, perhaps, in the order of time, this not very distant extension of our settlements over a tract of country, with a diameter, as we go westward, greatly disproportioned to its length, becomes a subject of the highest inteiest to us. On the whole extent of our northern flank, from New Brunswick to the point where the northern boundary of Oregon touches the Pacific, we are in contact with British colonists, having, for the most part, the same common origin with ourselves, but controlled and moulded by political influences from the Eastern hemisphere, if not adverse, certainly not decidedly friendly to us. The strongest tie which can be relied on to bind us to mutual offices of friendship and good neighborhood, is that of commerce; and this, as we know, is apt to run into rivalry, and sometimes becomes a fruitful source of alienation. From our northern boundary, we turn to our southern.. What races are to border on us here, what is to be their social and political character, and what their means of annoyance? Are our two frontiers, only seven parallels of latitude apart when we pass Texas, to be flanked by settlements having no common bond of union with ours? Our whole southern line is conterminous, throughout its whole extent, with the territories of Mexico, a large portion of which is nearly unpopulated. The geographical area of Mexico is about 1,500,000 square miles, and -her population about 7,000,000 souls. The whole northern and central portion, taking the twenty-sixth parallel of latitude as the dividing line, containing more than 1,000,000 square miles, has about 650,000 inhabitantsabout two inhabitants to three square miles. The southern portion, with less than 500,000 square miles, has a population of nearly six and a half millions of souls, or thirteen inhabitants to one square mile. The aboriginal races, which occupy and overrun a portion of California and New Mexico, must there, as everywhere else, give way before the advancing wave of civilization, either to be overwhelmed by it, or to be driven upon perpetually contracting areas, where, from a diminution of their accustomed sources of subsistence, they must ultimately become extinct by force of an invincible 14 law. We see the operation of this law in every portion of this continent. We have no power to control it, if we would. It is the behesi of Providence that idleness, and ignorance, and barbarism, shall give place to industry, and knowledge, and civilization. The European and mixed races, which possess Mexico, are not likely, either from moral or physical energy, to become formidable rivals or enemies. The bold and courageous enterprise which overran and conquered Mexico, appears not to have descended to the present possessors of the soil. Either from the influence of climate or the admixture of races-the fusion of castes, to use the technical phrase-the conquerors have, in turn, become the conquered. The ancient Castilian energy is, in a great degree, subdued; and it has given place, with many other noble traits of the Spanish character, to a peculiarity which seems to have marked the race in that country, under whatever combinations it is found-a proneness to civil discord, and a suicidal waste of its own strength. With such a territory and such a people on our southern border, what is to be the inevitable course of empire? It needs no powers of prophecy to foretell. Sir, I desire to speak plainly: why should we not, when we are discussing the operation of moral and physical laws, which are beyond our control? As our population moves westward on our own territory, portions will cross our southern boundary. Settlements will be formed within the unoccupied and sparsely-peopled territory of Mexico. Uncongenial habits and tastes, differences of political opinion and principle, and numberless other elements of diversity will lead to a separation of these newly-formed societies from the inefficient government of Mexico. They will not endure to be held in subjection to a system, which neither yields them protection nor offers any incentive to their proper development and growth. They will form independent States on the basis of constitutions identical in all their leading features with our own; and they will naturally seek to unite their fortunes to ours. The fate of California is already sealed: it can never be reunited to Mexico. The operation of the great causes, to which I have alluded, must, at no distant day, detach the whole of northern Mexico from the southern portion of that republic. It is for the very reason that she is incapable of defending her possessions against the elements of disorder within and the progress of better influences from without, that I desire to see the inevitable political change which is to be wrought in the condition of her northern departments, brought about without any improper interference on our part. I do not speak of our military movements. I refer to the time when our difficulties with her shall be healed, and when she shall be left to the operation of pacific influences-silent, but more powerful than the arm of force. For the reason that she is defencelsss, if for no other, I should be opposed to all schemes of conquest. Acquisition by force is the vice of arbitrary governments. I desire never to see it the reproach of ours. For the sake of the national honor, as well as the permanency of our political institutions, I desire not to see it. The extension of free government on' this continent can only be arrested, if arrested at all, by substituting war for the arts of peace. Leave it to itself, and nothing can prevent the progress of our population across the continent. Mr. Jefferson, with his prophetic forecast, foretold this result forty years ago. He prophesied the peaceful progress of our people to the Pacific. He foresaw them forming new settlements, and, when strong enough to maintain themselves, organizing independent societies and governing themselves by constitutions and laws analagous to our own. It is true, he believed the area of freedom might be enlarged, advantageously to oursplves and others, without extending to the same broad limits the area of our jurisdiction. It was the progress and the triumph of great principles of political right, to which his philosophical mind instinctively turned as to the legitimate aim and boundary of our ambition and desires. Since his day the public mind in this country has greatly outrun his anticipations of our progress. It looks to the extension of our Constitution and, laws over regions which were formerly considered beyond our reach as integral portions of the same system of government. Modern improvements have given great strength to this prevailing sentiment. It is possible by steam power, if we can succeed in making the proper application of it, over so broad a surface, to reach the Pacific ocean from Lake Michigan, or the Mississippi, in eight or nine days-a period of time less than that which was -required to travel from Boston to Philadelphia, when the Congress of the American colonies first assembled in the latter city. Under these circumstances, the extension of our political boundary so as to embrace all territory we may justly call our own, seems no longer to be considered a questionable policy. If other districts, not now within the territories of the Union, shall found independent governments, and shall desire to unite themselves to us on terms mutually acceptable, it is a question which concerns only them and us, and in which no stranger can be permitted to intrude. When the time comes for the settlement of any such questions, they will doubtless be considered with all the solemnity which belongs to propositions involving the public welfare. To those with whom the decision belongs let us leave them, with the assurance that the wisdom which has governed and guided us so long, will still point out to us the path of liberty, tranquillity and safety. One position we have assumed, and I trust it will be maintained with inflexible firmness-that no Power beyond this continent can be permitted to interfere with our progress, so long as there is on our part no violation of its own rights. I would resist, at the outset, as matter of the gravest offence, all indications of such interference. If the abstract right could be asserted on grounds of international law, there has been nothing in the nature of our extension, or the means by which it has been- accomplished, to warrant its application to us. From the formation of our Government, for nearly three-quarters of a century, military power-brute force-has had no agency in the conquests we have achieved. We have overrun no provinces or countries abounding in wealth. Our capital has witnessed no triumphal entries of returning armies, bearing with them the spoils and trophies of conquest. Our ships have not been seen returning from subjugated districts, freighted with the tributes of an extended commerce. In the extension of our commercial intercourse, we have not, like our Anglo-Saxon mother, been seen hewing down with the sword, with unrelenting and remorseless determination, every obstacle 15 which opposed itself to her progress. Our career for it is these which make us strong in the opinion thus far has been stained by no such companion- of mankind. ship with evil. Our conquests have been the peace- In what I have said concerning the progress of ful achievements of enterprise and industry-the our people over the unpopulated regions west of one leading the way into the wilderness, the other us, and in respect to our responsibilities as a nation, following and completing the acquisition by the I trust I shall have incurred no imputation of informal symbols of occupancy and possession. consistency. On the contrary, I trust I shall be They have looked to no objects beyond the con-' considered consistent in all I have said. I regard version of uninhabited wilds into abodes of civili- our extension, as I have endeavo'ed to forezation and freedom. Their only arms were the shadow it, to be the inevitable result of causes, the axe and the ploughshare. The accumulations of operation of which it is not in our power to ariest. wealth they havebrought wereall extracted from the At the same time, I hold it to be our sacred duty bosom of the earth by the unoffending hand of labor, to see that it is not encouraged or promoted by If,in the progressofourpeople westward,they shall improper means. While I should consider it the occupy territories not our own, but to become ours part of weakness to shrink from extension, under by amicable arrangements with the governments the apprehension that it might bring with it the to which they belong, wiich of the nations of the elements of discord and disunion, as our political earth shall venture to stand forth, in the face of boundaries are enlarged, I should hold it to be the the civilized world, and call on us to pause in this part of folly and dishonor to attempt to accelerate great work of human improvement? It is as much it by agencies incompatible with our obligations the interest of Europe as it is ours, that we should to other nations. It is the dictate of wisdom and be permitted to follow undisturbed the path which, of duty to submit ourselves to the operation of the in the allotment of national fortunes, we seem ap- great causes which are at work, and which will pointed to tread. Our country has long been a work on in spite of us, in carrying civilization and refuge for those who desire a larger liberty than freedom across the American continent. they enjoy under their own rulers. It is an outlet In advocating a continued occupation of the for the political disaffection of the Old World- cities and territory we have acquired in Mexico, for social elements which might there have be- until she shall assent to reasonable terms of peace, come sources of agitation, but which are here si- I trust also that I shall be deemed consistent with lently and tranquilly incorporated into our system, myself. Deprecating war as the greatest of caceasing to be principles of disturbance as they at- lamities, especially for us, I desire to see this war tain the greater freedom, which was the object of brought to a close at the earliest practicable day. their separation from less congenial combinations I am in favor of whatever measures are most likely in other quarters of the globe. Nay, more; it is to accomplish this desirable end. I am opposed into the vast reservoir of the western wilderness, to an abandonment of our position: teeming with fruitfulness and fertility, that Europe 1st. Because I believe it would open a field of is constantly pouring, under our protection, her domestic dissension in Mexico, which might be human surplusses, unable to draw from her own fatal to her existence as an independent state, or bosom the elements of their support and repro- make her take refuge in the arms of despotism; duction. She is literally going along with us in 2d. Because it might lead to external interference our march to prosperity and power,. to share with in her affairs of the most dangerous tendency both us its triumphs and its fruits. Happily, this con- to her and us; and tinent is not a legitimate theatre for the politi- 3d. Because I fear that we should only gain a cal arrangements of the sovereigns of the eastern temporary suspension of hostilities, to be renewed hemisphere. Their armies may range, undis- undergreatdisadvantages to us, and with every prosturbed by us, over the plains of Europe, Asia, pect of a longer and more sanguinary contest. and Africa, dethroning monarchs, partitioning Mr. President, it is this last consideration, which kingdoms, and subverting republics, as interest or weighs most heavily upon my own mind. I hold caprice may dictate. But political justice demands it to be indispensable to the public welfare, under that in one quarter of the globe self-government, all its aspects, that we should have, at the termifreedom, the arts of peace, shall be permitted to nation of this contest, a solid and stable peace. work out, unmolested, the great purposes of hu- Unpromising as the condition of things seems at man civilization the present moment, my hope still is, that firmness Mr. President, I trust there will be nothing in tempered with prudence, will give us, not a mere the final adjustment of our difficulties with Mexico outward pacification with secret irritation rankling to impair, in any degree, the moral of our example within, but substantial concord and friendship, in the past. Our course, heretofore, has been one which shall leave no wound unhealed. And, sir, of perpetual exertion to bring about an amicable we should be satisfied with nothing short of an arrangement with her. I trust we shall persevere accommodation of differences which will enable in the same course of conduct, whatever unwilling- the country with, confidence to lay aside its armor, ness she may'exhibit to come to terms. Enter- and to resume the peaceful pursuits to which, by taining the opinions which 1 have expressed, I the inexorable law of our condition, we must look naturally feel a deep solicitude, as an American for prosperity and safety. citizen, that our public conduct should comport My advice, then, (if I may presume to advise,) with the dignity of the part we seem destined to is, to stand firm, holding ourselves ready at all perform in the great drama of international politics, times to make a peace, and carrying into our nego1 desire to see our good name unsullied, and the tiations for that purpose a determination to cement character we have gained for moderation, justice, a future good understanding with our adversary, and scrupulousness in the discharge of our na- by ap adjustment of our differences on terms ofjustional obligations, maintained unimpaired. In tice, moderation, and magnanimity. these, let us be assured, our great strength consists; SPEECH OF MR. TRUMAN SMITI, OF CONNECTICUT, ON REMOVALS AND APPOINTMENTS TO OFFICE. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 21 AND 23, 1850. The following resolution, introduced by Mr. BRADBURY, having been made the special order for this day, viz.: Resolved, That the President be requested to cause to be laid before the Senate all charges which have been preferred or filed in any of the Departments against individuals who have been removed from office since the 4th day of March last, with a specification of the casei, if any, in which the officers charged have had opportunity to be heard, and a statement of the number of removals made under each Department, including subordinates in the custom-houses and other branches of the public service." Mr. SMITH, of Connecticut, who was entitled to the floor, addressed the Senate as follows: Mr. PRESIDENT: Idid not vote for the postponement of the census bill, for the reason that I desired to leave the subject to the judgment of the Senate, without any interposition on my part. If the body had seen fit to proceed with the consideration of that bill, it would not have given occasion to any complaint by me, although I have believed, and still believe, that the pendency of this resolution has been attended with considerable inconvenience to the public service. It is well known that most of the nominations of the President still remain undisposed of; in many cases the offices to be filled are vacant, by reason of expiration of the terms of the late incumbents; and I more than suspect that this resolution.and considerations connected therewith have caused the delay. I have been rather surprised that Senators have not manifested more earnestness, not to say anxiety, to have a disposition of the question now before the body. I do not know but that there may be some stern necessity (to me, however incomprehensible) impelling us to an incessant discussion of the slavery question. We have been engaged for more than three long months.in considering nothing but preliminaries. We -have not been permitted to vote even on a question of reference. We have much of the time had but two speeches a week-one for Monday and Tuesday, another for Wednesday and Thursday; and when the latter day has arrived, we have adjourned over to the succeeding Monday, to resume the same topic, and to end the week in the same way. In the mean time, it has been utterly impossible to bring the attention of the Senate to the ordinary business of the session. We have not recurred to any one of the important suggestions and recommendations contained in the annual message of the President, and a vast number of bills, public and private, have accumulated on our calendar, and are likely to fall with the session. I regard these discussions, which have so long embarassed us, as of very little practical utility. Under these circumstances, I think, Mr. President, that it will not be without some use to have a slight interruption of this disputation on the subject of slavery, when every member of the Senate knows that the questions are settled already, so far as the judgment of the Senate is concerned. Perhaps I shall not beable to interest the body, but I can at any rate, do one thing-I can create a sort of a hiatus in a dispute which should have been brought to a close long ago. (Laughter.) I presume, Mr. President, that there is not a single member of this Senate that could feel a stronger repugnance than I do to embarking in a discussion which must partake, more or less, of a party character. During the considerable period that I was a member of the House of Representatives, (associated with you, sir, for 6ne-half of that period,) I have no recollection of having, in any instance, availed myself of the privileges of the floor, except to attend to some matter of business, or to consider some question of a broad national interest. I desire that it may be understood that such will ordinarily be my course as a member of the Senate. And, sir, if I depart from that rule of conduct now, it is because I consider this resolution and the remarks of my friend from Maine, (Mr. BaARDBny,) in their scope and purport, as tending to cast dishonor upon the President of the Unithe States. I am among the, number of those who repose a high confidence in the integrity of our Chief Magistrate. I believe that he has been actuated in his course by liberal, patriotic, just,, and elevated views and sentiments. I believe him to be entirely worthy of the affections and the confidence of thp American people. Under such circumstances, notwithstanding the repugnance I feel to this sort of d iscsion, I enter with alacrity upon the task of vindicating his conduct, and of showing that he has not departed one hair from the position which he assumed before the American people when a candidiite'for the highest office in their gift. Towsas, printer.-Price $2 00 per hundred. 2 We know that his name, character, and conduct have been the theme of incessant calumny and abuse, from the hour of his inauguration to the present day. But, sir, it has been wholly confined to the columns of a licentious press, until now; and my friend from Maine, for whom I trust that I entertain a proper respect, has the unenviable notoriey of bringing such topics into this chamber, and of submitting them to the attention of this body. It is with infinite regret that I noticed that the majority here determined, on the motion of my honorable friend from North Carolina, (Mr. MANGUM.) to lay this resolution, on the table, as a test vote to countenance the proposition. Every menier of the majority, with, the e:ception of the honorable Senator from Alabartia, (Mr. CLxrHENSt) voted in the niegative. The mdjority, therefore, have adopted this resolution, arid' made it their own. Whether they intend to make themselves parties or not to the expositions of the honorable Senator from Maine, and whether they concur with him in all the imputations which are contained in his speech, the future must reveal. But let us consider for a moment what are the alleged reasons for bringing to our notice a resolution of this singular and unprecedented character. They are in substance that the President of the United States, bolh before he be.carne the candidate of the Whig party, and algo during the canvass, and even in his inaugural address, held out expectations to the American people, in the nature of pledges, which he has now departed from and violated in the most atrocious manner. The honorable Sdhator (Mr. B.) represents that while the assurances of the inaugural yet lingered on the lips of him who uttered them, the President commenced breaking faith with the people, or entered on a violation of what he is pleased to denominate pledges, and has continued such violation from that time to this. The charge of the Senator is, that he gave to the-country assurances and pledges, positive and peremptory, for the purpose of reacling the highest,office in the gift of the American people; and that, immediately upon entering on his: duties as the Chief Magistrate of the country, he commenced a systematic violation of all those pledges. The whole sum and substance of this charge is, that he has swindled himself into the presidency; that h1 has obtained that high office by "false p-etences." I regard the inaugural address as partaking ýinmuor"e degree6 of the. solemnity and obligations of the presidential oath: it is contemporaneous therewith, and is declaratory of the purposes and views of the party on taking the oath. If he commenced violating the pledges which the Senator pretends are to be found in the inaugural, while "the accents" thereof "yet lingered on his lips," then he must have taken on his soul the guilt of perjury. If there is any foundation for this allegation of the honorable Senator, then the President of the United States is utterly uniworthy'of the confidence of the country. Whatever others may think of it, I should. consider him as a dishonored man-one who ought to be cast from the respect and association of all honorable andalýfl pringht men. I will, without further preliminary remark,: iaddress myself to the exnsmfiration of this subject in all its bearings. -And, in the first place, I desire to call the particular attentionoff the Senate to the character of this mzst extraordinary resolution. Before entering on that topitc, however, I wouldobs6erve that Inam entitled to coisider theremark4 of!my ho'norable friend as part of the -resolution' ftselfi. or,'rather, they fix itatrue intent and weaning.,. Upon this'p6init I have satisfactory authority to produce--an authoritye to which I sh-ll hsav occalioii t6 refer geveral times in the course of-my remarksi., At the second sessionw of the 24th Congtess/ a -kommittee was raised by the House of Represehtatives.fifr the purpose of inqtiti-ý ing. into certain abuses),said to have been committed in the Departmstrta in this cityatthe- theasd of which was placed the Hon. H1. A..Wise. The committee met and passed the followiing resolutibm: Resil,,ed, That the President of the United States be requested, and the beads of the several Executive Departments be dimt-. ed, to fiiinish tlin cbesmittee witte a list or lists of all officers, or ageite, or deputies who have been appointed, or emploed or pai4,:sice thd 4th of Mtarch; 1,829, to: the 1st December last, if any, without authority o law, (or whose names are votlcntalned in the 1atlpuiested register of 1ublic officers, commonely called tive Blue Book,) by the President or said heads of Departments re-, spectlOval k iand without niormatton to or the advice and consent of the Sdnate of the United States; showing the names of such offia&6, or-agents, or deinithls,'the sums paid t6- Oach, the selivibes rendbred,itod %y what authority aiopoinied and ealad, ana4 i1at fewat fEf such, appoiitfsents."- Vidte ffouse Doea. 2d seas. 24th Ceag.,, Reap. of neittecs, No. 1 941 p. 28. ri.fis rremsslution.n wasg cotnmunicated to President Jackson, anin reply,. he addressed a characteristic lettiidaited 'Jatuarir 26, 1837, to Mr. Wise, rom which I susbmit'.the.tolowing extfact: ",.It; also aspegs from4tlsepv bljrh.ed proceedingq of te Heus, othat this resolution was:acoei~psoied and supported by a speech of &,asidera le length, in svh ieh you preferred mrnyysevere bui, vague charges of corruption and abuse in the Exec,4ive Departmesit. The k:fibluton- arfopted by the cournittas, as stall as that adopted by the House Itselt" must be taken in connexlon' with your introductory speech, wlriss gave a character to the whole proceeding." So I say thejiatroaugtory speech of the ho'norabl6e,$inator (Mr. BaDstiini ) g ia vos0a.chearacter to thi. oes,.ition, and with w hese igh~tswe.cnnot mijstaket6 true ýprPrt and qbject..7 dn'e ~d ~e remaks of,the hoiiorabo e Senator without seeing that the realpurpose of this movit~eme~nt ss'poloaI" Vgiat the expense of Prtsideat Taylor. Hid unaotivs i are to'be qtesti ea. his conduct traauced, his honor -and rectitutle m ulgned,l aand his administratioi rendered,i pible odi&6i sto the A'mpericap people IhVe n greaiStgfes~ tcharacter of this bodly, if it.shalt.lend itself to such an objet. 11Bugt Iscars only elevelop the true61T"aaer of this, resolutio ny entering irto some details. I. wsuld obserye tpa~t t is sweepin, uniiveýrsa and )nde iýine It comprehends rnot' on1ly all that the6'I trsident has 'doriee hins'elf, but every thing done by al1,thýe heads' of pepartmentq. t comprses notbnly;lie cases wh~ the~ '-preden3 t has the appointin gpoer, by and with. the advive ý zd consent, of the'Seniate, 1but 'also th" w he: re the absotlute piowerof appointment is vested in tihe hýcto of the De6ý patiteusts. It.:is tophseKd l hrge ~~e residen't with't the- druFZty of eteering alll ihe~e Departnts, g~atheing upal 1)f9the ar(ers, Aarc~hiingol lldi ~i~ig~eoflholeesfo chrgesP prebt~ed aga qins1 th~ oficrs re-p moveid, in aill' th~e see?, tio mtler how i het,powro f appogIiutrien a evAd rdti po pc~r~ie-i. wahenl the ~ensitor 'dues dtart sythth hasP any ath~entlc I ~f~niett~ ~on,thlt a~jet in5xte~e; 3 when he does not even represent to the Senate, or the country, that he knows that any charges have been preferred; so that it is altogether a matter of inference upon his part. The President is required not only to furnish papers supposed to exist in the Departments, but he is also to furnish a list of cases in which the parties removed have been put on trial. The honorable Senator seems really to suppose that in all cases of removals the President was bound to serve notice upon the parties and give them a hearing. Whether there should be a jury trial in each case, the Senator does not suggest; but there is to be both notice, hearing, and judgment entered up in due form of law. Therefore he calls upon the President to furnish a list of all the cases wherein a lawsuit has been raised between the Executive and the party removed. He goes beyond this; for he not only requires the President to search out all of the pigeon-holes of the *various Departments here, but also to visit all the custom-houses of the country, so as to ascertain what removals have been made there. The honorable Senator is not satisfied with an examination of all the establishments on the Atlantic coast, but the President must make an excursion to the Pacific, in order to respond to this resolution. Besides, he is to ascertain what removals have been made in all the subordinate offices of the Government; not simply in the custom- houses, but in all the various post offices of the country. Perhaps the Senator will say that the information can be obtained here, or that it should be upon the files of the various Departments in this city. The fact is not so. There is a large number of subordinates or employees who were appointed by the chief of the particular office where they exercise their duties. There never is any return made here of changes of such officers. And this is particularly true in the post offices of the country. There is a rule that such postmasters as have an income of over $2,000 a year may appropriate the surplus for the compensation of such clerical force as may be necessary to the despatch of the public business. During the last fiscal year there were sixtysix such offices in the country, leaving out the Pacific coast; and the whole clerical force therein employed during that year amounted to six hundred and forty-six. What, then, is the President to do, if the resolution is passed? He is to send to all these post offices, and, for aught I know, he will have to send to San Francisco, to ascertain what may be the state of things there, in order to comply with the resolution. Indeed, sir, to make the resolution complete, the Senator ought to add an appropriation of some fifty or a hundred thousand dollars to carry it out. It we are to believe the representations of the honorable Senator, we must come to the conclusion that all the pigeon-holes in all the Departments are crowded with what he is pleased to denominate " libels." The whole clerical force in these various Departments, if his statements are true, are to be employed in copying these libels. The Senator says he believes there had been removed (at the time his speech was delivered) five thousand deputy postmasters-and how many more are claimed in other Departments I know not. In every case the Senator supposes charges were preferred. I would suggest to him the addition of a further appropriation to employ an extra clerical force to execute this order, as it will be required on his hypothesis. Mr. BRADBURY, (interposing.) If the Senator will allow me, I will state that the resolution contemplates handing over the original charges, so that the expense and necessity of employing clerks in copying will be saved. Mr. SMITH resumed. Then it seems that the Senator intends to take the original papers out of the custody of the President and the heads of Departments for our use, and to leave nothing in their hands to vindicate their course. I do riot know what my friend contemplates doing with them when they are brought here; whether they are to be carrried over to the " Union" office, and there used for purposes of party agitation, or what is to be done with them. It is sufficient for me to remark that it is contrary to the whole practice ofi the Government, and the honorable Senator may rest assured that it is one of the last things which the President will do. He will not part with a single original paper, but copies will be made, if any thing is to be done, in compliance with the requisitions of this resolution. I object, then, to the vagueness and indefiniteness of this resolution, and to its sweeping character. It is totally unprecedented. If any call is to be made, it should be in conformity with the uniform practice of the Senate, upon the President, for information in those cases coming under his own jurisdiction, where he has the power of appointment by or with the advice and consent of the Senate; but when the power is vested in heads of Departments, he must make his call on the functionary exercising thepower. If the honorable Senator supposes that there is a large mass of libels on file in the General Post Offic', and if he wants to get an insight into the matter, anid to inspect those libels, he must make a call upon the Postmaster General; but as to diiecting the President himself to make inquiries into all the Departments, and reporting here the result, it is, I insist, unprecedented and inadmissible. But I have a little sound demodratic authority upon this point, to which I wish to invite the attention) ofmy honorable friend. It will be found in the same characteristic response which President Jacksen gave to Mr. Wise's committee, (2d session, twenty-fourth Congress,) to which I have already invited the attention of the Senate. He says: "The heads of department may answer such a request if they please, provided they do not withdraw ther own time,, and that of the officers under their direction, from the public business, to the injury thereof;" to which he adds, " I shall direct tAnm to devote themselves."-R'p. 194, p. 31, 2d sess. 24th Con. Sir, the character of the resolution of Mr. Wise is simplicity itself, in comparison with that which. is now under consideration. What did it call for? Merely a list of clerks and other subbidinates em.ployed without authority of law, the amount of salaries,' and the duties assigned to the6 respectively. Gen. Jackson, in answer to such a requisition, after denouncing it as indefinite and vague, says that tie. heads of' Department may answer if they please, provided they can do so without interfering with the public serice. Inreply to the same requisitioni Mr. Kendall; then Postmaster General, said:: " N~etr thewhole force oftthe department and of the Auditor's Oflicewould have to be withdrawn from the cnrreanbuiness,.t the itt~sic4lable injury of the publiesetvice." * * * * " J do not feel authorized, in discharge of my duties to the public, to safer the clerks furnished to me for other purposes to be so employed."--Rep. 194, 2d sess. 245t Conguress. 4 Gen. Jackson told the committee, in effect, that he would not suffer the Departments to reply to it during office hours. And 'Mr. Kendall said he would be obliged, in order to answer it, to employ i e whole clerical force of the Department, which he did not feel authorized to do. What force, then, will be required to respond to such a call as this? So much for the sweeping and indefinite character of the resolution. II. In the next place, I shall advert to the partial and injurious character of this resolution; and here I ask the Senate to attend to the following particulars: 1. The call is limited to " charges which have been preferred or filed in any of the Departments against individuals who have been removed from office since the 4th of March last." Why this limitation to the 4th of March, 1849? The honorable Senator is very curious to know what has taken place since that time, but takes care to make no calls for papers filed in order to effect) emovals under the late administration. Why did not the honorable Senator make a requisition for all papers in the nature of charges filad in the various Departments since the 4th of March, 1845? It would seem to me that he ought to have gone back to that time, in order to do justice; nay, to do full justice, he should have covered the whole period from the 4th of March, 1829, and have brought before the Senate and the country all the particulars of twenty long years of proscription of one-half of the people of this country, as pure, patriotic, and intelligent as any. He should have called for papers appertaining to cases of multitudes, who, without fault or crime, have been, by successive democratic administrations, hurled out of office, in violation of pledgesyes, sir, PLEDGES-a thousand times stronger than any the honorabl6 Senator can pretend to extract from the language used by the President in advance of his elevation to office. There is often a most intimate connexion between old and new papers; and, indeed, no head of a Department can dispense the patronage appertaining thereto safely and properly without bringing into view the grounds on which his predecessor has acted in the particular case or office under consideration. The honorable Senator himself admits the principle when he says: " I will suppose a case: A man deliberately engages in getting up and presenting false charges against an officer, in order to procure a removal, and is successful, and obtains a nomination for the place; if, when his name is presented for our approval, the evidence of his conduct should be furnished wtlh it, should we not feel tha informationto be pertinent and important' There can be but one response to the interrogatory." Now, if it would be proper for the Senate to reject a nomination on such grounds, surely it would be equally proper for the Executive to remove on the same grounds. Now, Mr. President, I wonder why it did not occur to my honorable friend that, if we bring in the papers filed during the late administration, it mayappear that some of the very men who have been turned out were concerned themselves in proscribing others. And I here produce what I doubt not will hbe deemed on the other side of the chamber highly satisfactory authority. It is an extract from a speech delivered early in Gen. Jackson's administration by the honorable Senator from Missouri, (Mr. BENTON,) in this chamber, wherein he says: '" It is incontestably true that many of those who have been dismissed, and not reappointed,'were themselves the proscribers of those who were in their power; dismissing not only clerks and under officers for political opinions, but mechanics, workmen, and laborers."- Vide Gdles & Seaitoi's Rerr. Deb., vol. 11, pt. 1, p. 374. Thus it would seem it is right for an administration coming into power to ascertain whheter incumbents of office were concerned in proscribing others. Indeed, it is believed many of the appointees of President Taylor were turned out for political reasons; and no doubt it will appear, if we can se all the papers, that those who succeeded under the late administration were themselves participalnts in the enormity. Besides, may it not appear that, in some cases at least, the favorites of the late administration were appointed in defiance of public opinion in their respective localities, or on grounds which no just or good man can approve ) In short, it is certain that there is and must, sir, be no small degree of sympathy between the papers (if papers there be) of the late and present adminiistrations, and all must be brought into view to enable us to form a just appreciation of the true state of the cases. The efore, I give notice that, if the resolution is persisted in, I shall move to amend it so as to substitute for the 4th of March, 1849, the 4th of March, 18455; and then we shall see how much ground the supporters of Mr. Polk have to complain of Piesident Taylor. 2. The next particular, Mr. President, to which I wish to call the attention of the Senate is, that, by the resolution of the honorable Senator, the President is required to submit a statement of the removals which have taken place since he came into power, and to produce ail the papers, without any exhibit of.the cases in which he has refused to make removals. Mr. President, what is the question before the Senate and before the country, to which the resolution sad the speech of the honorable Senator relate It is, or ought to be, what has been the entire policy of.the President and his cabinet in dispensing the patronage of the Government? The resolution of the Senator calls only for the cases in which removals have actually taken place, while all cases of refusal to remove are carefully excluded; and this obviously comprises' only one half of the subject. I do not hesitate to declare'my full and entire belief that the cases in which the President and the various heade of dqpartments, acting in conformity with his views, refused to dismiss, are more numerous than those in which removals have actually been made. What is more, I mriy state, upon the strength of what I deem seliable intormation, that democratic members of Congress have gone to the President and made appeals to him to save their, political friends, and he, with a magnanimity peculiar to him, has spared them, and has thus given no small offence to his own supporters, and occasioned, perhaps, some damage to his administration. Yes, sir, if the proof could-be properly brought forward, it would be ascertained that honorable Senators who voted for this reso ution hive made such appeals in person, and made them successfully. It is indispensable that we should have before us the list of cases in which the President hlas rerused, to remove, to enable us to determine whether he has or has not been moderate, reasonable, just, and true. I ventu,'m to a'firn thqt the names of those who held over will comprehend a larger portion of the Blue 5 Book than those that have been appointed under the present administration. I am strongly inclined to think, if the facts were fully developed, that the impression would be universal that injustice has been done to the whig party; but I am not disposed to scrutinize the matter very closely, for no man can be more dissatisfied than I am with the scrambling propensities of both the great political parties in this country. Every administration has been for a long time past tormented with office-seekers; and, if we could get rid of them altogether, it would be a very great relief. I wish there could be a law made, as irreversible as that of the Medes and Persians, that no man coming to this city in pursuit of an office should be gratified. Mr. FOOTE, (interposing.) I have not the least objection, Mr. President, to the honorable Senator's denouncing the whig party for its office-seeking propensities. I see no reason to doubt that he may be right in all he says in that regard. But when the honorable Senator includes both partieswhen he speaks of the democratic party-I would suggest that it is hardly generous. The Senator should be too magnanimous to attack a party that is broken down and prostrate, as is the great demo. cratic party of this country. Mr. MANGUM. You are in a clear majority on this floor. Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I do not consider the democratic party as prostrate so long as the honorable Senator from Mississippi is incessantly on his legs. [Laughter and demonstrations of applause, immediately checked by the Chair. ] Mr. President, I only denounce the spirit of office-seeking which the spoils system has made so rife in the country, and those who make of politics a mere trade. There is not a more patriotic, a more intelligent, and a more virtuous body of men on earth than the whig party, taken as a whole, and I am willing to do justice to the masses of the democratic party. But the applicability of these considerations to the subject before us is too apparent to escape notice. Zachary Taylor is denounced and abused for making removals; but he receives no credit for the moderation, firmness, and sense of justice which he has displayed in cases equally if not more numerous, where he has resisted importunities and left his opponents in office. For his magnanimity he now receives a poor return-he may have carried it too far. The proceedings in this chamber would seem to indicate the necessity of a change of policy. 3. But I take another exception to the character of this resolution; and this is founded on the fact that it is a mere call for the charges filed, and not for reasons for removals. My friend says that he does not desire the reasons, or to quote his exact language, that ' the resolution asks the President for information and not opinions." But, when we come to examine the resolution, we find it calls for "the charges preferred," i. e. for an inspection of papers, and not for information as to the grounds on which the Executive acted. Now, does not the Senator know (if he does not, every other member must) that removals are not made on,mere papers in nine cases out of ten? The dispensation of patronage is or should be. a matter of sound discreti6n and the exercise of an enlightened judgment. But papers are to be produced here without explanation; we are not to know whether the Executive did or did not act on them; we are to infer that they were all false, and that the persons dismissed are pure, worthy, and unexcep. tionable. The moment the papers fall into the hands of the honorable Senator, the conclusion is to be that they contain nothing but falsehoods and libels, on which the innocents of the democratic partyshave been sacrificed, without once stopping for a moment to ascertain whether they constituted the true basis of executive action. But I can show by good authority that this would be an exceedingly unjust treatment of the appointing power. At the second session of the 23d Congress, a committee was raised in the Senate to inquire into the abuses practised in the Post Office Department, of which Mr. Grundy was chairman, and they made the following requisition on Major Barry, then Postmaster General: "To send to the committee all the original lettes and papers in his possession concerning the removal of H. Stafford and the appointment of H. Herron, as deputy postmaster.at Putnam, Ohio." The resolution simply called for the papers in a single case, and not, as now, for all the papers on file in the respective departments in this city, in a.vast multitude of cases, according to the representations of the honorable Senator. Major Bariy gave a response of unusual ability, from which I shall quote extensively hereafter, in which he says, (speaking of removals and appointments:) "The head of the Department might have been governed by reasons within his own knowledge, but not stated in any document received by him "-Vide House Dec., 2d sess. 23d Cong., Rep. Con.,.No. 103, p. 690. Now, I have to say that if any high officer of the Government were to form a judgment on papers merely, it would be a monstrous dereliction of duty. Major Barry utterly refused to comply with the request of Mr. Grundy's committee, and took the very exception on which I now rely. He insisted it could not be safely inferred that any papers on file constituted the real basis of his judgment. But the honorable Senator does not want "the opinions" of the Executive. Ah! Will you not give the President and the heads of Departments an opportunity to say whether they did or did not consider or give effect to the papers, and, if so, to what extent? Nothing is more notorious than that recommendations and representations of all sorts can be obtained with the utmost facility, and no wise or prudent man will rely on them for a moment. Hence executive officers must depend, in a good degree, on their own knowledge and the opinions of members of Congress, (usually verbally expressed,) and of other reliable friends. i'he mere production of papers without explanations is, then, only calculated to deceive and mislead. 4. The procedure contemplated must impose on the Senate an endless task, if there be the slightest disposition here to do justice to te Executive, and to presume otherwise would be disrespectful to the body. The idea predominating in the mind of the Senator seems to be that, on the production of the papers, we are to presume that all the suggestions and allegations therein contained are basely false; and that, too, without knowing whether the Departments gave them the slightest credence: whereas the 6 plainest dictates of justice would require a thorough investigation in each case, and a reference to the appropriate committee, with power to send for persons and papers, and an inquiry as full as it shall be solemn. So that we are to have innumerable lawsuits raised in this chamber, or we are to jump to conclusions that will do the greatest injustice to all concerned. Where will all this end? The impossibility of making any just or proper use of the information sought constitutes an insuperable objection to the proposed call.' 5. As a further development of the partial and injurious character of this resolution, I invite attention to the fact that the information is to be gathered up (at what expense I know not, and when, no one can tell; certainly not at this session,) and brought into the Senate sitting in its legislative capacity, and exhibited to what end? To enable the Senator, as he would have us believe, to discharge properly his executive duties. Then, it would seem that all considerations which induce the Senate, when considering questions of removals and appointments, to sit with closed doors, are to be set aside 1 Why did he not make this call itt executive sesion? Was it because the accents of abuse which have fallen from the Senator's lips would not thus reach the public ear 1 A little sound doctrine from Major Barry's letter to Mr. Grundy's committee will serve to convince the Senator that I cherish more of the sound democratic spirit and principle which predominated under the auspices of President Jackson, than would seem now to prevail, if we are to take this resolution as a fair expression of the progressiveness of modern times. Major Barry says: "The impropriety of yielding to an indiscriminate call for letters and papers is obvious to all who will reflect on the subject. Much of the correspondence of the Department is necessarily in its nature strictly confidential, and the injunction is imposed by the writers.. They do not usually consider the importance of separating confidential matter from that which is not so. Hence, in many cases, the same communication contains both, and it would be impossible toseparate them. In such cases, the Postmaster Gieral bould not, with any degree of propriety, yield the papers; were he to do so, all confidence between him and his correspdndents would be at an end. Facts and the opinions of individuals of credit and respectability in the neighborhood, respecting the conduct, character, and capacity of persons in office, and of applicants for appointment, would be withheld from the Department. No one who regards his domestic comfort, and the peace of his neighborhood, would venture to state matters that would lead to recrimination, controversy, and litigation. In cases of mail depredations, which often lead to removals from office, it is all important that the'Department should invite free communications, both aS to facts and opinions. By these means it is enabled to make discoveries." "It often haippens that, in these inquiries, which are daily going on, circumstances are communicated which would seem to implicate persons who are found, upon a full examination, to be entirely innocent. The publication of such papers would be an act of:ctuel injustice, as well to the accusers as the accused*, and put neighborhoods at enmity that are now in peace and harmony. If the Postmaster General should yield to an unlimited call for papers, all confidence will be withdrawn from the Department.- Depredations and defaults of every description will take place, not only on the part of postmasters, but of contractors and other agents; the power of restraints over subordinates will, to a great extent, be at an end, and the wholesome control now exercised will cease to exist." Bring in all the papers, I say, from the 4th of March, 1845, (to say nothing about the 4th of March, 1829,) and then we shall see how many lawsuits,will be raised, and how much disorder and confusion will be created in the country! 6. The next point which I make is, that, if the allegations of the honorable Senator are true, the President has been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. If the members of the House believe onehalf of what the Senator has said, it is their duty to impeach the President. An abuse of the removing or appointing power is an impeachable offence. This was admitted by the leading statesmen who held seats in the first Congress, many of whom were concerned in framing the Constitution itself. Is it the object of the Senator to qualify himself for trying the articles of impeachment? What would be his situation, and what the situation of the Senate, (should this resolution pass,) if an impeachment shall be instituted? It would seem to be the object of the Senator to qualify us to sit in judgment on the President when he comes to be publicly arraigned. But it is the duty of the House to prefer charges, and not that of the Senate to ascertain their truth in advance. The House is "the grand inquest of the nation," and the Senate has " the sole power to try all impeachment." This very distinction was taken by Major Barry, in the case of the deputy postmaster at Putnam, Ohio. He wholly refused the information to the committee of the Senate, of which Mr. Grundy was chairman, but promptly communicated it to the committee of the House, of which Mr. Connor was chairman, saying: "A similar call was made by a committee of the Senate, whose authority to inquire into the motives and reasons which might have influenced a department of the Executive branch of the Government in the exercise of power vested in it by laws I could not recognise. * * * But there is a difference in the authority of the two Houses from whose committees the call has emanated, The House of Representatives constitutes the grand inquest for impeachment, and, when acting in view of that object, may rightfully examine into the inducements which were'presented to the Postmaster General for making a removal or appointment, and his motives for performing such act. And although I have not been apprized of any such object in calling for these papers, yet, presuming in this case that the call was made for a legitimate purpose, within the scope of the powers of the committee, I have thought proper cn the presentoccasion to furnish the wholeof the correspondence required by their resolution, without excepting any portion of it whatever.-Vide House Does., 2d sess. 23d Cong., Rep. Committees, No. 103,p. 689. 7, In the next place, I have to observe that this is a call on the Preident to furnish means to criminate himself, to which I shall permit President Jackson to state the objection. In his answer to Mr. Wise's committee, already referred to, he says: "The first proceeding of the investigating committee is to pass a series of resolutions, which, though amended on their passage were, as understood, introduced by you, calling on the President and heads of the Departments not to answer any specific charge, not to explain any alleged abuse, not to give information as to any particular transaction, but assuming they have been guilty of the charges alleged, calls on them to furnish evidence against themselves. * * * In open violation of the Constitution and of that well-established and wise maxim, that all men are presumed to be innocent until proved guilty according to the established rules of law, you request myself and the heads of Departments to become our own accusers, and to furnish the evidence to convict ourselves; and this call purports to be founded on the authority of that body in which alone, by the Constitution, the power of impeaching us is vested. * * * I shall resist all such a.tempts as an invasion of the principles of justice as well as of the Constitution, and I shall esteem it my'sacred duty to the people of the United States to resist them as I would the establishment of the Spanissh Inquisition."- Vide House Documents, 2d sess-. 24th Congo., Reps. of oriamittees;.No. 194. p. 23. In the same document, page 45, Mrn Forsyth, says: *' Self respect forbids a reply as tomyself; as to my predecessors, I should not become their accusar if they, had committed 'r - ors, and certainly shall not Vindicate thein while following thelt example.'" 7, It appears from the same document, page 46, that Amos Kendall, then Postmaster General; from do. page 47, Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury; from do., page 48, Mahlon Dickerson, Secretary of the Navy; and from the journal of same committee page 32, B. F. Butler, acting Secretary of War, gave similar answers. It thus appears that my honorable friend has introduced a procedure here in the nature of the Spanish inquisition. "I shall resist it," exclaims President Jackson, " as I would the establishment of the Spanish inquisition." And therefore I suppose I shall do no injustice to the Senator if I consider him as the grand inquisitor. 8. In speaking of the injurious, character of this resolution, I must not omit a very extraordinary paragraph in the speech of the honorable Senator, which is as, follows: "If any friend of the Administration will, in his place here, on its behalf, candidly acknowledge that these pledges and professions, made previous to the election, and reaffirmed in the inaugural address, have been violated, and that ' democrats are removed because they are democrats, and not for moral or official delinquency'-if he will make these frank admisiions, and thus relieve honorable and honest men who have suffered proscription for their political opinions from the unjust imputation of dishonesty, infidelity, or incapacity, I repeat, I will not ask for the adoption of the resolution." With respect to the suggestion that the parties removed were laboring under unjust imputations, for the reason stated, that can be shown to be groundless on authority which the Senator must respect, being that of the opinions of the late Mr. Grunby, one of the leaders of the Democratic party. In a debate which took place in this chamber on the 18th of February, 1835, that gentleman said: " It is no disparagement to a man's standing or character that another individual has been found who can perform the duties of the office as well as he can, and that another has been appointed in his place. If the office has been advantageous and profitable, he should not enjoy the whole benefits in preference to all his contemporaries. On the other hand, if the office has been burdensome, he ought, in proper time, to be relieved fiom it."-Vide Gales & Seaton's Register of Debates, vol. 1,part 1.p. 531. These opinions were expressed by Mr. Grundy, in face of avowals by President Jackson, as to grounds of removals analogous to those of President Taylor, to which the Senator refers; and hence there is no foundation 'for the pretence that the information is wanted to relieve the parties removed from imputation. But, if the fact be otherwise, how does the Senator propose to relieve them? By sacrificing the character of the President of the United States for honor and rectitude. The honorable member, after enumerating about a score of supposed breaches of faith, which he calls "the grand result," coolly proposes, that if his friends " will candidly acknowledge" that Zachary Taylor has violated his word, he will not press his resolution. It is manifest, then, that the resolution is introduced for no practical purpose whatever. No useful measure of legislation is to be founded upon it; nothing for the benefit of the toiling millions in this great country. But we are required to admit that the noble man at the head of our Government is infamous, or we are to lie under the terrors of this resolution. Does the honorable Senator really suppose that we are about to acknowledge that he who has spent his whole life in the service of his country-who has won for the stars and stripes an imperishable renown, and whose purity and integrity no man ever doubted before-has all at once become the basest of mankind? Mr. President, I hold no such commission; and if any one should attempt to impose it upon me, every impulse of my heart would lead me to spurn it. Having thus fully developed the injurious character of this resolution, I leave it in the hands of the Senate, and I bid the Senator welcome to any laurels which he is likely to win in such a contest. But, Mr. president, it will now be my duty to examine in some detail the basis upon which my honorable friend has erected his whole superstructure of reprehension of the Chief Magistrate of this country. The honorable Senator takes generally the ground that the President and his friends gave a series of pledges to the country, in advance of the late presidential election, of a distinct and specific character, and he insists that the effect of these pledges was such as to imrpose upon the present Executive the obligation to remove no one from office, except for reasons that would lay a just foundation for impeachment* He holds out the idea that these pledges or assurances were so binding upon the President, that it was not competent for him' to make a single removal from any department of the public service, without giving notice to the party interested, and without affording him an opportunity to be heard, to examine witnesses, and to defend himself by counsel. And where does the Senator find his basis for such an exposition as this? It is to be found, in the main, in certain extracts made from seven letters of the President, communicated to the public in advance of the late presidential election, on remarks made by some two or three of his leading friends during the canvass, and in a few short sentences produced from the President's inaugural address. Now, I have to say, in the first place, that very great injustice has been done to President Taylor in regard to this correspondence. I utterly deny, and I can prove conclusively, that he never made any assurances or gave pledges of any sort in reference to this matter. While I cannot doubt that my honorable, friend, in making the selections from the seven letters referred to, acted in good faith, yet I will say that if the most ingenious man in the country had been, employed to select passages from the correspondence of the President, which would give a view of his position more injurious than any other, he certainly could not have been more successful than the honbrable gentlemat has been in bringing forward these extracts. Indeed, I have very seriously doubted whether he made them himself, and I have been led to suspect that he must have taken them from some of the political effusions of the day, or, in other words, that it was the work of some newspaper editor, whose object was to traduce and slander the President. But if the honorable Senator made these selections, I have to say to him and to the Senate, that it is entirely apparent that he could not have ibeen as conversant as I was with what I may properly call the Taylor literature of 1848. The honorable gentleman 4eem- not to have been at all conversant with that sort of literature; and if he had been as diligent and as' thorough a student of it as I was, I am very sure that my friend' Would have made' a much more just and faithful exhibition of this entire matter than he has done. 8 Now, sir, before I proceed to recur to this subject in detail, I wish to make some preliminary remarks. In the first place, I would observe that there is no sort of doubt but that, when the idea was first suggested to President Taylor that he could by any possibility be elected President of the United States, he received that suggestion with the utmost repugnance. I believe he is not the first man in the history of the country, or rather the first man who has held the presidential office, who felt and expressed a similar repugnance. I have always understood that General Jackson, when the ideaf was first communicated to him of his being a candidate for the presidency, received it not only with incredulity, but almost with contempt and ridicule. Every one knowing any thing of the character of the President must be convinced that he felt a sincere aversion to having his name brought before the public in connexion with the presidential office in any form. At this period, sir, he was at the head of our army in Mexico, and he believed that it was improper for him, occupying the position he did, commanding Whigs and Democrats, to consent to become a party candidate for the presidency. And this he explains in a letter addressed to Capt. Allison, dated at East Pascagoula, Sept. 4, 1848, as follows: "I was sugrounded by whigs and democrats, who had stood by me in the trying hours of my life, and whom it was my destiny to conduct through scenes of greater trial. My duty to that army, and to the republic whose battles we were waging, forbade my assuming a position of seeming hostility to any portion of the brave men under my command-all of whom knewl was a whig in principle, for I made no concealment of my political sentiments or predilections. Such had been the violence of our party struggles during our late presidential elections that the acceptance of a nomination, under the rigorous interpretations given to the obligations of a candidate presented to the public with a formulary of political principles, was equivalent almost to a declaration of uncompromising enmity to all who did not subscribe to its tenets. I was unwilling to hazard the effects of such a relationship towards any of the soldiers under my command, when in front of an enemy common to us all. It would have been unjust in itself, and it was repugnant to my own feelings as it was to my duty. I wanted unity in the army, and forebore any act that might sow the seeds of distrust and discord in the ranks." There can be no doubt, Mr. President, that General Taylor, thus situated, and having a very strong repugnance to having his name brought into the canvass for the presidency, did write letters, and many letters, containing expressions like those produced by the honorable Senator from Maine. But many of these letters were never intended for publication; they were private letters, but were very indiscreetly thrown before the public by the persons to whom they were addressed. Referring to this very subject, the President, in the letter last quoted, says: "Had these letters and scraps of letters been published, or construed in connexion with what I have heretofore said on this subject, I should not now have to coinplain of the speed with which my answers to isolated questions have been given up to the captious criticism of those who have been made my enemies, by a nomination which has been tendered to me without solicitation or arrangement of mine, or of the manner in which selected passages in some of my letters, written in the freedom and carelessness of a confidential correspondence, have been communicated to the public press." Yes, sir, many men wrote letters to General Taylor, and he responded to them with the frankness of a soldier and of an honest man; and, wishing to obtain some notoriety in their respective neighborhoods, they very improperly threw those answers into the public press, giving them over to the captious criticism of those who had become his political enemies, simply because his name had been brought before the country inonnexion with the presidential office. The President, in the letter last referred to, adds: " But, riven from the context, and separated from a series of explanatory facts and circumstances which are, i3 so far as thii canvass is concerned, historical, they are as deceptive as though they were positive fabrications." Now, I do not say that the honorable Senator, in grouping together, as he has done, a few isolated passages, intended to mislead and deceive the public. I know nothing of that honorable Senator but what is adapted to inspire me with confidence and respect; but, in the language of the President, I do say that this collection of extracts, brought together in the manner they have been, are just as deceptive and as well calculated to mislead as if they had been positive fabrications. In order to do justice to this subject, it is necessary for every man to draw a broad line of distinction between the earlier and the later correspondence of the President. In the first instance, it was his purpose not to be brought before the country as the candidate of any party, and he said so over and over again. He wrote many letters undoubtedly when such was his purpose, and I will directly produce extracts and submit them to the Senate; But, after a considerable period of time, he became convinced that, if his name was to be used in connexion with that office at all, with success, it must be on a nomination by one of the great parties of this country. It is obvious that the idea which many of his friends entertained, that he or any other man, no matter how distinguished, could be brought forward and elected President of the United States as an independent candidate, was utterly preposterous. I repeat, it is undoubtedly true that, being utterly averse to having his name used in that connexion; feeling a sincere doubt as to his qualifications to discharge the duties of that high office; taking into consideration his position, then at the head of the army, he did take the ground, and did so over and over again, that he would not become a mere party candidate; that he did not desire the office, but preferred that some one of the eminent civilians of the country should be raised to that exalted position, and more than once indicated a gentleman, now a member of this body, (Mr. CLAY,) as being his choice in preference to all others, as he certainly was, on the score of experience, abilities, and a long life of devotion to his country, my choice. For I say here that I have ever preferred a trained statesman for the presidency to any man who has been brought up to the profession of arms. I do not say that I prefer any civilian to any military character by any means. I prefer President Taylor to many of the civilians of this country, for whom I have generally a high respect. Now, sir, I ask the indulgence of this body in recurring to this earlier correspondence, with a view of presenting itto the Senate and to the country in its true light, and to show that in that correspondence the President assumed no obligation such as the Senator from Maine insists. In the first place, I call the attention of the Senate to passages in this earlier correspondence, in which he declared that he would give 1no pledge whatever, and would reach the Presidenpy, if at all, sntrammelled by obligations of this kind. 9 1. In a letter dated at Monterey, July 6, 1847, he says: " I can only say, with all candor, that if elected to that office, (the presidency,) it must be by the spontaneous will ofthe people at large, and without agency or pledge on my part in any particular." 2. In a letter dated at Monterey, August 3, 1847, he says: " If I am to occupy the White House, it must be by the spontaneous movement of thepeople, without any action of mine in relation to it-without pledges other than I have previously stated-a strict adherence to the provisions of the Constitution; so I could enter on the arduous and responsible duties appertaining to said office untrameiled; so that I could be the President of the country, and not of a party." 3. In a letter dated at Monterey, August 10, 1847, he uses language to the sameeffect: " That he would not submit tt, the exaction of any other pledge as to his course than that of discharging his functions according to his ability, and strictly in accordance with the requirements of the constitution." 4. In a letter dated at Monterey, September 23, 1847, he declines expressing " Any sentiment having the nature of a pledge to any political party." 5. In a letter dated at Baton Rouge, February 12, 1848, he says: "I deem it but candid, however, to add, that if the whig party desire at the next presidential election to cast their votes for me, they must do it on their own responsibility, and without any pledgesfrom me." 6. In a letter dated at Baton Rouge, February 28, 1848, he says: " I have no aspirations for civil office, and am only a candidate so far as the good people of the country has made me so; and those who are not willing to vote for me for the presidency without pledges, let them cast their votes at the proper time for those who will make them." 7. In his letter to Captain J. S. Allison, dated at Baton Rouge, on the 22d of April, 1848, he says: '" One who cannot be trusted WITHOUT PLEDGBS cannot be confided in merely on account of them. We have here, then, this extraordinary state of the case. The Senator from Maine insists that the President did give pledges, and the most positive pledges-and that, too, at a period when he was asseverating that he would do no such thing!--that if he was to fill the office of Piesident, he would go into it wholly untramelled, and would then take any position that he might be pleased to take; that he would place himself at the head of either of the great parties, or neither of them, and remove from office or not as he might see fit. And yet the honorable Senator contends that though the President found (as I can demonstrate) nine-tenths of the offices in the hands of his political opponents, and enjoyed by a party who had carried on the prospective system for twenty long years, he was under a solemn pledge not to remove from office, the President saying all the while that he would give no pledges. I have this to say, in regard to the extracts presented by the honorable member, that he, or some one for him, has steered entirely clear of every passage in this correspondence in which this declaration of the President is contained. A vast ingenuity hrs been displayed in this regard. There is in no one of those extracts the word " pledge" or "pledges," except in the last; and there it is used in a manner not to produce the slightest impression upon the public mind. How comes it about that the honorable Senator has omitted entirely all those repeated and reiterated declarations of the President that he would give no pledges, and that when he came into the President's office he would do just as he pleased;, that he would discharge the duties of that office as he felt bound in conscience to do, and according to the constitution? If my honorable friend ever publishes another edition of his speech, (I understand it has gone through several,) I hope he will state in a foot note that President Taylor said repeatedly that he would make no pledges of any sort; and then the conclusions of the public will be against the whole tenor of the Senator's speech, and in conformity to justice and truth. In the next place, I call the attention of the Senate to a series of. passages in the earlier letters of General Taylor, in which he declared that he would not be the candidate of any mere party, and would not consent to be elevated to the presidential office except by a spontaneous expression of the public will. 1. In a letter dated at Monterey, May 18, 1846, he says: " In no case can I permit myself to be the candidate of any party, or yield myself to party schemes." 2. In a letter dated at Monterey, July 6, 1847, he says: " I do not desire the presidency, and only yield thus far my assent to be consilered a candidate in the same proportion in which itis desired by the people, irrespective of party." 3. In a letter dated at Monterey, July 13, 1847, he says: " I am not willing to become the candidate of any party, to pledge myself to any political creed, save that which proceeds directly from the constitution, and the best and paramount interests of the country, and which they solemnly demand." 4. In a letter dated at Baton Rouge, January 23, 1848, he says: " I shall offer no active opposition to the use of my nime in connexion with this responsible office, (the presidency,) as long as they continue to use it independent of party distinctions." In extract No. 1 the President says he will not " yield himself to party schemes." Now, I can name one scheme to which the President has not, and will not, yield himself; and that is, the great predominating scheme of the Democratic party', to hold on to all the offices in the country, and to deter the Eixeutive from making salutary reforms by clamor and abuse. The realization of this scheme lies very near the democratic heart of the country. I dare say this was one of the schemes which the President had in his mind when he made this declaration. And then it will, be observed that in extract No. 3 he again recurs to the subject of pledges, and it would seem impossible for him to write a paragraph of four lines without eychewing all such obligations. Well, sir, the President undoubtedly at one time said (vide extracts above) that he would uot be a mere party candidate. What is the inference which the honorable Senator draws from that 1 That when he should reach the presidency, he would be a no-party President; that he would take no ground; connect himself with no party; call for the support of no class of the American people; sympathize with no portion of our fellow-citizens, and would expect none to symyathize with him. Now, I desire to ask, in all candor, what an expression of the views of the President, in regard to the position in which he chose to stand before the public as a candidate, has to do with his conduct after he comes into office 1 Is it 10 fair, is it ingenuous, to seize hold of an expression which related merely to his position as a candidate, and undertake to infer from that an obligation to administer the presidential office in a particular way 1 After all, Mr. President, this is only another form of asserting that he would not give pledges. He knew perfectly well that to consent to become the candidate for the presidency of any party would involve a pledge, and a very high pledg, too; and I never heard of but one man in the history of this country, (I do not choose to name him Tere,) who did not feel the binding obligation of that pledge. Sir, if any man accepts the nomination of any party, and goes in consequence to the head of this Government, he is bound by the very highest of all obligation to administrate that Government in general conformity with the views of those who elevate him to the presidential office; and I say this has been acknowledged by every President who has held that office from 1789 down to the present day, with a single exception, constituting a very remarkable case of perfidy in the civil history of this country, in my judgment not less infamous than the perfidy which marked our military annals at an early day. The President understood this very well. He knew that if he consented to become the candidate of the Whig party, he would come under the obligation of pledges; and the language now referred to was only another form of saying that he would give pledges to no party or body of men whatever. III. In the next place, I invite the attention of the Senate to passages from this same class of letters, in which the President said that he would not, if elected, lend himself to party schemes, and would be the President of the, people. 1. In a letter dated Monterey, July 20, 1847, he said: " Should I ever occupy the White House, it must be by the spontaneous move of the people, and by no act of mine; so that I could enter on the duties appertaining to the Chief Magistrate of the country untrarmmelled and unpledged, beyond what I have previously stated as regards the Constitution; so that I could and would be the President of the nation, and not of a party." 2. In a lqtter dated at aton Rouge, February 12, 1848, he says: " Should I be elected to that office, (the presidency,) I should;deem it to be my duty, and should most certainly claim the right; to look to the Constitaiion and to the high interest of our common country, and not to the principles, of a party, for my:rmle of action." '::. 3. In a letter dated at Baton Rouge, May 1, 1848, he says: " I must be permitted to add that as they have with so much confidence placed my name before the country on their own responsibility, free from party action and the traction of pledges from myself, I shall'serve them humbly as a constitutional and not a party President, (in the event already alluded to,) and as my ability will permit." I find in " The Campaign," (a paper published in this city to promote the election of Gen. Cass,) of September 27, 1848, the following view of this part of Gen. Taylor's correspondence: "It is eminently ridiculous to speak of a candidnte being so much of a party man as to prevent him being the President of the whole country. Why, 'the President's oath of office settles that matter-party candidate or no party candidate. The fact is, this phrase, which has appeared so often in'General Taylor's letter, means just nothing at all." This I suppose appeared about the same time in the Union. Then, when the object was to defeat Gen. Taylor, the declaration referred to m'eant "just nothing at all," but now, when the object is to slander and abuse him, it means a great deal. Mr. Polk, in his inaugural address, held similar language, as follows: "Although in our country the Chief Magistrate must almost of necessity be chosen by a party, and stand pledged to its principles and measures, yet, in his official action, he should not be the Presidant of a party only, but of the whole people of the "United States. While he executes the laws with an impartial hand, shrinks from no proper responsibility, and faithfully carries bat in the Egecutive department of the Government the principles and policy o' those who have chosen him, he should not be unmindful that our fellow-citizens who have' differed with him in opinion are entitled to the full and free exercise of their opinions and judgments, and that the rights of all are entitled to respect and regard." Nothing in any of the letters of President Taylor can be stronger than this; and yet Mr. Polk was (as will appear hereafter) by far the most prosciptive President that has hitherto administered this Government. The whole argument of the honoravble Senator can be directed to prove the late President guilty of treachery and breach of faith. IV. I come now to the last of the series of extracts to be produced from the same letters, in which the President declared himself to be a whig, and;to sympathize with that great party in principle and opinion. 1. In a letter dated at Monterey, July 21, 1846, he says: "Although no politician, having always held myself aloof from the clamors of party politics, I am a whig, and shall ever be devoted in individual opinion to the principles of that party." ' 2. In a letter dated at Monterey, August 3, 1847, he says: "At the last presidential canvass, without interfering in any way with the same, it was well known to all with whom I mixed, both whigs and democrats, (for I had no concealment in the matter,) that I was decidedly in favor of Mr. Clay's election, and would now prefer seeing him in that office to any individual in th' Union, certainly much more so at any time than myself. Independent of his great talents and long experience in government affairs, I consider his views and those of the whigs, for the most part, are more nearly assimilated, as regards political matters, to those of Mr. Jefferson than those of their opponents." He then adds, that he was reared in Mr. Jefferson's political creed and opinions in matters of State, and had never lost sight of them, conforming thereto as near as circumstances would permit. 3. In a letter dated at Baton Rouge, Feb. 12, 1848, he says: " I have no hesitation in stating, as I have stated on former occasions, that I am a whig, though not an ultra one, and that I have no desire to conceal this fact from any portion of the people of the United States." 4. In his first Allison letter, dated at Baton Rouge, April 22, 1848, he says: * I reiterate what I have often said: lam a whig, but not an ultra wahig. If elected, I would not be the mere President of a party. I would endeavor to act independent of party domination. I should feel bound to administer the Government untlrammelled by party schemes'." And here, Mr, President, is the proper place to take notice of a paragraph in the honorable Senator's (Mr. BanUSaxT's) speech, which has awakened much surprise in my mind. The Senator says: "' He occupied a different polition ftom that of other oandidates for that high office, who wore his competitors at the Philadelphia Conventinu. They could present noeuch varied claims. They could make no such pledges and professions. They were conispicuous memers of a political party whose principles were well understood; and they could not claim to place themselves independent oi~P'rty. His' great cbmpetitor from the.West never hesitated to make the avowal to the people of the country, ' I am a.whig.' And the distinguished statesman from the North, who stood in the same position, gave the samS response." 11 Here is a plain intimation that General Taylbr did not and would not claim that he was a whig; and that, too, when his whole correspondence is filled with asseverations to that effect. Is this fair? Is it ingenuous? I have thus carefully analyzed all the earlier correspondence of the President; and what does it amount to? It is apparent that he would not give express pledges, and equally certain that he was determined to avoid the pledges implied by becoming the candidate of a party; but, at the same time, we see clearly that he was a whig, though not an ultra one, and that he was " devoted in individual opinion to the principles of that party." How is it that the honorable Senator deduces the conclusions stated'in his speech from such a source? How can he, with any show of fairness, contend that the President pledged himself even in his earlier letters to any particular course? If he had been elevated to the presidency on the platform or basis thus presented, would he not have been at liberty to act as a sound judgment, a well-informed understanding, and an honest heart might dictate? I cheerfully refer the entire matter to the appreciation of such Senators as desire to do justice, and to the arbitrament of an enlighted public sentiment. But, sir, I now come to the essential part of the case-to the later correspondence of the President, and to the position which he saw fit to take at the Philadelphia Convention. We all know that he has been reproached with inconsistency in this regard. The most upqualified abuse has been poured out upon him for daring to become the candidate of the Whig paity. It has been assuned that if any man once takes the ground he will not be a candidate, or, if so, only on conditions, he is committed irretrievably, and cannot depart one hair from his' position without dishonor. Nothing can be moie false than this. He may say, at one time, he will not be a candidate, and alter his mind at a subsequent period, provided he does not compremitwand embarrass a candidate or candidates who have become such in the faith of his assurances At the time the letters were written on which the honorable Senator lelies, there were no presidential candidates in the field-it was ll preliminary to the selection of candiddtes. Before any convention was held, he manifested a change of purpose, and at the Philadelphia Convention it wasproclaimed so as to be understood and known.of all men. The brave old soldier acted with his characteristic frankness. The reasons which originally induced him to insist that he could not be the candidate of any party having ceased, he concluded to let his name go before that body, to be considered in connexion with those of other distinguished citizens. Judges Winchester and Saunders (both delegates from Louisiana) appeared as his representatives, and the latter, in behalf of the President, read the following statement: "General Taylor, we are also authorized'to say, will hail with entire satisfaction any nomination besides himself. being persuaded that the welfare of pur country REQUIRES A CHANGE OF MEN AND MEASURES, in order to arrest the downward tendency of our national affairs. On making this announcement, the delegates of Louisiana wish it to be distinctly understood that it involves no inconsistency on the part of General Taylor, in case the choice of this convention should fall on another. If General Taylor's friends in this convention withdraw him, it will be their act and not his; and by the act of uniting with this convention, his friends withdraw his name from the canvass, unless he be the nominee of this convention; and we deem it proper to assure the Whigs of the Union, that we desire the nomination and election of General Taylor to the presidency on no other than national grounds." I find nothing about " CHANGE OF MEYx AND MEASURES,i, in order to anest the downward tendency of our national affairs" in the speech of the honorable Senator. Will he have the goodness to put this also in a foot-note? The position thus announced by his friends, he afterwards adopted arid ratified in a letter to the independents of Baltimore, dated at Baton Rouge, June 29,' 1848: "Isubstantially informed them further, (Judges Winchester anri Saunders,) that unless they should discover an evident disposition to treat me unfairly, which 1 had no reason for supposing would be the case, I thought that my frrepds should go into the convention, as they had been selected by their fellow-citizens for this purpose; but that, having once entered it, they were of course bound, if I were not nominated, to sustain and support the nominee, whoever he might be, and that I hoped they would doso, heart and soul." * * * * * * * SUnder the general authority, then, thus given these gentlemen, (Judges Winchester and Saunders,) I shall deem whatever statements they may have made to be right and proper; and, confident in their integrity, and in the sincerity of their friendship for me, I shall sustain them without qualification. I now, therefore, take upon my own shoulders the responsibility of the acts of the Louisiana delegation, and am prepared to stand by their consequences, in their length and breadth." And then he adds: " I cannot expect or desire that any of my friends whom you repres6nt should do violence to their own sense of right and wrong, by supporting my election, while they believe I have changed my political views." The effect of this communication on the independents of Baltimore was their immediate disorganization, and a discontinuance of their organ, called the Buena Vista. In the last number thereof, the editors say: " It is needless for us to say that the ground on which we have heretofore stood in our support of General Taylor is thus taken from under us deliberately and unequivocally by the individual in whose behalf we assumed it, and thre can be neither doubt nor difficulty in regard to the alternative which such a state of things presents to us.:* * * The act of the Louisiana,delegation we treat as General Taylor's act. It is hip in its length and breadth-consistent or inconsistent-in good faith or bad faith, fair or false, it is all his." Thus General Taylor became the candidate of the Whig party. In no other way could he have been either nominated or elected. Having been a member of that convention, I am free to say that my ultimate vote for him, after I had given a full expression to the predominating sentiment of my own State in favor of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. CLAY,) was based wholly on this ground. He had submitted his pretensions to the arbitrament of that body, and not only agreed to abide its decision, but even insisted that his friends should " sustain and support the nominee, whoever he might be, heart and soul," upon the principle that "a change of men and measures " was indispensable to arrest the downward tendency of our national affairs." The nomination of the Senator from Kentucky having 'become unattainable, and General Taylor having placed himself before the body on the precise ground occupied by his distinguished competitors, I went over to him, I admit, mainly for the reason I believed him to'be available, having at the same time the utmost confidence in his rectitude, and also in his 12 ability to administer the Government. He was nominated and elected, and is now the Chief Magistrate of this great republic. He,has, in the eyes of the Democracy,' committed the unpardonable sin of daring to be the President of the United States. He has been too successful, and has too strong a hold on the confidence and affections of the American people. The honorable member refers to some remarks made in and out of Congress by the leading friends of the President on his views in regard to the proscriptive policy. He says that the Hon. Mr. Crittenden declared, at some public meeting, that he (the President) "hates, loathes, proscription;" and that the present Secretary of State (M1r. Clayton) made in this chamber suggestions to the same effect. To say nothing of the injustice of holding any candidate for the Presidency responsible for the views presented by his friends in various parts of the country, I maintain that there has been nothingin his course that conflicts with these statements. I should suppose that, coming into office and finding the whole Government in the hands of one party, and those his political opponents, who had obtained their situations by proscribing the rest of their fellow-citizens--a party that have maintai4ed their proscriptive policy resolutely for a long course of years-I should think; sir, that finding himself thus situated, if he "t hated and loathed proscription," the very first measures which he would adopt would be to proscribe proscription itself, by making a reasonable and suitable number of removals and changes. Has it not occurred to the honorable Senator that the President would have been a proscriber if he had continued proscription, and just'as responsible as if he had introduced it originally? It is precisely for the reason that he is opposed to that detestable system that his whole course -can be vindicated and sustained. I postpone to a subsequent part'of my remarks all comment on the charges against' the President, based on an extract from his inaugural address, importing that he should make " honesty, capacity, and fidelity indispensable prerequisites to the bestowal of office, and thpt the absence of either of these qualities would be deemed sufficient cause for removal," as I wish to. hold these sentiments up in contrast -with similar language used by several Democratic Presidents on occasion of their induction into office. I will now proceed, Mr. President, to adduce other evidence in confirmation of the position whichl I have assumed. My honorable friend holds out the idea (though he does not say so in so many words) that General Taylor came into the canvass and suffered his name to be submitted to the consideration of the people in an equivocal attitude-that there was something doubtful in his position, and that solely,in consequence of this he was enabled to reach the highest office in their gift. On the contrary, i insist that his position was unequivocal; that he was a Whig candidate for the Presidency, and was understood to be such by the Democracy throughout the length and breadth of the land. After he was nominated by the Philadelphia Convention, and had accepted that nomination, he was a party candidate, and was admitted to be such on all hands. He was the Whig candidate for the Presidency precisely in the same sense that the honorable Senator from Michigan (JMr. CAss) was the Democratic candidate, and his election was resisted upon that ground throughout the country. This is the inevitable conclusion from his correspondence; and my object now is,; to confirm that conclusion (if confirmation be necessary) by authority which I am sure honorable Senators will receive with respect. I might, if I pleased, refer to the testimony of the public press, which would be legitimate on a mere question of fact, but I choose to recur to much higher sources for proof. Up to the period when the result of the State election in Pennsylvania (October, 1848) was known, the Democracy in this city reposed in fancied security. 'They had not the slightest doubt of success at the great struggle in JNotember. They were taken completely by surprise by that event, and, indeed, could not have been more astonished if a thunderbolt had fallen in their midst. With the utmost trepidation and alarm, they addressed themselves to the work of warding off, if possible, impending ruin; and, among other measures, on the 20th of October, got up a procession, and marched to the house of the Hon. Mr. Buchanan, then Secretary of State, on F street, where he delivered them an address, characterized with his usual ability, from which I submit the following extract: "Let no Democrat lay the flattering unction to his soal, that General Taylor's Administration would not be a proscriptive Whig Administration." * * * " A Whig himself, elected by Whigs, and surrounded by a Whig Cabinet, he would be compelled, by the necessities of his position, to carry into effect Whig measures and Whig principles. Indeed, he would prove faithless to his party if he were to pursue any other course!" Thus, Mr. Buchanan anticipated removals in the event of the election of General Taylor.; but, in conformity with the uniform course of his party, he speaks of such removals as being proscriptive. The new Administration, he says, will be " a proscriptive Whig Administration." I suppose there would have been no proscription in the event of the success of General Cass, though " the little finger" of the latter had proved thicker than " the loins of the former." We also learn fiom the late Secretary of State, that he would " be faithless to his party" if he did not adiminister the Government in conformity with their vtews. So that it is treachery any way-treachery to the Democracy if he does make removals, and treachery to the Whigs if he does not! I will finish this part of the subject by calling as witnesses the two Houses of the last Congress. On referring to the appropriation bill for the civil and diplomatic service, passed at the last session of Congress, it will be found that provision was made for the recall of the whole diplomatic corps, and for the apphintment by the new administration of its friends to every situation therein. The appropriations were as follows: 1. "For the salaries of the ministers of the United States to Great Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, Spain, Brazil, and Mexico, sixty three thousand dollars; and for outfits of said ministers sixty three thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be:ecessary."2. ~2. " Fot the outfit of a minister to the Germanic Confederation, nine thousand dollars; and for one year's salary of said min - ister, nine thousand dollars."P 3. "For the outfit of a minister to the Government of Chili, nine thousand dollars; and for salary of said minister nine thousand dollars.",,:: ' 4. " For the salaries ofcharges des affa;res to Portugal, Austria, Denmark, Sweden. Holland, Belgium, Naples. Sardinia, the Papal States, Chili, Peru, New Granada, Venezuela, Buenos Ayres, Bolivia, Guatarmala, and Ecuador, seventy six thousand five hundred: dollars; and for outfits of said charges des aftiaires, seventy six thousand five hundred dollars, or so much thereof aa may be necessary." 13 From this it appears that the last Congress (with the House about equally divided, and the Senate largely democratic) provided outfits for nine full ministers and sixteen charges, amounting in all to no less than $153,000, thus intimating that it would be proper for the President to recall the whole diplomatic corps. Nothing like this amount has ever been appropriated before for the same purpose. The 28th Congress allowed Mr. Polk only $80,500, being a balance of liberality in favor of President Taylor of $72,500. Having myself, as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, moved these provisions as amendments to the civil and diplomatic bill then pending in the House, my particular attention was turned to the subject, and I can say that the amendments proposed received the support of a large number of the democratic members; but it is certain the bill would not have passed this body without the votes of some portion of Ihe democracy here. This Was truly generous; but what are we to think of the consistency of those who, after suggesting if not inviting the course so plainly indicated, turn round and denounce it to the country as treacherous and vile? How can the honorable Senator draw a distinction between the diplomatic corps and other branches of the public service? I will merely add that the President acted, in point of time, in exact conformity with the views and opinions of Congress on this subject. The appropriations were made for the current fiscal year, and this we know commenced on the first of July last; and, out of deference to Congress, he wholly refused to make any appointments until after that date. Mr. BRADBURY. Mr. President, I understand the honorable Senator to claim, as a matter of merit, that General Taylor refrained from making any removals of the diplematic corps until the commencement of the fiscal year. I would like to ask of the honorable Senator, whether he did not make the changes as soon as he.was authorized to use the appropriations? IMr. JMANGUM. He could undoubtedly have acted on the appropriations in advance, and could have used the money when due. It has always been done by other administrations. Mr. BRADBURY. I have supposed that there was no authority for it. Mr. MANGUM. Besides, there is always a fund in the hands of the Secretary of State for the use of the service, and this could have been used if necessary. Mr. SMITH. Yes; and the honorable Senator (Mr. MANGUM) might say a great deal more than that. It is not uncommon to send a minister abroad when there is no appropriation; and as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of, Representatives, during both the 29th and 30th Congresses, I was repeatedly called upon for appropriations for the outfits and salaries of ministers sent out in that manner., I hold that the President has the power to send a minister abroad, whether there is any dppropriation or not, though Congress can refuse payment. But this is wholly unknown in the history of the country. The President, then, waited until the very hour arrived indicated by Congress. He allowed the appointees of the late administration to hold their places for one-third of a year after he came into power, and then proceeded to make changes gradually. How far he has carried the work, and whether his course has or has not been moderate, will appear hereafter. Having thus shown fully under what circumstances President Taylor became a candidate, the relations in which he stood to the whig party, and a recognition of that relation both by the late honorable Secretary of State and the two Houses of Congress, and he having been triumphantly elected, it may well be asked what, on coming ihto power, should he do? He finds nearly all the places under the Government filled by one class-men who had been engaged in hunting down and proscribing others-and that his political friends had been treated as if they were enemies to the republic, and utterly excluded from all participation in the honors and emoluments of office. Was he bound to lend himself to this vile system, by continuing the proscribers in place and power? Or might he, by adopting the principle of equalization, do justice to every class, and uphold the rights and just pretensions of all? It was alike his duty and his inclination to observe the rule of moderation; and this he explains in his second letter to Captain Allison, dated at East Pascagoula, September 4, 1848, as follows: "'I have said I am not a party candidate; nor am I, in that straightened and sectarian sense which would prevent my being the President of the people, in case of my election." * * * * I am not engaged to lay violent hands indiscriminately upon public officers, good and bad, who may differ in opinion with me." * * * * That is what I mean by not being a party candidate." Precisely so. He has not laid "violent hands indiscriminately on public officers, good and bad," who belonged to the opposite party; but, nevertheless, he has endeavored to carry out the pledge which he gave in face of the Philadelphia Convention and the whole country to make such "a change of men and measures" as was required by the high interests of the republic. But now we hear one universal cry, set up all over the country, of proscription! breach of faith! promise-breaking! The democracy can carry on proscription ad libitum. They spare no man, no matter what may be his age, his integrity, experience, or ability to advance the public interests. But the moment the people, in their good pleasure, hand over the Government to,their political opponents, the world is filled with denunciations if a single hair of the democra'cy is touched. Indeed, the Senator and his friends are to have all the offices.anyhow. If we have a democratic Executive, then they take them because they are for the proscriptive policy; and if a whig Executive, then they are to hold on because we deprecate that policy. The Senator says, "It is not the policy of removal& that I assail or call in question; it is the inconsistency between the professions and practices of the party in power." Even so. There is always a clamor about whig inconsistency and whig violation of pledges. Indeed, it is apparent that the democracy intend to make good their hold on the treasury lid, (which they have had possession of for so long a period,) by a torrent of abuse, alike impudent and false. They fasten themselves on "the spoils" with the grasp of death! But it will be in vain. The people are too intelligent not to see through these shallow pretences. They know that Zachary Taylor has given no assurances such as are set up here. Pledges are not to be extracted or inferred even, from his early correspondence. Henqe the President is at liberty to pursue such a course as will best subserve the public interests, He has sa ight to dp justice to his own political friends. 14 SATURDAY, MARCH 23, 1850. Thesam suject eing again under consideration, Mr. SMI~TH resiame'd' and concluded as -follows:.Mr. PRESIDENT: I now come to d part of the discussion to which I desire to invite the attention of those S$enato s who have countenanced this resolution, as I propose to show that the undertaking of my honorable friend is highly hazardous to the Democratic party. How -far have you kept your own pledges, and how far have you held them binding on your Presidents1 for a long course of years? I am not about to excuse promise- breaking by the practice and example of the democracy. Fortunately, I have no occasion to put in any such plea in behalf of Zachary Taylor. But the honorable Senator has constituted himself prosecutor of this claim of ",1violated pledges;" and I take an exception to his competency. I set up against him what the lawyers call an estoppel'in pais, and will show -that neither he nor his party are in a condition to take the-exception now urged on the attention of the Senateý. In a review of the political history of the country from 1828 down to this day, I have. been able to find scarcely an instance of assurances held out to the public by the Democratic party, as the basis of a Presidential -canvass, which they have not departed from utterly in practice. This recurrence to the past will not be without its use., as it will show those who are so free to impeach the motives and assail the conduct of others., that ik~ssibly, they may require some little indulgence themselves, and hence may conclude to be a little more resatved fn casting reproaches -at others. A little self-examination'would) I think, be highly useful to, the Democracy. They should search out their 'own skirts,'and perhaps they will find there the ghosts of too zhiiny broken promises to make it worth while for them to say much on the tubject of a violation of pledges by any one. It will be recollected that the party known in 1828 as the Jackson party obtained possession of the Govertimient, as the result of the Presidential election of that year, on the faith of numerous pledges and assurances, all of which I will show were set aside in practice and came to'ntig Up to that period, the party had not arrogated the Democratic n'flame and character; but soon after-I believe in the winter of 829-they held a mseeting in this city to commemorate the' battle of New Orleans, when they bapfidthemselves with the seductive name of the' Democracy, and have continued to rejoice therein ever since. By that designation I shall speak of them hereafter, as I- have hitherto, though I am far from admitting that there has been much of true republicanism displayed in -their course. What, then, were the pledges given by tu'e Democracy at and before the Presidential election in 1828, and how were they observed and kept 7.1. They took ground, distinctly and emphatically in favor of-the one-term principle. They held that B46 irieumbent of the presidential office should be re-elected. On this grounid they opposed the rei-election of Mr. Adams, and insisted, unless this limiitation could be adopted, at 'least in practice, serious evil would follow; the Prsesident would busy himself during the whole of his first, term in efforts to, secute a second. The political press favorable to the election' of General Jackson was incessant in the ad-- vocacy of this' princi1ple, and, public speakers and declaimers, enlisted in the same cause, were- eve.ryvvhere active and zealous in urging its necessity and importance on' the people. We know what 'the resudlt was. Mr. Ada~ms was defeated, and the hero of New Orleans became the seventh President of the thiited States. President Jackson, 'in his first annual message, referred to and recognised the obligations whi'ch he 'and his party had assumed in this respect. He says: "It woutd seem advisable to limit the service of Chief Magistrate to a single term of either four or six years." In his second. annual message, he says: ccE xperience abundantly deimonstrates that every precaution in this respect is a vatuabte safeguard of liberty-one which mny reflections upon the tendencies of our system incline me to think should he made stilt stronger. It was for tthis reason that, in coni - ne~xion with an amendmhent of the Constitution removinig attl'intermn'ediate agency in the choice of the President, I rescormetnd s'osses-escs-ietisns upon the re- elij~zibility of that officer end upon the tenure orf otices-generatty. Tihe reasons stitl exist; and I reniew the iecommendation with hn increased confidence that ttsis'adoptio'n Witl strengthen those checks hy which the Constitution designed to secure the independence of each department of the Government, and promote the healthfu and equitable adainifistrutidn (of alt the trusts which, it, hascreiabd." In his; third annual message, 'after referring to his former recommendation of amendments of the Conslitaion, giving the choice of the President directly to the people, and rendering the office of President ineligible after one term, he says: SI"I adim portant &' do ibconsider 'these bhanges in our fhutdamesitat law, that f[cannot,, in Accordance with- my sense of duty, omit to 'pres&-them upon the consideration of a new Congress." As a fitting*.commenitary on the fidelity- of Glen. Jackson and his friends to this pledge, it is sufficient to state that Mr. Donelson, then private secretary of t-he President, in the winter of 18312'32, add ressed aletterý to Gen.i. ripps, a member- of the Pennsylvania Legislature, with views and flor purposes v~.hic-h will;be readily appreciated, in which (speakking of the re-election of Glen. J.) he said that "the Pre'sident would no doubt feel it a most grateful compliment to be assdred that the course of his Adithinistratiori has not disappointed the wishes- of Pennsylvania, to whose partiality and early support he 'is so rnp#h indebted." This letter was, it i's said, franked by. the then President; but justice to Glen. J&. requirs it should'be stated' that Mr. Donelson denied that he (Glen. J. ) had. any- knowledge of its contents., 'Irn due season he Was 'nominated by his friends i'n the Pe~nnsylvania Legislature, and - ehpbnded theret6s in i' letter dated February 9,'l1831, in which he admits that "he had not antic ipated " th at' "6the ap1fýiobation of h~s fellow-cit~zens would subjec6t him to any fuiture calls ini the. sprvioe of his countr."we t Aes -r o i eo natoL fnaenmn fteCosittoaredrn rsietntrsi 15 It will hardly be a sufficient answer to say that General Jackson merely recommeded an amendment of the Constitution; for if any practice be an evil so great as to require that extreme remedy, one would suppose that it would be advisable to change the, practice itself. On the re-election of President Jackson, this subject was dropped. He did not deem"'it' expedient 'to' refer to it again in his communications to Congress, and the Democrayhave been profoundly silent'in that regard from that day toithis. 2. Another ground issumed in the canvass 'of '28 was, that members of Congress should not be'appointed to office, either during the term forwhich they were elected, or within two years thereafter. This lattet addition to or qualificalion of 'the rule was indispensable to its efficiency. The object was to place Congress beyond the reach of Executive infludrsce-lo make: it truly independent-an object which would certainly be evaded or defeated, if members could becoime recipients of Executive favor immediately after the expiration -of their terms., - - It will be recollected that General Jackson was, during the canvass of 1824, a member of the Senate; and that sooný after his defeat in the House of 'Representatives, in the winter of 1824 `25, he resigned' his seat,' and returning. home was, on the 14th of October, 182.5, honored with a public reception by the General Assembly of Tennessee, and, in an'address then delivered, dwelt emphatically on the evils resulting from this source, from which I submit the following extract: "With a view to sustain more effectually in practice the axiom which divides the three great classes of power into independent coantitationat'che6cks, Iwould impose a provision, rendering any member of Congress ineligible to office under the General Gov ecament during the term for which he was elected, or tbr two years thereafter, expept in cases ofjndicial offices." * "But if thia change in the Constitutiqo should not be obtained, and important apspointmenets continue to devolve on the Represestatives in Congresa, it requires no depth of thought to be convinced that corruption will become 'the order 6f the day, aud thait ussskr the garb nA conscientious sacrifices to establish precedents for the public good, evils of seriomis importance to tehe freedom and prosperity of the Repub'ic.may' arise. It is throsgh this channel that the people may expect'to be attacked in their constitationat sovereignty, when tyranny may well be appreheded to spring np in monme favorableemnergency. Against such inroadsevery guard ought to be interposed, and qupe better occurs than that of cloing the suspected avenue with some necevsry constitution"af restrictions. We know human nature to he 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 oar politicalservauus, shonid le Il.4ave rno doubt those remarks were intended as an indirect blow at the distin guished Senator from Jýentucky, (Mr. CraY,) who was then broadly charged with "Ibargain and corruption," with having entpred into an intrigue to promote the 'elevation of Mr. Adams to the.'residency, in consideration of beiiqg made Secretary of State-a foul caluamny' whlch has long since been shown to have been as giounfdless as it was malignant. But whether General' Jacdson did or did not intend to countenance that base slander, itis certain, that the exclu~sion of members of Congress from' office, in conformity with his views, wsa. a prominent feature of ihe canvass 'of 1828, and constituted an essential part of"1 the platform" from 'whish: he vaulted into 'the presidency. So much for profession.''We now come to practice, which', as usail with the democracy, We find directly the reverse. No sooner had General' Jackson reached'the 'White House than he commenced appointing members of'Congress' tooffice. 11 not only made numerous such appointments within two years after the expiration of their terms, but, in some cases, even white they were occupying their seats in one or other of the two Houses. Five members of his cabinet were taken from Congress, and only one (Major Barry, as Postmaster General) from the people at large. I have before me a list of twenty-three members appointed by President Jackson to offices of every grade, front a sabinet minister down to an appraiser of customs. The most remarkable case was that of a distinguished citizen of Virginia, who, while Seaker of the House of Representatives, was in effect appointed Minister to England, and is sail to have had his ctinmission in his pocket for many weeks, while discharging the duties of the Chair. No onq can doubt, who is acquainted with the history of the times, but that "corruption did becqme the order of the day;" bus whether from this cause alone, or othercauses in connextion therewith, the Senate will judge wheni I have finished my remarks. 3. I now come to a more prominent issue made in the canvass of 1828: it w"s that of " retrencbmezt and reform." It was insisted that the administration of Mr. Adams was prodigal to the last degree, and that patronage -1 had increased, was increasing, and should be diminished." The Democracy called for reform in all departments of the Government. They were vehement in their denunciations of abuses, and loud in their professions of anxiety to 'enter upon the work of reform. If the good people would only intrust them with place an'd pOWe'r. there could be hardly an pnd to their laborsj'1 the c ause of Teget]ration and amendment: I recollect that a great deal was said in those days about cleaning out," the 'Ausean stable," and we had an abt94ance of what the honor'able $enator from,Maine wouldIdcall plel4gsa that the work should be do;ije efhctuially, if Mr. Adams coul'd only be dovn and"Gen. Jackson up!, Bqt, having got possessiota of the Gb~vernment, this same Democracy commenced pitching into the doors anid vittdows of the aforesaid "' stable"y all manner of vileness.:INoo 'an effort was made:o redeem these pledges. Eje some hot-bed process, the Blue Book commenced growingrapidly: page after page was added; until It reached more than.double its proportions during Mr. Ada ms's administration. - The public elpenditurees were frightfully augmented. Numberless frauds and defalcations ensued. The treasury wasg.lundered of millions, and more thun one department of the Government'was thrown into the utmost disorder and!confusion. The General Post Office was bankrupted; and at the cale4d session of the 27th Congress we hail to appropriate, from the treasury, the sum of four hundred and ninety-seven thousand six hundred arid MiftY-seven dollatrs,,,,"to enable the Department to meet its engagements and pa~y its debts." (Vide act of the 9t4~eptember, 1841.) Shall we reproach the mentgry of President Jackson with a violation of pledges fdr this reason? If I were disposed to imitate the ex'amplle of the honorable Senator, and to pour ott ~on his Sa torrent.o 9vftu ration ttnda4uae, I would referu'to his first inaugural address, in which he said: '.19'ýail d~pendfidrV 0ied adhcement of the'piiblic servuice more on t e ihntegrity and. z d ozfd the PUs29i 6 fxiersthr9 their sibera,!Y -." No4 d' Gner&l 'cksopn was perfecmt honest'and sit er whpen iU 'daid isa;i; but ho~ ierablY ianhspat failed to real~ize thi ~al~ssurance wilil a ppear tou the history gf ~ht'$e w Y~or tiston-hos On' exaining rth -BIte Book at the lk Pr A~dumsri'~ a~~hirtidisrtit~, ~initti fw~i ten y~a~ih' substjuehurrt- therieto, I iP d that Ml,. ~l~eft: ~the;ovternrnl~nt with0113;ofe ~hundred.rita ~seventy-five cmphtyeesr in that~establishment;i and then the story of Democratic reform proceeds as follows: 16 Number of employees in the New York custom-house, under General Jackson's administration and the two first years of Mr. Van Buren's,: 1829................................... 212 1835....................................328 1831................................268 1837.................................... 415 1833...............................324 1839................................490 being an increase of three hundred per cent., wanting only twenty-five. At the close of Mr. Adams's administration, the expenses of collecting the revenue at that port were only $194,687 76; but for the ten succeediqg years, they are writteti down iit Rep. 669, p. 170, 2d session 27th Congress, as follows 1829........................212,531 57 1835.................. 385,121 75 1830...................... 295,066 06 1836................... 450,984 31 1831...................... 376,920 34 1837................... 468,045 96 1832....................... 408,791 28 1838............... 506,018 10 1833........................ 429,501 29 1839...................... 594,269 64 1834...................... 365,592 50 being an increase of three hundred per cent., with a surplus of $10,446 30. The average amount of revenue collected in New York during this period was just about the same it was under Mr. Adams's administration, to wit, $13,000,000; though there were great fluctuations in consequence of the disorders which pervaded every branch of national industry, by reason of the ill-advised measures of President Jackson and his immediate successor. So much for the reliance which that distinguished man placed, " for the advancement of the public service, on the integrity and zeal of the public officers, rather than their numbers;" and so much for fulfilment by the Democratic party of their promises under the head of " retrenchment and reform?" 4. I now advert to the topic which mainly induced me to undertake this review of so much of the political history of the country as appertains to the -election and administration of General Jackson. And here I shall have occaqion to consider the rise and progress of the proscriptive policy, which was transferred, at this era, from Albany to the city of Washington, by the influence (as is believed) of Mr. Van Buren, (the Northern man with Southern principles!) and which has here given a highly injurious direction to public affairs. The honorable Senator exclaims, " it is not the policy of removals that I assail or call in question!" just as if the democracy had always been consistent on this point! So far from it I can show that they distinctly pledged themselves, both in 1824 and 1828, to oppose that policy. They insisted that the patronage of the Government should not be brought in conflict with the freedom of elections, or, in other words, that removals and appointments should not be made on political grounds or in reference to party distinctions. In furtherance of this idea, the celebrated letter of General Jackson to Mr. Monroe, dated on the 12th of November, 1816, was then first produced and thrown before the public, from which I submit the following extract: " In every situation 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, without any regard to party, you will go far to eradicate those feelings which on former occasions have thrown so many obstacles in the way of Government, and perhaps have the pleasure of uniting a people heretofore politically divided. The Chief Magistrate of a great and powerful nation should never indulge in party feeling; his conduct should be liberal and disinterested, always bearing in mind that he acts for the whole and not for a part of the community. By this course you will exalt the national character, and acquire for yourselves a name as imperishable as monumental marble." * * "These are the sentiments of a friend; they are the feelings, if I know my own heart, of an undissembled patriot." General Jackson, in May, 1824, in a letter to the Hon. George Kremer, repeated and reaffirmed these generous and patriotic sentiments; and in a debate in the House of Representatives, February 24, 1827, the honorable Senator from Texas, (Mr. HousTON,) then a member from Tennessee, in remarking on this letter, insisted that its inport was as follows: "Let patriotism, talents, and integrity, be the passport to'office. The President ought not to be the head of a party, but the President of a nation; and it isjust that the tree should be judged by its fruits." There is no doubt but this letter was produced at the instance of General Jackson; he probably furnished it from his letter-book. The object was to make capital for him, and it had a most powerful effect on the public mind. ' It carried over to his support a large body of the old federalists, now constituting a highly respectable portion of the modern democracy. The same ground was taken by his friends in the two Houses of Congress, particularly after his defeat in the House at the session of 1824-'25. In the Senate, at the first session of the 19th Congress, a select committee was raised "to inquite into the expediency of reducing the patronage of the Executive Government of the United States, at the head of which was placed the honorable Senator from Missouri, (Mr. BENTON,) who, in due season, submitted an able and interesting report, from which I submit the following extract: ".Patronage will penetrate this body, subdue its capacity of resistance, chain it to the car of power, and enable the President to rule as easily, and much more securely, with than without the nominal check of the Senate." * * * " We must, then, look forward to the time when the public revenue will be doubled. when the civil and military officers of the Federal Government will be quadrupled; when its ihfluenee over individuals will be multiplied to an indefinite extent; when the nomination by-the President can carry any man through the Senate, and his recommendation can carry any measure through the two Houses of Con. gress; when the principle of public action will be open and avowed, that the President wants my vote and I want his patronage-I will vote as he wishes, and he will give me the office I wish for. What will this be but the government of one man? and what is the government of one man but a monarchy?" I should not do justice to myself if I did notdisclaim producing this extract under any idea of involving the distinguished Senator from Missouri in the charge of inconsistency, for I believe he would now administer the Government, so far as he could, on the principles here laid down, if called to that high duty. My sole object is to show how entirely the democratic party committed itself against the proscriptive policy. It will be recollected that during Mr. Adams's administration the then Secretary of State (Mr. 17 CL A) deemed it to be his duty to take the publication of the laws. from certain editors or printers, (not to exceed a half-dozen in all,) for pursuing (it is supposed) a course of unexampled detraction and abuse of him and the existing administration. This created a great commotion' both in and out of Congress; it was resisted and denounced every where as "an enormity," and was treated as an alarming assault on the freedom of the press, and the liberties of the people of this country. In a speech delivered by Mr. SAUNDERS, of North Carolina, in the house of Representatives, on the 1st of February, 1828, he said: "It (the dismissal of the editors) seemed to speak a language of the department, and to say to the various editors now employed, that they were not to expect a continuation of the favor of Government, unless they would submit to support, to the fullest extent, the doctrines and wishes of the Department of State. But the effect of such a course of things was calculated to operate not only on those who now print the laws, but on all those who might have any desire to print them. It was thus calculated to operate, and did actually operate, (so far as it went to control the freedom of the press,) to enlist throughout the country that powerful instrument in behalf of the views of the State Department. In this respect it was much more effectual and much more dangerous than the far-famed alien and sedition laws." On the 5th of February, 1827, Mr. Hamilton, of South Carolina, while considering the same subject, said: " If an Administration thus circumstanced has any patronage incident to the press, it will be sure to use it in a manner best calculated to render the power of this mighty engine subservient to their peculiar and exclusive interest. This, however, is a matter of great delicacy, and must be managed with cdnsummate caution. The lion must be muzzled before the noose is thrown round his neck. It will, therefore, be found that the process of subsidizing new converts, and of proscribing stubborn and intractable incumbents, will be gradual, that the public mind may not be alarmed by any sudden and violent changes-that in the good woyk there may not be more haste than speed." * * * " Sir, depend upon it," the press " would be put on the diet of a wholesome regimen, and in the course of a salutary discipline. The sturdy and independent would be turned out to be fed on such offals as they might be able to pick up, until the whole pack should open in full and harmonious cry, in, one common note, from she sturdy mastift, that howls at the door of the Treasury, to the most starvellibg turnspit that barks in the furthest verge of our frontier-even to the wilderness of out Indian.olitudes." Thus I have shown that General Jackson was carried into and through the canvass of 1828, with the avowal of the most liberal and generous sentiments on his part as to the administration of patronage, and with declarations of the -utmost repugnance and abhorrence on the part of his friends to the proscriptive policy. He was elected triumphantly, and on the eastern front of this Capitol, in his inaugural address, threw before the country the following just sentiment: " The recent demonstration of public sentiment inscribes on 'he list of Executive 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 continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands." No doubt it was his duty to correct such abuses as had " disturbed the rightful course of appointment, and placed or continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands;" but this was to be done in such a way as not to constitute another abuse, by bringing "the patronage of the Government into conflict with the freedom of elections." General Jackson did not say, with the honorable Senator, "it is not the policy of making removals I assail;" but he denounced it as an abuse. No competent or faithful officer was to be turned out for opinion's sake, but he was to act on the noble principle of the Monroe letter: " The Chief Magistrate of a great and powerful nation should never indulge in party feeling; his conduct should be liberal and disinterested, always bearing in mind that he acts for the whole and not a part of the community." In order to a just appreciation of what followed, it should be borne in mind that the proscriptive policy was then, entirely unknown to this Government. 1. It appears from House docament No. 132, first session 2,6th Congress, that General Washington, in his administration of eight years, removed (of officers appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate) only ten, to wit: two in 1792, two in '94, five in '95, and one in '97. 2. That Mr. Adams, (the elder,) in his administration of four years, removed only eight, to wit: three in 1797, one in '98, two in '99, and two in 1800-one of the last being Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State! Also, that he refused to renominate to the Senate, at the expiration of their respective commissions, three, to wit: one in 1798 and two in '99. 3. That in the administration ef Mr. Jefferson, of eight years, there were fifty-eight removals, to wit: thirty-three in 1802, twenty-three in 18039, and two in 1804; and that he did not renominate, at the expiration of their commissions, four-two in 1802, one in 1803, and one in 1807. These removals were made upon the principle of equalization. In 1801, Mr. Jefferson appointed Samuel Bishop collector of the port of New Haven, removing Elizur Goodrich, a revolutionary character, at which the merchants of that city took offence, and addressed him on the subject. He replied as follows: " 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." In a speech delivered in the Senate, February 9, 1835, the honorable Senator from Missouri (Mr. BETToW) stated the principle upon which Mr. Jefferson actedi as follows: "The elder Mr. Adams appointed none but Federalists, and Mr. Jefferson 'had to turn a portion of them out, in order to get in a portion of the Republicans; and Mr. Jefferson had told, him (Mr. U.) that he never carried changes far enough-that he had not done justice to his own party. May not President Taylor do justice to his own friends? May he not act on the old Jeffersonian principle of equalization? The honorable Senator (Mr. B.) seems to have forgotten that he received his first commission at the hands of Mr. Jefferson, and was, as he says in a letter already cited, "reared in his political creed." 4. It also appears, from the same document, that rin Mr. Madison's administration of eight years there.ere seventeen rmniovals, to wit: one in 1l09 two in 1811, oqe in 1812, one in 1814, three in 1815, one in 1816, and eight in 1817; aid that Hfe did not renominate to the Senate two, to wit: one in 1807, and one in 1814. 18 5. That in Mr. Monroe's administration of eight years there were seventeen removals, to wit: four in 1817, one in 1818, one in. 1819, two in 1820, two in 1821, one in 1823, four in 1824, and one in 1825; and that he declined to renominate to the Senate only one. 6. That in Mr. J. Q. Adams's administration of four years there were four removals, to wit: two in 1825, two in 1826, and one in 1828; and that he did not renominate to the Senate eight, to wit: one in 1827, four in 1828, and three in 1829. RECAPITULATION. Washington removed............0 Not renoinated.......................... 0 Adams, John "....... 8 "......................... 3 Jefferson ".............58 "........................ 4 Madison "...................17 " 2............. Monroe "................... 17 "...................... 1 Adams, J. Q. "..................... 4 "............ 8 114 18 In all, 132 in six administrations, and covering a period of 32 years-being a little over four per annuim. In this state of the case, General Jackson came into power, more fully pledged to pursue a moderate course than any other man ever has been. There was not the slightest cause for sweeping removals. Mr. Adams had been remarkably tolerant. He even retained in his cabinet a distinguished citizen, who favored the election of his competitor, and who afterwards received a high expression of confidence at the hands of General J. Mr. A. himself belonged to the old republican party; and a large majority of the employees of the Government obtained their situations at the hands of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. What, then, did Gen. Jackson anid the new Democracy do, under such circumstances? And how did they keep their promises? 1. He or his Secretary of State,at an early day, transferred to his own partisan press the printing of the laws, dismissing all others, and thus did the very thing which had been so bitterly denounced in Mr. Clay. Soon after his elevation to the presidency, General Jackson commenced appointing editors and others connected with the Democratic press to office. These people had powerfully contributed to his success, and were among the most unscrupulous as well as talented of the editorial corps; they were usually, if pot uniformly, appointed on removals. I have recently seen a list of not less than fifty-five such appointments made within the two first years of his administration. Of these, one was appointed an auditor; one a comptroller; nine clerks in the Departments; one librarian to Congress; one a district attorney; one register of a land office; one a surveyor of the public lands; one a receiver of public moneys; one seqretary of a Territory; one a marshal; one a purser in the United States navy; two Indian agents; three naval offices; nine custom-house officers; and twenty-two deputy postmasters-the latter usually lerative and important offices. In most cases, the editors appointed to local offices continued to edit their papets, supporting the administration and assailing the opposition with spirit and vigor. This is a sufficient commentary on the horror affected by the friends of General Jackson at the dismissal by'Mr. Clay of a few publishers of the laws. 3. General Jackson, at an early day after his accession to office, entered on a wholesale system of -prescription or removals for opinion's sake. * SIn a little over a year after his first inauguration he removed about fifty collectors of the customs, ten su~rveyors of the customs, five naval officers, fifteen district attorneys, thirteen marshals, twelve registers of land offices, and fourteen receivers of the public moneys. By Senate document No. 120, 1st session l2st Congress, it appears that, between the 4th of March, 1829, and the 7th of April, 1830, thirty Sweighers, gaugers, and measurers, were dismissed.; and by document No. 106, 1st session 21st Congress, that, between the 4th of March, 1829, and the 22d day of March, 1830, four hundred and ninety-one deputy postmasters were removed. In addition to these, during the same period, numerous removals were made in the Departments in this city, and the diplomatic, consular, and other branches of the public service. During the first year he dismissed probably not less than fifteen hundred officers-the appointees of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and the younger Adams--all of the old republican school, and, in the languge o( the Senator from;Maine, (Mr. BaaDBRY,) " men of the purest virtue, upon whose characters no stain: was ever fixed before-men who were regarded by all who knew them as eminently possessing honesty, capacity, and fidelity." The system was prosecuted.with relentless vigor during the residue of the Presidency of Gen. Jackson, and the victims were equally estimable and worthy. On removal, they were subjected,t the same imputation which the Senator (MIr. BRADBURY) says arises at the present time; for General Jackson decla'red in lubstance, in his first inaugural, that he would make ability, probity, integrity, and zeal the test. His language (after speaking of the abuses which had brought the patronage of the Government in donflict with the freedom of elections, and had placed or continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands, and after declaring his purpose to correct such abuses) was as follows: SIn the performance ef a tak thus generally delineated, I shall endeavoi to select men whose diligence and talents will insure, ji tltir espeetive stations, able aft4 faithful coeperatiion-depepding for the advqanqem..t of the;ipblic ~ervipe more on then itegrity and zeal of the public officers than on their numbers." Werethe officers dismissedr nfaithful? Were, hey incompetent? Acpordi.g to the doctrines of the,honorable Seaator's speech, they were all libelled, aqd traduced!--all fB0tigrtized s b. se and worthless!.i4e extent and manner of viplaion.pof pledgps by, President Jackson and his friends have ben sfliciently admitted and set forth by a leading member of the Democratic party, now a m otmber of the Senate, (Mr. CALaovsU.) 19 In a speech delivered in- the'Senate,. on the 13th of February, 18,35, Mr. CALHOUNg said: "The party tben in Opposition" (at the era Of Mr. iNrTOGN'report) "6and now in power pledged themselves to the compmunity, that should they be elevated to power they would administer the Government on the psrinciples laid down in that report. It isnow high time'to inquire how this4 solemn pled'e-hich, in my opinion, imposed a sacred obligation-has been redeemed. fisn thep'lisflsted faith bei~iikejpt w hich the conimittee gave in' the namh eOf the partyl" After having referred to the niames of the conimn'iittee', consisting of Me-ssrsg. Benton, Macon, Van ]3uren., Dickerson, Johnson, of Kentucky, White, of Tennessee, Holnieg, Hayne and Findlay; And after after quoting extensively'; from the report, he adds: "It is impossible to read this report. which denounnees in such unqualified terms the excesses and abuses of patronage lit that tim e, without being struck by the deplorable changes e*hich a few short years has wrought is the character of our country. Then we were sensitive in all that related to our liberty, and jealous Of patronage asnd Government influence-so much so, thata few in-, considerable removals of three or four printers roused the'indignation of the whole country-events which wouth now pass unnoticed. We have grown insensible, become callous and stupid." In a speech delivered in the Senate, February 17, 1836, the same distinguished Senator said: "I would tell the coming admhinistrationi to beware. If there be tiny one who expected the presidential nominee (Mr. Vani Buren) could su ccessfully play'the game which he has, he wonldhe wofully disappointed. With all my objections to the Presideant, 1 would not deny m~any high qualities-he had courage and firmness; was bold, Warlike, audacious, though not tino~tdtobis word or faithful to his pledges!"- Vide Gales 4- Seatons's Register of Debates, part 1i pages 418, 420. Perhaps the honorable Senator (Mr. BReADBURY) will find in these facts a sufficient justification of thei terms of denunciation which he says were applied to Gen. Jackson by the then opposition. The Senator says that "No language was too strong, no rebuke too scathing, no term. of reproach too gross,. to be heaped*Opon' the hedd of thle v'eserable President, for having removed certain officers of an opposite political party, *Ind appointed his political frienA6- in their pladesý still leaving in office a great body of the former." This language is wholly inapplicable to the case of a new administration who were brought into power in opposition to a system of proscription for twenty years, and whose sole object is to correct the procedure, by letting in its own friends to a fair and just participation in the offices of the country. The administration of Mr. Van Buren was a myete a ppendix to' that of President Jackson. The. same policy was pursued; but inj the field of proscription little'*wont remained to be done. It appears froMi SbnAte document.No. 292-, 3d Sess. 25th Conigress, thathe remorved from the 4th. of March, 1837, to the 27th 6f February, 1839, three h-un'dred'and sixtiy deputy postnitasters4, and I suppose tt corresponding nu'niber of officers; were dismissed in' other branche's of the. s'eviice; but this was merely le'aring, as the crop had already been swep;t fro6m-the fie'ld. Iwl otb0 ouresnaeatt ehs up as a violation of promises-the statute of limitations having doubtless ruil in'favor of the Democratic' party'. Mr. 'Van 1Yurepw~asthe last man to revive it by a new promiffe! Mr.. Priesident., it is now my duty to come'down to more modern times; and this will lead me to con-, Sider the pledges given and promises violated by the last Executive. 1. 1I-advert to the course taken by the late President on' the subject of the tariff, anti to his celebrated letter to J. K. Kane, Esq., of Philadelphia, on that subject. It may be found in Niles's Register, volume, 06, page 295, and is as follows..1 DI.RSIR av recentlyrcie severllters] i eeenet-m opinions on the subject of the tariff, and, among others, yours of th* 30th ultimo. My opinions on this subject have been Often; given to the-puhlic Theyare to befound in mhy publib at~ and in. the public discussions in which I have participated. I amr infavor~ofa~tari~ff for revenue-sauch a one as wil~lyield a ufficio cnt amount so the treasury to defray she expenses of the Govern men t,. ecortolosically. administered. In adjusting th details 9f -a rieveniue tariff, I have heretofore s~fictitned sasch m oderate discdminatitigdssea sw ul produc h muto eveu edd and at the same time afford reasonable incidental protection to our home industry. I am opposed to a tariff for protection mnertlt,, afid tiot for reven ue. Acting upon these general principles, it is well k''own that 1,v yspor oteplcyo e.Sk son's administration on this subject. I voted against the tariff art of 1828. 1 voted for the act of 1832, whirls contained modifi1pitioris 'of some of the objectionable pirovisions of the act of 1828. As a member of the Committee of Ways and Means Of mhe H16use of 1epresenitatives, 1[gave mhy asisenk to a bill reported by that committe~e in December, 1832, making further modifications of the act of 1828., and making. also discriminations in the imposition of the duties- which it proposed.- That bill did not pass, but waS s~uperseded by a bill commonly called the compromise bill, for which I voted-. In my.judgment is is the duty of the Government to extend, as far as it may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws, and all other means within its power, fair and just protection to allithe great interests of the whole Union,-emh'racing agriculture, manufaictures, the mechanic arts, commerce and nasigatiofiý.-I heartily approve the resolutions u pon this subjiect paused by the Democratic Natiorial Convention lately assembled at Baltimtore. "I am with great cespect, dear iý,r, Your obedient servant, "JAMES K. POIiK. "J. K. KANEZ, Esq., Philadelphia." Itwould aid us to form a just estimate of the motive or design of this, letter, if we could see the eorg-a munication of Mr., Kane to the, late President which drew it out. It would doubtless pour. a good -deal of light on the subject. But that has been carefully suppressed. At the. date of Mr. Polk's letter, be had already been nomninated as a candidate for. the Presidency at the Baltimore Convention. Pennpyl.. vania. was entirely devoted to the ýprotective policy,. and, woul'd not be, likely to support a candidate, tpans-' quivocally opposed to it. No doubt grave apprehensions were en-tertained.that ahe would not go for.Mr*. Polk; henc~, thissletter was written and thrown before the pepeo hatSae twl ese h i is equ~ivocal, and may be mnade.- to, conform in meaning to the taste of the reftder. No doubt, in Tenn~ seit passed for a good free-trade letter. But how- was it regarded in. Pennsylvania, whe're vast coal. agJiron interests were. at stake I1 No sooner,-did it appear than the 'leaders of- the Democracy in that CpmroQnwealth took ýhe groucqd that Mr. Pol 'k was as much for the protective policy as Mr. Clay. The. Iettpr had been made adroitly to conform to language which Mr. Clay 4~ad used in some recent comnmu-. nicationis to, the public on the subject. Thus both were found- saying. that they were willing. to," 4#rd reasonable incidental protection to, our, Some, industry;" and I recollect wellI that this identity of langu~age wr-a paraded in Mour TNothe~rn.MDennorAtibnprapesin parllel columr'tns, to provetha t our domestic inte~reatse 20 and paraded in all their political assemblies. I am nformed that the distinguished citizen who presided with so much ability and dignity over the deliberations of this body during the last Presidential term, more than once addressed political assemblies during that canvass with this inscription flaunting before him. To show more fully the extent to which this imposition was carried, I produce here the " Clarion letter," from Wilson McCandless, Esq, who was one of the Senatorial candidates for the electoral college of Pennsylvania, on the Polk and Dallas ticket: " PiTTSBURG, J.aUfust 8 1844. " GE#tLEMEN: Your *ordial invitation of the 30th ultimo to be present with ybu'at your mass meeting on the 3d September came to hand during my absence in the northwestern counties of Pennsylvania. "I assure you that I never wrote an apology for my inability to attend any public assemblage, in the whole course of my political career, with more reluctance than I do this. Clarion has not only been firm and steadfast in her adherence to D'mocratic principles, but she has been inflexible in her love and support of the tariff-that public measure which, (aside from the bank question,) like the rod of the prophet, is destined to swallow uO all othertopics of political controversy. You have properly appreciated the importance of the protective principle to the success of the manufacturing and agricultural interests of Pennsylvania; and in the abandonment of that principle by Mr. Clay. in the compromise bill, you have the best guaranty that, if elected to the Presidency, he will carry out the principles of that bill, and afford you a horizontal dtty, to enable you to contend with the pauper labor of Sweden and Russia. In doing so, he would give you and the tariff the same support that the rope does the hanuging man-instant death, and without ' benefit of clergy.' Support him, if you can; for my own part, I shall go for Polk and Dallas who have at heart the true interests of Pennsylvania. "' My engagements, gentlemen, in the supreme court, will prevent me from attending your mass meeting With the brightest prospect of Democratic snccess-2-0,000 majority-- S"I. have the honor to be truly yours, WILSON McCANDLESS. "Messrs. Adam Mooney, Seth Clover, and others, committee." This letter having been recently republished in a Pittsburg paper, with comments, Mr. McCandless addressed to the editors the following note: "Messrs D. N. WHITE & CO. " GIETLIMEN: Thank you for the republication of the 'Clarion letter.' A wise man changes his opinions when dictated by experience and the truth-a fool never. Ye ours, most cordially and respectfully, WILSON McCANDLESS." This would seem to intimate that Mr. McCandless was himself deceived by" the Kane letter;" and, if so, how certain must it be that the plain, honest, sensible, and worthy farmers, mechanics, and working men, of that Commonwealth, were also deceived and deluded by it. I will not undertake to say what the late President really intended by the letter to Mr. K.; but one thing is certain, he must have known what use was made of it in Pennsylvania. There never has existed a man in this country who kept a more vigilant eye on the political movements of the day than the late President. He was pre-eminently a party man, thoroughly schooled in party tactics. Besides, there was associated with him a citizen of Pennsylvania, as candidate for the Vice Presidency, who had ever been a warm advocate of the protective policy. He therefore knew well that the people of that Commonwealth expected him to favor the same, at least in a reasonable and moderate degree. To this extent I insist he was pledged, though not, perhaps, to maintain the tariff of 1842, in its whole length and breadth. How did he respond to the expectations of the people of Pennsylvania, who had put their dearest interests into his hands? The records of this Government can answer. He not only took strong ground against the protective policy in his communications to Congress, but he placed at the head of the Treasury Department a gentleman of commanding abilities, who prosecuted the overthrow of the system with untiring industry and unsurpassed vigor. A new tariff was introduced, and carried through the two houses, based on chimerical principles, which is rapidly undermining the prosperity of the Keystone State, as it will ultimately of the whole country. Even the Vice President forgot that he was a son of Pennsylvania, and gave his casting vote in favor of the tariff of 1846. We have proof conclusive that the people of Pennsylvania never would have voted for Messrs. Polk and Dallas, if they had known what their course would be on this subject. In the House of Representatives, 29th Congress, (which passed the tariff of 1846,) the delegation from that State stood twelve Democrats to ten Whigs and two Native Americans. A great political revulsion was occasioned in Pennsylvania by the passage of the tariff of 1846. Both branches of the State Legislature were revolutionized, and the delegation to the 30th Congress was reversed, so as to stand fifteen Whigs to only seven Democrats and one Native; and this notwithstanding the Democratic Senators and members of the House, (29th Congress,) with one exception, resisted the Tariff of 1846 to the utmost. But, nevertheless, the people would not spare them; nor would they spare the Democratic party of the Union; for the vote of Pennsylvania was cast for Genefal Taylor, as much from repugnance to the tariff of 1846 as admiration for his brilliarit public services and respect for his high qualities as a man. I am confident that not a State north of the Potomac would have sustained Mr. Polk in the policy of such a tariff as that of 1846, with, perhaps, the exception of New Hampshipe and Maine. " The Kane letter" was effective far beyond the limits of Pennsylvania; it in fact made James K. Polk President of the United States. No one can accuse him of ingratitude, as, soon after his elevation to the Presidency, he conferred on his correspondent a valuable effice, which he now holds. Would it not be well for the honorable Senator to explain the suspicious circumstances attending this transaction before he accuses President Taylor and his friends of perfidy? 2. It will now, Mr. President, be my duty to turn to a very painful chapter in the history of Texas annexation, which will supply us with' another striking example of Democratic promise-breaking. It will be recollected that the annexation resolutions were passed at the second session of the twentyeighth Congress; they originated in the House of Representatives, on motion of an honorable member from Tennessee, (Mr. BROWN,) and, as they passed that body, looked for annexation by the concurrent legislation of the two countriek. It was ascertained, ioon after their appearance in the Sen te, that they could not possibly pass this body, as there were at least a half dozen Democratic Senators who believed that they were grossly violative of the Constitution. The proposition suggested by the House was regarded as a mere overture for a treaty with Texas, and the whole scheme was denounced as a contrivance to evade that 21 provision of that instrument which requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate'to the validity of a treaty. In the 74th volume of Niles's Register, page 106, will be found a full account of what ensued, in the form of a letter from Mr. Tappan, late a member of this body from Ohio, and also one from Mr. F. P. Blair, late editor of the Globe, long the organ of the Democratic party in this city. Mr. Tappan (after adverting to the opposition of Democratic Senators to the resolution as it came from the House) says: ' In this stage of the matter it was; proposed that, instead of rejecting the House resolution, we should amend it by adding, as an alternative proposition, the substance of Mr. Berton's bill to obtain Texas by negotiation." * * * "Mr. Polk was in the city; it was understood that lie was very anxious that Congress should act on the subject before he came into office. It was also understood that the proposition to amend the House resolution originated with Mr. Polk. It had been suggested that if we did so amend the resolution, Mr. Calloun would send off the House resolution to Texas, and so endeavor to forestall the action of Mr. Polk'; but Mr. McDuffie, his friend, having met this suggestion by the declaration that he would not have the audacity to do such a thing, it was no more thought of. One difficulty remained; and that was, the danger of putting it in the power of Mr. Polk to submit the House resolution to Texas. We understood, indeed, that he intended to submit the Senate proposition to that Government;' but without being satisfied he would do this, I would not vote for the resolution, and it was well ascertained that without my vote it could not pass. Mr. Haywood. who had voted with me. and was opposed to the House resolution, undertook to converse with Mr. I "eon the subject, and did so. He afterwards told me that he was authorized by Mr. Polk to say to myself and other Senators, bat if we could pass the resolution with the amendment proposed to be made, he would not use the House resolution, but would submit the Senate amendment as the sole proposition to Texas." Mr. Blair tells substantially the same story, except he adds that he saw Mr. Polk personally, and he gave him." full assurance that he would appoint a commission as contemplated in the bill proposed by Colonel Benton if passed in conjuction with the House resolution as an alternative' * * " andethat the first men of the country should fill the commission." Mr. Blair says that Messrs. Benton, Bagby, Dix, and Tappan were absolute in their opposition to the House resolution; and, I can add, my predecessor (Mr. Niles) was so also, as I have ever understood. It is believed all these Senators voted for the amendment, and for the resolution as amended, on the faith of this positive assurance of Mr. Polk. It is certain Mr. Tappan did so; for he says " upon this assurance I voted for the amendment moved by Mr. Walker, containing the substance of Mr. Benton's bill, and voted for the resolution as it now stands upon the statute-book." It appears from the Senate journal, 2d session 28th Congress, page 220, that the resolution was ultimately passed by a vote of twenty-seven in the affirmative, to twenty-five in the negative; so that it was in the power of Mr. Tappan, or any other Democratic Senator, to defeat it, as there was then no Vice President to give a casting vote. The truth of the statements of Messrs. Tappan and Blair have not been contradicted to this day by any other of the parties named; the facts alleged must therefore be regarded as indisputable. Mr. Polk did give this pledge. How did he perform it? Let Mr. Tappan tell the story " It is (he says) matter of history that Mr. Calhoun did have the audacity to send off a special messenger with the House resolution to Texas, on the 3d of March. a few moments before he went out of office, and that Mr. Polk adopted and confirmed this act of Mr. Calhoun, so admitting Texas into the Union, and placing the United States in a state of war with Mexico." That Mr. Tappan was right in asserting that Mr. Polk " adopted and confirmed" the act of the retiring Executive, appears from his annual message to Congress, of the 2d of December, 1845, in which he says: "In pursuance of the joint resolution of Congress for annexing Texas to the United States, my predecessor, on the 3d of March, 1V45, elected to submit the first and second sections of that resolution to the republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for her admission as a State into our Union. This election I approved; and accordingly the charge de affaires of the United States in Texas, under instructions of the 10th of March, 1845, presented these sections of the resolution for the acceptance of that republic." In the language of the honorable Senator from Maine, I ask, "how was this pledge" of Mr. Polk "fulfilled?" Is it not notorious, that, "while it yet lingered upon the lips of him who uttered it," he commenced violating it in the most atrocious manner? Hence the war with Mexico; and hence the origin of all the evils now present with us! 3. But, Mr. President, in this history of party tergiversation, deceit, and perfidy, I should not do justice to the subject if I did not refer to the course of the democracy in the matter of Oregon, and the distinct pledge which they gave, only to be violated, to the American people, that they would, in the event of the election of Mr. Polk, assert for us a title to the whole of that territory. The utter exclusion of the British from that country up to 54 40 constituted one of the principal issues of the canvass of 1844. At the Democratic Convention held in Baltimore on the 27th of May of that year, the following resolution was passed: " Resolved, That our tide to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable; that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England, or any other foreign power; and that the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas, at the earliest practicable period, are great American measures, which this Convention recommends to the cordial support of the democracy of the Union. Thus it would seem we were to have a " reannexion of Texas" and a "reoccupation of Oregon.' Everything was done with a " aE" in those days. The South was to be won over by reannexation, and the North conciliated by reoccupaion! And on this platform Mr. Polk was elevated to the presidency. That gentleman saw fit to renew the pledge in his inaugaral address, as follows: " Nor will it become in a less' degree my duty to assert and maintain, by all constitutional means, the rights of the United: States to that portion of our te-ritory which lies beyond the Rocky mountains. Our title to the territory of the Oregon is 'clear and unquestionable,' and already are our people preparing to occupy it with their wives and children." It will be observed that on this occasion he even condescended to quote the very words used by the Baltimore caucus, and concurred with them in affirming that our title to the whole country was "clear and unquestionable."; In furtherance of the same idea, he remarked in his annual message to Congress, already referred to, (after stating that the parallel of 49 degress had been offered to and rejected by the British government,) that-.. " The right of any foreign power to the free navigation of any of our rivers, through the heart of our country,,was uoe which I was unwilling to concede." * * * '" The extraordinary and wholly inadmissible demands 'of the British Government, and the rejection of the proposition, made alone: in deference to what had been done by my predecessors, and the implied 22 pbligation which their acts seemed to impose, afford satisfactory evidence that no compromise, such as the United States ought to accep*, can be effected. With this conviction, the proposition of compromise which had been made and rejected was, by nly direction, subsequently withdravn,, and our title to the whole of the Oregon Territory asserted, and is believed maintained by irrefragable facts and argumentA." * * "At the end of the year's notice, should Congress think it proper to make provision for giving that notice, we shall have reached a period when the national rights in Oregon must either be abandoned or firmly maintained. That they cannot be: abandoned without a sacrifice of both national honor and interest is too clear to admit of doubt." That this meant the expulsion of the British from the country is manifest, not only from the fact that the Baltimore Convention declared for the whole of Oregon, or, as the Democracy was in the habit of expressing themselves in those days, for "54 40 or fight!" but also from the further fact that both parties had been in joint possession of the territory for more than a quarter of a century, under and by virtue of the conventions of the 20th of October, 1818, and of the 29th of February, 1827. The British, therefore, were to be driven out of the whole country. The opening of the 29th Congress found the Democracy rampant for 54 40. Nothing could exceed the heroism which they exhibited on that parallel. But soon the British lion made his appearance; and he had scarcely thrown himself into his usual attitude of defiance before the Democracy came down to 49 deg., wit the speed of the lightning telegraph. They even surrendered a portion of the territory below 49 degs:.so much of Vancouver's island as is situated south of that parallel, and conceded " to a foreign power the free navigation" of the Columbia river " through the heart of our country," as Mr. Polk expressed it; and this notwithstatding " our title to: the whole territory. was asserted and maintained by irrefragable facts and arguments." This violation f pledges by Mr. Polk and his party is sufficiently set forth by Mr; Hannegan in a speech delivered in this chamber, 1st session 29th Congress, from which I produce the following extract: "If the President has betrayed that standard-which the Baltimore Convention put into his hands, whereby he committed himself to the country-into the hands of the enemy, I will not do as the Senator from South Carolinathreatens-turn my back upon himI suppose he cares little whether bqth of us do that-hut I shall hold him recreant to the principles which he professed; recreant to the trust which he acceptid ecteanttid the geierouts confilence which' a mAjority ofthe people reposed in him. * * * What is this, ieed I ask, but charging oil the Ptegideit: ondnct the most vile and infamous? If the allegations be true, those intentions of the President must sooner r later come to ght, and, when brought to light, what must follow but irretrievable disgrace? Long as a human eye remains to lingeron the page of history, the story of his abasement will be read, sending him and his name together to ain infaimy so profound, a damnation so deep, that the handof resurrection will never be able to draw him forth." This is not my language. In view of the recent death of the late President, I would not venture to use it. But, sir, was there not here a mostgross and outrageous violation of pledges by the late administration? And it is the more enormous, because the Democratic party of the North was drawn into the support of Texas annexation in' consideration of having the whole of Oregon. Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. The Senator will allow me to interrupt him for a moment. I have to say that this wholesale charge against the Democratic party is exceedingly unjust; and he should not make it with the Senator from Missouri (Mr. BENTON) in his eye. He, in effect, makes an attack on the Senator from Missouri. Mr. SMITH. Not at all.. Mr. DODGE. Well, sirq qualify your charge. Mr. SMITH. I take the expressions of the party from their avowals of the Baltimore Convention! and these were, sir, 54 deg. 40 min. at the hazard of a war with Great Britain. Mr. DODGE. I deny it, Mr. President. The resolution says nothing about 54 deg. 40 min. Mr. SMITH. Well, it says " the whole of the Territory of Oregon." Mr. DODGE. The Senator from Missouri, who has sometimes been ranked with the Democratic party, in a speech which has not is yet perhaps been answered, did show that the territory above 49 deg. was formerly known as New Caledonia, and was'no part of Oregon." Mr. SMITH, (resuming.) There is no more unqualified admirer than I am of that speech, fraught with learning and characterized by distinguished ability. The honorable Senator, (Mr. BENTON,) after remaining silent in his seat a longt time, and until all the leading men in Congress had been heard, rose aMd poured a flood oflight, on the stbject. He demonstrated most conclusively (in accordance with the opition I had ever entertained) that we had rio just pretension to ariything above 49 deg. But this does init alter the state of the case at all. The Democratic party' did g6 for "the whole of the Territory of Oreghn." This constituted thebasis of the Whole controversy. it is what Mt. Buchanan contended for in his whole correspondence with the British Minister, and the surrender of any part was what Mr. Hannegan denounced so bitterly in his speech already quoted. It was "the standard which the Baltimore Convention put into the hands" of Mr. Polk, and which he betrayed. What I object to is the conduct of the Democratic party in making up such an issue-that they should have joined " the reannexation of Texas" to " the re-occupation of Oregon"-of the " whole territory"-that they should have carried the presidential election on such grounds, and then prove recreant, as Mr. Hannegan expressed himself, " to the generous confidence which a majority of the people reposed" in thme. 4. If, Mr. President, I were disposed to adopt the trainof reasoning contained in the speech ofthe honorable Senator, (Mr. BRADBURn,) I could show that Mr. Polk, in his inaugural address, pledged himself Against the proscriptive policy. On that occasion, after saying, " although in our country the Chief Magistrate must almost of necessity be chosen by a party, and stand pledged to its principles and measures," " yet," he adds, "in his official action, he should not be the President of a party only, but of ite whole people of the United States." This would seem to draw a distinction between measures and then; for how, otherwise, can the Chief Magistrate be, "in his official action," the President of "'the whole people?" But, without insisting on any positive pledge, I may say that there is obviously in these remarks an avowalkof liberal views and a declaration of magnanimous purposes. We had a right to expect that his dispensation of patronage would be characterized by modification, to say the least. How far were the expectations realized, let his disposition of all the vast patronage which devolved upon him by reason of the late war with Mexico tell. If there be any case in which the Chief Magis 23 trate is bound to be the President, not of a party only, but of th:-whole country, it is that of a foreign war. He certainly should dispense the patronage conferred by reason of the war without the slightest reference to party distinctions. When we come to meet our country's foe, we should know no distinetions. We should be all Whigs-all Democrats; or, rather, all American citizens, ready to strike for tbe honor of our flag, and to uphold the rights of the North American Republic. That the Senate may understand the extent and magnitude of this patronage, I.submit the following statement: It appears that there were.1 general officers, 25 majors, (staf) 111 captains, 194 medical officers, and 28 paymasters-total, 299 offcers-qppointed by the PresidW for the volunteer service, from June 1846, to the early part of the year 1848. For names, see the oicial registers for January, 1847, pages 7 and 37;and also the official list, published February, 1848, pages 7, 55, and 5Q. It appears that officers of the followignggades and numbers were appointed for the regular army, to wit: 5 major generals, (one only taken from the old army, General Taylor,) 5 brigadier generals, (two, Twiggs andKearney, taken frpm the old ar,) 1 ollonels, 11 lieutenant colonels, 23 majors, 115 captains, 111 first lieutenants, 13 second lieutenants, 111 additional second lieutenants, 12 surgeons, and 22 assistant surgeons; total, 539 officers appointed foi the additional force. For names, see Army Register, 1848; and for changes hy deathb resignation, &c., see pages 52, 53 and 54. Recapitulation.. General offiqers, 21, (three taken from old army;) field officers, 70; captains and subalterns, 561; paymasters and medical officers, 186;.total, 838. To this list may be added the rifle regiment orgapised in May, 1846. None of the officers were taken from the regular army, except the lieutenant, colonel (Fr.mont) and a lieutenant, (Rhett, of South Carolina)-making no less than eight hundred and seventy eight appointments, (including the rife regiment, and excluding officers from the old army.) 'How did Mr. Polk bestow these appointments? It is well known that all the general and field officers, and it is believed nearly all the commissioned officers, were appointed on strict party principles. They were all selected from the Democracy, unless occasionally a Whig was made captain or lieutenant; butsuch cases were few and far between. I make no objection to character or qualifications of the appointees: they. were good citizens and brave men,; some of them, nwv highly useful members of this body, who, by their gallantry and good conduct in the field, merit the atpprobation cf their country. But the narrow, unjust, ap:d illiberal conduct of the late President-for he is said to have controlled the whole matter--merits the severest condemnation, and but poorly accords with the doctrines of his inaugural address. What his course was in relation to the civil departments of the Government will appear hereafter. I have thus, i believe, put the honorable member (Mr. B.) out of cdurt in his plea of promise-breaking against President Taylor and his political friends. I have shown that he is not competent to carry oh the prosecution. If the honorable Senator will first " cast out the beam in his own eye," then shall he "see clearly to pull out the mote that is in his brother's eye." One thing is ceitain: when the Democracy are in power they require much indulgence-a liberal interposition-a generous view of conduct and motives; but the moment their opponents obtain the control of affairs the state of the case is entirely altered. They all at once become severely virtuous, and roll up their eyes in holy horror at the slightest departure from their new rule of right, though but " the small dust of the balance" in comparison with their own conduct. The casual correspondence of a successful candidate is ransacked only to be garbled and perverted, ahd " a pledge" bfound lurking under:very line, though nothing of the sort was intended. In the inean time, they open the flood gates of ca&umnly aid' abuse, notwithstanding their own broad pledges remain unredeemed; but in this they only "biid heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." I will next, Mr. President, consider what treatment the President has received at the hands of the opposition, and how ungracious it is for them to set up objections here to his course in the matter of removals and appointments. And here I'would observe that if he had, in fact, assured the country that he would, in the event of his election, observe the law of kindness, and treat all parties alike, administering the patronage with rigid impartiality, all those who desire to take benefit of such a generous policy should prove themselves, by kind and respectful treatment of the Executive, to be worthy of it. If he was bound to be the father of all, then there should be found everywhere filial deference, reverence, and respect. The conduct of the opposition has been such as not to entitle them to the benefit of any favorable assurances given by the President in advance of the election. They have broken the condition necessarily implied, and put themselves out ofthe:pale of all pledges-all assurances, if there were any. And here I invite attention to-- 1. The treatment which the President has received at the hands of the opposition press. It has incessantly, since the 4th of March, 1849, insisted that he is totallY incompetent to discharge the duties of the Presinency, without waiting to see whether he would prove himself such by his administratfon of the Government. It has represented him to be a weak, feeble, imbecile old man, who had no opinions of his own, and was totally incapable of forming any; who was held in leading-strings by his cabinet, and guided all the while to results which he had not sense enough to comprehend. Every measure adopted by him has been tortured into some odious form, and all the while held out to the country as alike unworthy of the Chief Magistrate of a free people and as digraceful to the American name and character. Strenuous efforts have been made to condemn him in advance, and so to poison public sentiment (the source of all power in thi4 country) as to render an impartial consideration of his course impqssible. The vocabulary of scurrility and abuse has been exhausted, and every species of obloquy has been poured out upon him. A long life of strict honor and integrity, a public career more glorious than has fallen to the lot of many men to exhibit, and exploits which have conferred an impermishable renown upon our flag, have been.forgotten, and his conduct and motivos traduced and maligned, merely becauge he dared to be President, in conformity with the high behests of the people. 24 At length the astounding declaration has been put forth that he shall be resisted and opposed, whatever he may do. "We mean (said the Democratic organ in this city a few months since) to doour duty; and whatever face the futnre may wear, we mean to oppose the administration of General Taylor and his cabal to the bitter end." 2. It has also been the manifest purpose of the opposition to exclude his views and policy from a proper examination, and even from any consideration whatever. This was disclosed by concerted efforts to carry the present House of Representatives against him, when it was not of the slightest importance with a view to uphold the measures of the last Administration, as they have a fixed majority in this body. To elect a Chief Magistrate at one period, and then, within a short time thereafter, to constitute a Congress to thwart and oppose him, is but a sorry compliment to the consistency and intelligence of the American people; and this is exactly what the opposition sought to do, so far as the House of Representatives in concerned. And they succeeded, if we may add to their strength the third party vote; and this, perhaps, may be done without injustice, as the discordant powers were allied at one time to make a distinguished member from Indiana Speaker of that body, and that, too, in hostility to the Administration. 3. The President tried a conciliatory line of policy in Virginia. He reappointed George Loyall, esq., navy agent at Norfolk, and Thomas B. Bigger, esq., postmaster at Richmond; but his advances were treated with scorn. It did not appease the violence of the opposition in the slightest degree. Every effort was made in Virginia, at the April elections in 1849, to put down his administration, and all the Congressional districts were carried against it, save one. 4. In many of the free States the Democracy joined the abolitionist party, with a view to local advantages, and partly to embarrass the President and his administration. This was so in Connecticut at the last general election, (1849.) A coalition was formed to carry not only the 1st, 2d, and 3d Congressional districts, but also the State Legislature. The Denocratic candidates in the three districts indicated gave writlen pledges to the abolitionists, which are before me; but I will not trouble the Senate by reading them. By such means the friends of the President were defeated in these districts, and a fatal turn given to the Congressional elections. This, it will be recollected, was within one month after the inauguration, and there could not have been, in any thing done here, the slightest excuse for this course. Mr. Polk hurled out of office many Democrats in the State of New York and elsewhere for joining the Free-soil party. I have before me a list of no less than eighty-four deputy postmasters dismissed in that State for this reason; and I will produce here a highly interesting letter, relating to one of those cases, from the Hon. William J. Brown, lately the Democratic Free-soil candidate for the Speakership, (on pledges, too:) "APPOINTMENT OrsiCE, P. 0. DEPARTMENT, July 26, 1848. " SIR: Your letter has been received, and submitted to the Postmaster General. I think your reasons for abandonding the Democratic party wholly unsatisfactory. The Postmaster General has heretofore refused to listen to applications for the removal of postmasters for such reasons.- But the party to which yon are now attached having taken ground against the Administration, and the regular nominee of the party for President,' I do not see how the Administration can further refuse to act in these cases, without subjecting it to the charge of lending its influence to defeat the candidate of the party. I am yours, &c., "H.. SICKELS, esq. P.M. W. J. BROWN." I wonder if this letter commended Mr. Brown to the three members from my State, and wonder if Southern Senators will shed tears over the fate of the Democratic office-holders of Connecticut? If so, I venture to predict they will be crocodile tears. I would by no means insinuate that General Taylor or his cabinet have acted on such grounds Certainly I have not brought this factious coalition to his or their notice, and I only use it now to show how ridiculous it is for the Northern Democracy to complain of his dispensation of patronage in that quarter of the Union. I will now, Mr. President, turn back, as 1 intimated I should, to the President's inaugural address, and particularly to the passage on which the honorable Senator (Mr. B.) relies. He, it is true, on that occasion, remarked that "the appointing power vested in the President imposes delicate and onerous duties. So far as it is possible to be informed, I shall make honesty, capacity, and fidelity indispensable prerequisites to the bestowal of ofice; and the absence of either of these qualities shall be deemed sufficient cause of removal." From this the honorable Senator (Mr. B.) deduces the conclusion that all officers removed from the fourth of March must be regarded as stigmatized for the want of either honesty, capacity, or fidelity-a conclusion which would equally follow from the language of Gen. Jackson and Mr. Polk in their respective addresses. But this is all a mistake, which I will prove by producing here an extract from Gen. Jackson's first annual message to Congress, as follows: "There are, perhaps, few mep who can, for any great length of time, enjoy office and power without being more or less under the influence of feelings unfavorable to a faithful discharge of their public duties. Their integrity may be proof against improper considerations immediately addressed to themselves; but they are apt to acquire a habit of looking with indifference upon the public interests, and of tolerating conduct from which an un practised man would revolt. Office is considered a species of proper ty, and Government rather as a means of promoting individual interests than as an instrument created solely for the service of the people. Corruption in some, and in others a perversion of correct feelings and principles, divert Government from its legitimate ends, and make it an engine for the support of the few at the expense of the many." I am almost provoked at myself for not adverting to this authority earlier; it would have saved a world of trouble. What a corrupting, hardening effect long office-holding has, according to General Jackson, on the minds and morals of men! (Why, the Democracy have been in possession of nearly all the places under the Government since the 4th March, 1829. President Taylor should have turned most if not all of them out long ago on presumption. The idea of the honorable Senator that the dismissed have gone oat on papers, or libels, as he would have us believe, is all imagination or moonshine. It is true President Taylor says "the want of honesty, capacity, or fidelity, shall be deemed sufficient cause for removal;" but General Jackson tells him he may infer this from long enjoyment of office; that in such cases, if the integrity of incumbents " be proof against improper considerations immediately ad. dressed to themselves," he may at least infer that they look ".with indifference on the public interest," and tolerate " conduct from which an unpractised mind would revolt." Removals under such circumstances do not attack the rectitude of particular individuals-they only carry out a general principle. The honorable member calls for a confession by some friend of the President; and if we make it in the form and to the extent he is pleased to indicate, he graciously says he will not press his resolution. Though not authorized, I will confess that the President wanted " unpractised minds" in the Government; hence some changes. He thought he might proscribe proscription, by letting in his own friends to a fair share of the offices. It did not occur to him that he succeeded as a mere administrator de bonis non to Jackson, Van Buren, Tyler, and Polk. If he had " no enemies to punish, and no friends to reward," he surely was not obliged to treat his own friends as if they were enemies. In the place of calling for papers-existing only by hypothesis-let the honorable Senator ask the President to send him this extract from General Jackson's message; that is a reality, and it will relieve his mind vastly. No objection will be made on this side of the chamber. The question, Mr. President, now arises, what has President Taylor done 7 Has he made a just, reasonable, and proper use of the removing and appointing powers 1 We see how he was situated; what light the past and the present throw on his path; what was the course of his predecessors; whcat the situation of the Government when he came into power, and the conduct of the opposition since. We now come to the issue-Has he abused the confidence of the American people, and betrayed the trust which they placed in his hands? Let the following details, collected with much labor and care, tell the story. I will begin with the Departments in this city, and show what was their political condition at the commencement and close of the late administration, and what changes have been made since; and if the conclusion does not result from the facts, that the President has not even done justfce to himself and friends, to say nothing of the public service, I shall be greatly mistaken. State Department.-At the close of the late administration, there were in this department twenty-five employees, (exclusive of the Secretary,) of whom twenty-two were Democrats, and only three Whigs!the former receiving a compensation of $21,920, and the latter of $5,000. Majority of Democrats 19, and balance of compensation in their favor $16,920! Now there are in the same department twenty-six employees, of whom fifteen are Whigs, and eleven Democrats; the former receiving a compensation of $13,990, and the latter of $12,940. Majority of Whigs only four, and balance of compensationt in their tavor only $1,050! Navy Department.-At the close of the last administration, there was in this department (exclusive of the Secretary and officers of the navy) fifty-one employees, of whom thirty-four were Democrats. fifteen Whigs, and two neutrals-the Democrats receivinga compensation of $42,450, and the Whigs of $17,100. Majority of Democrats nineteen, and balance of compensation in their favor $25,350! Now there are in that department the same number of employees, of whom twenty-five are Whigs, twenty-three Democrats, and three neutrals-the Whigs receiving a compensation of $29,100, and the Democrats of $27,400. Majority of Whigs only two, and balance of compensation in their favor only $1,700! War Department.-At the close of the last administration, there were in this department (exclusive of the Secretary and officers of the artny, and including the Pension and Indian bureaus, which then belonged to that department,) seventy-four employees, of whom forty-two were Democrats, thirty-two Whigs, and eight neutrals-the Democrats receiving a compensation of $55,350, and the Whigs of $34,600. Majority of Democrats ten, and balance of compensation in their favor $20,750! Now there are in the same department (excluding the Pension and Indian bureaus, at this time a part of the Department of the Interior) fifty-six employees, of whom thirty are Whigs, nineteen Democrats, and seven neutrals; the Whigs receiving a compensation of $32,600, and the Democrats $23,650. Majority of Whigs eleven, and balance of compensation in their favor $8,950! Treasury Department.-At the close of the last Administration, there were in this Department (exclusive of the Secretary) three hundred and thirty-five employees, of whom two hundred and fifty-nine were Democrats, and only seventy-six Whigs; the former receiving a compensation of $305,133, and the latter of only $97,500. Majority of Democrats one hundred and eighty-three, and balance of compensation in their favor $207,633! Now there are in the same Department three hundred and thirty-four employees, of whom two hundred and two are Democrats, and only one hundred and thirty-two Whigs; the former receiving a compensation of $223,108, and the latter of $177,895. Majority of Democrats seventy, and balance of compensation in their favor $45,213!* Department of the Interior.-There were in the bureaus now composing this Department, at the close of the last Administration, one hundred and twenty-seven employees, of whom ninety-three were Democrats, and only thirty-four Whigs; the former receiving a compensation of $177,137, and the latter of $45,100. Majority of Democrats fifty-nine, and balance of compensation in their favor $72,037! There are now in the same Department (exclusive of the Secretary and temporary clerks) one hundred and thirty-eight employees, of whom eighty are Whigs and fifty-eight Democrats; the former receiving a compensation of $105,650, and the latter of $68,417. Majority of Whigs twenty-two only, and balance of compensation in their favor $37,233!t * This does hot include ithe Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Coramissioner of Customs, and one or two clerkships created by law at the close of the last Congress, and since filled by Whigs. i Several of the Democratic clerks dismissed by Mr. Ewing are temporarily employed in this Department. 26 Here a brief statement of the case of the policemen of the capitol, removed by the order of Mr. Polk, should be introduced. Mr. P., early in his administration, dismissed Major Noland, the Commissioner of Public Buildings, an old, experienced, and truly excellent dfficer, and appointed to that place the Hon, Andrew Beaumont, formrerly a member of Congress from Pennsylvania. Soon after, Mr. B. dismissed two Whig policemefi, Mdssrs. Wailes' and Waller, who haid long been in office, and were without blame or fault, which was done, as has ever'been understood, by the interference and under the direction of the late President. This excited the utmost indignation in Congress, and the Senate, then Democratic, unhesitatingly rejected the IHon. Mr. Beaumdnt, and sent hin back to Pennsylvania. The President then nominated Dr. Charles Douglas, of Connecticut and, on his confirmation, a large number of Democratic arrd Whig Senators and members of the House united in a written application to Dr. Douglas for the restoration of Wails 'and Waller, but in vain. They remained out of office and proscribed until the acccession of President Tayloz, when they were promptly restored! These facts are sufficient to illustrate and prove how groundless the clamor has beeh against the Hon. Secretary of the Interior, for his dispensation of the patronage of his Department. Every opprobrious epithet has been heaped upon him for no other cause, than for firmly and resolutely doing what he believed to be his duty. Post Office Department.-At the close of the late administration, there were in this Department fortynineemployees, (exclusive of the Postmaster General,) of whom forty-seven were Democrats, and only twoWVhigs; the former receiving a compensation of $65,000, and the latter of only $2,200. Majority of Democrats forty-five, and balance of compensation in. their favor $63,700! In the same department there are now the same number of employees, of whom thirty.five are Democrats, and fourteen Whigs; the former receivrig a compensation of $47,600 and the latter of $18,300. Majority of Democrats twenty-one, and balance of compensation in their favor $29,300! In all the Departments there' were on the 4th of March last, (exclusive of neutrals and others, as above,) six hundred and thirty-two employees, of whom four hundred and seventy-six were Democrats, and only one hundred and fifty-six Whigs,; the former receiving a compensation of $578,790, and the latter of $194,300. Majority of Democrats three hundred and twenty, and balance of compensation in their favor $384 490'! In the same Departments there are now (exclusive as: above) six hundred and forty-four employees, of whom three hundred and fifty are Democrats, and two hundred and ninety-four are Whigs; the former receiving a compensation of $404,165, and the latter of $376,539. Majority of Democrats fifty-six, and balance of compensation in their favor $27,630! During Mr. Polk's administration, there were removed in, these Departments for other than for some special cause, such as drunkenness, one hundred and nine clerks, having a compensation of $122,340 and under that of President Taylor, one hundred and six, having a compensation of $122,485. But the removals under Mr. Polk were highly exceptionable; not so those under President Taylor, for the reason that the distribution on the fourth ot March, 1845, approached much nearer the principle of equalization than on the fourth of March, 1849. At the former date it is believed that the official corps in this city was nearly equally divided between the Whig and Democratic parties; whereas, when President Taylor came into power, the Democracy had possession of more than three-quarters of all the offices in this city. The heads of bureaus were, on the fourth of March, 1845, thus distributed: Whigs nine, with a compensation of $26 500; Democrats eight, with a compensation of $23,500: Whig majority one, and balance of compensation in their favor $3,000! Yet Mr. Polk irtmediately commenced removals; so that at the close of his administration the account stood thus: Democratic heads of bureaus, fifteen, with a compensation of $46,500; Whigs, only two, with a compensation of only $6,000: majority of Democrats thirteen, and balance of compensation in their favor $40,500! The Whigs were Messrs. Hagner and Pleasanton, who came to this city with the Government, and whose connexion with the Whig party consisted only in sympathy of opinion. In'the Treasury Department there were at the same period two hundred and sixty-seven employees, ot whom one hundred and thirty-eight were Whigs and one hundred and twenty-nine Democrats; the former receiving a compensation of $172,6,00, and the latter.,$150,847. Majority of Whigs only nine, with a balance of compensation in their favor #21,753. In the Bureaus now constituting the Department of the Interiqr, including the office of the Commissioner of the Public Buildings, the balance was the other way on the 4th of March, 1845. The whole number of employees in those Bureaus at that time was one hundred and thirty-one, of whom seventyone were' democrats and sixty Whigs; the former receiving a compensation of $83,637, and the latter of $74,300. Majority of Democrats eleven, and balance of compensation in their favor $9,339. In the General Post Office the state of the case was, on the 4th of March, 1845, much more in favor of the Democratic party. There were' then, as now, forty-nine employees in that Department, of whom thirty-five were Dei'ocrats, and only fourteen Whigs ' the former receiving a compensation of $65,900, and the latter of $20,000. Majority of Democrats (as now) thirty-five, and'balance of compensation in their favor $20,000. So that it appears that under President Taylor's administration the General Post Office has only been put back to where it was on the 4th of March, 1845! The State Department is known to have been, on the'4th of March, 1845, largely Democratic, as Mr. Buchanan removed only two Whig clerks, and yet left his Dephrtment almost wholly in the hands of his political friends. The Navy and War Departments at that date were believed to have been about in equipoise: so'that the preponderance in all the Departments was decidedly in fiavr of the Democratic party. There waA not the slightest excuse for Mr. Polk and his cabinet resuming the proscriptive system. But they did resume it, and prosecuted it with unexampled rigor; and,the spirit with which they were actuated will appear from the following letter froni the late honorable Becretaty of the Treasury: 27 [Not official.] "MAY 4, 1846, " DEAR SIR: On Saturday last I directed your appointment to be made out. Since tiat period it has been made known to me that you are, and always have been, a Whi. This was very unexpected intelligence to me. You never did represent yourself to me as a Democrat, but I took it for granted that such was the fact. It is impossible for me to make the removal contemplated, for the purpose of appointing a Whig. I have felt constrained, therefore, to revoke the order for your appointment. I regret this occurrence very much. Our short acquaintance had made a strong impression on my mind in your favor; and I still believe that, pdrsonally, you are entitled to my respect and esteem; but, under the circumstances, I cannot make the removal and appointment as I intended. " I take pleasure in saying that your deportment throughout has been correct and honorable.. " Yours, very respectfully, " R. J. WALKER. " JAxMs L. CHILDRBSS, Esq." By removing heads of bureaus and clerks, as already stated, and by uniformly filling vacancies created by deaths and resignations with their own friends, Mr. Polk and his babinet threw the departments substantially into the hands of the Democratic party, leaving only a few Whigs-such men as Peter Hagner and Stephen Pleasanton-whose services, by reason of great experience and long-tried integrity, were indispensable to the Government. This course would perhaps be of little importance, had not the public interests been compromitted thereby to the last degree. This will appear from the state of things which President Taylor found existing in the Second and Third Auditor's offices on his accession to power. Second Auditor's Office.-It appears from a letter from Mr. Clayton, the present auditor, tQ the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, dated April 18, 1849, (a copy of which I hold in my hand,) that he found, on being appointed, that there were no less than thirteen thousand four hundred and twenty-one items, or matters of business pending in that office that remained unattended to or unfinished. He remarks as follows: ' With regard to the causes of the condition of the office, I have only to report, from the short time I have been in office, the entire want of system, and the great want of capability, as well as willingness on the part of some of the clerks, as apparent reasons for the state of things that I have found. It is true that the bpsiness has increased duriog the Mexican war; but 1 believe, with proper materials and a new organization in the system, or, in other words, giving system to that that knew no system, a great alteration can be made for the better." It appears from House Doc., 1st sess., 30th Cong., Reps. of Comns., No. 508, p. 6, that General McCalla, the predecessor of Mr. Clayton, in a letter addressed to the Hon. John A. Rockwell, Chairman of the Committee of Claims, called for the appointment oft twenty-four additional clerks, to enable him to bring up the arrearage of business in his office. It appears also, from the act of the 12th of August, 1848,'(civil and diplomatic bill,) that Congress granted thirteen additional clerks for the period of twelve months, in conformity with the views of Gen, McCalla. And I now produce here a letter from the Second Auditor to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated 31st of December last, in which that officer observes that"The business of this bureau has been so far in arrears that it has required all the time and energy of every clerk employed to bring it up, and they have necessarily been usefully employed. " In addition, I have the honor to report that, from and after the 1st of July, 1850, the services of the thirteen additional clerks allowed by act of Congress, entitled 'An act making appropriation for the civil and diplomatic expenses of Government for the year ending the 30th day of June, 1849,' passed 12th August, 1848, and continued in the act making appropriation for the civil and diplomatic expenses of Government for the year ending the 30th day of June, 1850, passed 3d March, 1849, will not be required in this office." So much for reform under the auspices of Z. Taylor. And here would seem to be the proper place to introduce the case of Mr. B. F. Brown, who was a clerk in the Second Auditor's Office, and dismissed for neglect of duty and brawling at the late Presidential election. Soon after, he addressed to the President, through the public prints, the following insolent letter: " WASAINTON, June 4, 1849. " SIR: On the first day of this month I received a letter from your Secretary of the Treasury, notifying me of my removal from office, Having distinctly declared in your inaugural address, with the oath of office fresh upon your lips, that you should make honesty, capacity, and fidelity, the requisites for appointment to office, and the want of them the sole cause for removal; and it being repeatedly stated by your principal organ in this city that all removals are made upon that ground, it would be presumed, in the transactions of honorable men, that I have been remdved for dishonesty, incapacity, and unfaithfulness in the discharge of my official duties. It is due to myself, and to those who procured my appointment to office, that I disprove such charges. fwas appointed upon the recommendation, among others, of General Thomas L. Hamer, who fought by your side at Monterey, and sac. rificed his life in the war which made you President. It is due to his memory that those 1oul and infamous imputations upon my character be repelled. Upon receiving notice of my removal, I addressed the following letter to your Secretary: " 'WASHINGrTON, Jene 1, 1849. " ' SIR: I have this day received from you a dismissal from office. I respectfully request of you a copy of the charges against my honesty, capacity, and fidelity, in the discharge of my official duties, if any exist. " ' Very respectfully, B. F. BROWN. " ' Hon WILLIAM M. MEREDITH, Secretary of the Treasury.' "To this letter I have received no rep)ly, for the reason that there are no such charges. I was removed for my political opinions alone. Were thiagiven as the reason for my removal, I should submit cheerfully, proud that I am considered worthy to be sacrificed for my political principles. But you have neither the disposition nor the honesty to admit the fact. By so doing you would place yourself before the world self-convicted of the violation of your most solemn pledges, made in the presence of God and the people. You prefer rather to attach the stain of infamy to those whom you displace from office, and to prostitute the Presidential office into an infamous engine by which you may defame the private character and blacken the reputation of your fellow-men, after having deprived them of their means of support-a course of conduct in a Chief Magistrate which will find its parallel only in the atrocity of the bandit, who first seizes the purse, and then drives the dagger to the heart of his victim. But there is a power in this country more potent than the edict of a President, or the decree of an irresponsible cabal, upon whom he may seek to throw the responsibility and odium of acts which he dare not perpetrate in his own name, but for which he is himself alone accountable. That power is public opinion, and to that tribunal the humblest citizen can appeal. " Your fellow-citizen, B. F. BROWN. " His Excellency ZACHARY TAYLOR, President of the United States." The Senate cannot fail to be struck with the coincidence that exists between the reprehensions of this letter and those contained in the'speech of my honorable friend. The same premises are assumed, and the same conclusions drawn; so that, by analyzing, they would be reduced substantially to the same elements. I will only add as a sufficient commentary on this letter, that Mr. B. F. Brown, after being nominated (I suppose as a martyr) for doorkeeper of the House by the Democratic party, at the commencement of the present session, found it expedient to leave this city suddenly, and he is now 28 under several indictments by the grand jury of the county of Washington, for obtaining, after his removal, a considerable sum of money from the Treasury of the United States by fraud, forgery, and false pretences. I hope he will prove himself innocent; otherwise, that he will be brought to condign punishment.. So much for this item of Whig persecution! Third Auditor's Ofice.-This was in a condition not less deplorable. Mr. Polk had removed the best clerks in that office-nine in all; one appointed in 1811, one in 1813, one in 1816, one in 1818, one in 1833, one in 1834, one in 1835, one in 1837, one in 1846, and one in 1848; theappointees of Madison, Jackson, Van Buren, and himself. Some of these were invaluable servants of the government, particularly the old clerks, and the consequence was to throw the business of the Third Auditor's Office into the utmost confusion; and this appears from a letter from Peter Hagner, late Third Auditor, dated April, 1849, to the Secretary of the Treasury, in which, after observing that the business of the office was enormously in arrears, he adds that" Many of the quartermaster's accounts are exceedingly voluminous, embracing quarter-yearly accounts, rendered since 1846, involving a vast amount of money. The accumulation in that branch has in part arisen from the increase in the number of disbursing officers made necessary by the Mexican war, and greatly by the removal from office of several of the old and most efficient clerks, and appointment of others without experience, requiring instruction and time to make their services useful-instruction only to be obtained through the remaining experienced clerIs. In the engineer and topographical engineer branches, there has been but little if any increase of disbursements since 1846. The accumulation in that branch, 1 think may be mainly imputed to the removal of a most intelligent, efficient clerk, who thetetofore had these accounts solely and exclusively for many years committed to his adjustment, and who uniformly kept them nuphis successor, promoted to fill the place, being not-at all familiar with this, his new duty. After a time it was found that the usual prompt adjustment of these accounts had ceased; it was therefore deemed necessary, in order to prevent further accumulation, to assign two other newly appointed clerks to his assistance. The result has not been such as was lioped for-there remaining a great increase of unsettled accounts in hose branches, many of them embracing quarterly disbursements from 1846 to the fourth quarter of 1848. There is no remedy which presents itself to my mind, other than again obtaining the services, as far as practicable, of the old, experienced clerks, and the employment of five or six capable, indtistrious account.amns, in addition to the number now authorized by law. Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. Who removed Peter Hagner? Mr. SMITH. Old age! fourscore years! probably fourscore years and ten. I am now prepared to submit an extract from the honorable Senator's speech. He says that" It is worthy of notice, that while officers are removed who are invaluable to the public, some of the departmen!s here are calling upon Congress for additional force. I beg leave to suggest, Mr. President, that it might be wise economy to restore the former efficient public servants." That is exactly what President Taylor has done. He has restored "' the former efficient public servants;" and yet some additional force is necessary to overcome arrearages occasioned by the misconduct of the last administration. So much for the Departments in this city; and I fearlessly submit the question to the Senate and the country, whether, so far as they are concerned, the President and the cabinet have done more than their duty. Many, perhaps, most, of heir political friends will believe they have not done even that. Diplomatic service -At the time the paper was made out which I hold in my hand, (February last,) there had been recalled, from the 4th of March, 1849, without request, three full ministers, and four charg6s, receiving salaries to the amount of $46,500; and recalled by request, three full ministers and four charges, receiving salaries to the amount of $i9,000, and there remained abroad appointees of the last administration, two full ministers, five chargds, and the commissioners at Canton and the Sandwich Islands. The appointees of the present administration (including ministers, charges, and secretaries of' legation) were a that period receiving salaries to the amount of $103,000, and the appointees of the last 459,000. More than one th rd of the diplomatic appointments have remained, during the first year of President Taylor's administration, in the hands of the Democratic party, and this must be regarded as liberal, in view of the faet, that not a single Whig, during the latter part of Mr. Polk's administration, was permitted to hold a situation in this branch of the public service. The late Henry Wheaton was, I believe, the last of this class. He was recalled from Berlin, for no other than political reasons. A more competent or accomplished man never graced our diplomacy abroad. It must also be regarded as moderate, in view of the further fact that the last Congress made provision (as already stated) in the form of outfits for the recall of the whole corps. I perhaps should refer, as additional evidence of a kinilly disposition of the President towards the Democracy, to the fact of his permitting Mr. Hannegan to go abroad, when he obtained a nomination to the Senate, and a confirmation by this body under novel, if not extraordinary circumstances. I am sensible that both Mr. Hannegan and Mr. Eanies have recently returned from their respective missions, and perhaps some other changes are contemplated; but I have seen nothing like a purpose on the part of the Executive to appropriate all these appointments, in conformity with the practice and course of hisi predecessor. Consular service.-The whole number of consuls appointed by President Taylor is forty three; of these, to fill vacancies, resignations, and deaths, fourteen; new consulates, two; held by foreign subjects, two; and vacancies on recall, twenty-four; all receiving a compensation of $54,600. The consuls appointed by his predecessors, and remaining undisturbed, receive a compensation of $80,000-balance against the present Administration, $23,400. There is little persecution here! Naval service.-Soon after the present Secretary of the Navy was inducted into office, he discovered that the aflairs of the Department were in some disorder-that there were arrearages in the nature of defalcations standing on the books of the Fourth Auditor, to the enoimous amount of $652,844 71. This was due from na7y agents, navy pension agents, and pursers, and he immediately directed his attention to the collection of these claims; and by good managejlentt and great perseverence he has succeeded in recovering, in all, $109,915 82, which has been paid into the treasury. The residue remains unpaid; most oh it will probably he wholly lost to the Government. These defalcations include the celebrated Denby case-the amount due from that personage being $ 145,819 03, all gone-the Independent 29 Treasury act to the contrary notwithstanding. There are several other cases of aggravated default by navy agents; but as the particulars are before the public, it is necessary to dwell upon them. In consequence, the honorable Secretary deemed it to be not expedient to make pretty extensive changes in the corps of navy agents and pension agents. He has caused to be appointed on expiration of the terms of predecessors,-four; on removal, two, and both defaulters; on resignation, one; and has discontinued two agencies as useless to the public. One Democrat holds over, and another (George Loyall) has been re-appointed, (a great mistake!) Every honest man must say it is all right. Revenue service.-1 have no means of comparing the state of things now, as to collectors of customs and other officers in this branch, appointed either by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by the Secretary of the Treasury, with the condition of affairs under Mr. Polk's Administration; but one thing I know, in many cases removals have been received with high satisfaction in their,respective localities. On occasion of the removal of Governor Morton from the collectorship of Boston, the Democracy of that city assembled on the common and fired a salute of two hundred guns! or, if I have put too much powder in this statement, say one hund, ed guns! I hope the honorable Senator will not charge over the ammunition to President Taylor or the Whig party. I have letters from reliable friends, showing that at least two-fifths of the patronage in the custom-houses of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, is ih the hands of the Democratic party. Quite too much! More reform is needed in this quarter! I make tha same remark in respect to district attorneys, marshals, Indian agents, surveyors-general, registers of the land offices, and receivers of public moneys, which I have already submitted in respect to collectors and other officers of the customs. I would observe that the district attorney for the southern district of New York, on being dismissed, proved a defaulter to the amount of $20,000; and I have understood the President has not removed some of the other officers named, out of deference to the wishes of Democratic Senators. If this resolution passes, I shall conclude he has been too generous! General Post Office.-The honorable Senator (Mr. BRADBauR) says that there were removed, during the last fiscal year, 2,103 deputy postmasters; and he concludes that at least 2,000 of them must have been dismissed by President Taylor-thus charging over to the President a large number who were displaced, in New York, Ohio, and other States, for turning free-soilers. He then adds: " If the work has gone on at the same rate, we must have some five thousand (dismissals) in the post offices alone." Now, as I am unwilling to have so worthy a gentleman remain in the dark, I will lay the precise state of the case before him. State of tke case on the 9th of March, 1850: Whole number of.post offices in the United States.............................17,780 Appointed by the Postmaster General on removals...................3,406 Appointed by the Postmaster General on resignations...............2,802 Appointed by the Postmaster General on deaths....................... 218- 6426 11,354 The removals have only been about twenty per cent. on the whole number; and after all the appointments made on deaths, resignations, and removals, almost two-thirds of the appointees of the last and preceding Administrations remain' in office. In Maine, (where, according to the honorable Senator, there has been a pretty general sweep,) Ifind, on recent inquiry at the General Post Office, the account to stand thus: Number of post offices in Maine...............................................651 " removals................................................,,,,,,,,,. 149 " resignations....................................................... 81 " deaths....................................................... 3 So that more than three-fourths of the postmasters appointed for Maine, before the 4th of March, 1849, remain in office; and I venture to say there are few Whigs among them. It is well known that the Harrison Administration went out of office at the end of seven or eight months after it was organized; and I admit that the then Postmnaster General made a considerable number of removals during that period; but President Tyler having separated himself from his political friends, ere long commenced removing the appointees of Mr Granger; and I now submit the following statement, obtained at the General Post Office, of the number of removals made during the two last years of Mr. Tyler's and the whole of Mr. Polk's administration. Number of Postmasters removed from the 4th of March, 1843, to the 4th of March, 1849, viz: In the year ending 4th March, 1844.............. 588 Do do do do 1845.............. 672 - 1,260 Do do do do 1816............. 1,197 Do do do do 1847............. 393 Do do do do 1848.............. 295 Do do do do 1849............. 428 -- 2,313 3,573 The effect of these extensive removals was to give the Democratic party again almost the exclusive possession and control of the post offices of the country-certainly so of those in the free States, and it seems to me that there is nothing unreasonable in the course of the President, or rather of his Postmas-. ter General, under all the circumstances of the case. Before I close this branch of the subject, I wish to invite the attention of the Senate to the great number of resignations of postmasters which have occurred since the 4th of March, 1849; and these are now rapidly outrunning the removals. From the 12th~ of January last to the 9th of March, the resignations increased by two hundred and two, and the removals by only one hundred and fifty-four! Mr. Jefferson said, in his celebrated letter to the New Haven merchants, that vacancies "by death are few, by resignation none." How surprisingly times are altered! I cannot account for it, unless it be the effect of the honorable Senator's speech. If he will only publish one or two more editions, all the Democrats in office will probably resign from a sheer sense of justice to the President. I now come, Mr. President, to the heroes! They have been sacrificed! The honorable Senator gives a list. 1. He says that Gen. Lane, appointed Governor of Oregon towards the close of the last Administration, has been dismissed. I wish to say nothing derogatory to this gentleman. If he won laurels in the war with Mexico, I shall be the last man to pluck a leaf. He may be a good soldier, but not well qualified to discharge so difficult and responsible a trust in that remote quarter of the world. The President knew Gen. Lane intimately, and it is to be presumed he acted in removing him from a high sense of duty. Besides, he has appointed the gallant and highly accomplished Major John P. Gaines to fill the place-who was also distinguished in the same war-and a better or braver man never lived. Does the honorable Senator claim that only Democratic heroes are to be provided for! 2. Colonel John B. Weller, commissioner to run the Mexican boundary, has been removed, and I beg to assure the Senator for good and sufficient reasons. The papers in the case have been communicated to the Senate. I have examined them carefully, and it appears that he violated in the,grossest manner the instructions of the last Executive. In addition, he has squandered the appropriation, and overdrawn the amount by several thousand dollars. I venture to predict, that at least twenty-five thousand dollars will be required tp supply deficiencies. In the mean time, he has done very little-only fixed the initial point on the Pacific, traced the line towards the Gila four miles ascertained the point of departure at the juncture of the Gila with the Colorado, and traced the line from thence towards the Pacific one mile. At this rate, it will take one century to run the line. The President owed it alike to himself and the country to dismiss him. 3. Captain Blythe was dismissed from the office of District Attorney for the northern district of Mississippi, but I will let Captain B. tell his own story as follows: " COLUvMBS, MIss., June 15, 1849. " To the Editors of the Union. " GENTLEMGN: On observing, a few days since, the official notice of my removal from the office of United States Attorney for the northern district pf Mississippi, I immediately addressed a note to the Editor of the Democrat, of this place, requesting him not to indulge in crimination or complaint on account of my ejection. My reasons stated for such a request were these: Viewing the course of the' Administration, I anticipated that which has occurred the more certainly, as I had positively refused the assistance of many leading Whigs in the district, voluntarily tendered, to retain me in the place; and I was unwilling to become the object of newspaper notoriety or controversy about a matter of so little personal interest to me. Judge, then, of my regret on observing, the very kindly-intended article about myself which appeared in your paper of the 8th instant. To correct the mistakes of that article-based upon incorrect information-is the object of this communication. " It is true, I commanded a company from this place about nineteen months during the war with Mexico. I was not amongst the first to rush to the rescue, my health at that time preventing. Neither was I a member of the first Mississippi regiment, nor at the battle of Monterey and Buena Vista. " I would further state, that I know of no unusual bond of sympathy that ever existed between General Taylor and the regiment to which I was attached. He certainly was under no obligations to me, unless experience shall have taught him that those were his best friends who labored most assiduously to prevent his occupying the seat he now does. I do not censure the Administration for its course towards me, as I conceive I have no personal cause. "Again expressing my repugnance to this character of notoriety, permit me to add my grateful acknowledgments for your kind intentions. A. K. BLYTHE." This letter I consider, highly creditable to Capt. Blythe. By his own acknowledgment, he had participated actively in the late presidential election, and therefore was a proper subject of removal; but he displays in his letter so much nobleness ofsoul and generosity of disposition, that I could almost wish the President would give him some signal expression of his approbation. [Here Mr. DAvis, of Mississippi, made some remarks highly complimentary to Capt. Blythe, in which Mr. S. concurred.] 4. I know nothing of the other cases mentioned by the Senator. He speaks of Mr. Haile, of New York, who he says was dangerously wounded at the battle of Lundy's Lane, and left for dead on the field, has nevertheless been dismissed from some office-what, the Senator does not say. But this, whether right or wrong, is no new thing in the history of the country. I have already said that Mr. Jeffersen dismissed Elizur Goodrich from the collectorship of New Haven, and he was bayoneted by the British when they invaded that city during the revolutionary war, and was " left for dead on the field." General Jackson turned out several who had distinguished themselves in defence of the country: among others, I recollect the case of.Major Melville, who was one of the celebrated " Boston tea-party." But General Taylor is the last man to do injustice to those who have suffered for the country. If anything of the sort has occurred since he came into power, it has been without his knowledge, and will be sure to meet with his disapprobation. He who exclaimed in the height of the battle of Buena Vista, " My wounded are behind me-I will not retreat alive," will gladly recognise the just pretensions of his comrades in arms. Mr. President it now only remains for me to state briefly the grounds on which I suppose an adminisration coming into power, as did the present, may make appointments wTthout laying itself open justly to the charge of being proscriptive. It may appoint its own friends to fill vacancies created by1. Deaths, 31 9. Resignation. These have been more numerous than is generally supposed, since the 4th of March, 1849, in other departments than the General Post Office. I could give many more particulars, bat time will not permit. 3. By removal of those unduly appointed by a retiring administration. And here I wish tb notice the broad contrast which exists been the course of the Democracy at the 2d session of the 20th Congress, at the close of Mr. Adams's term, and at the 2d session of the last Congress. On both occasions the party had a majority in the Senate; but in the former they took the ground that inasmuch as the administration of Mr. A. had been condemned and overruled by the people, it was not fit that he should dispense the patronage of government any further than was indispensable to the public services. They therefore laid on the table, and refused to act on, it is believed, nine-tenths of his nominations, and among others that of the Hon. John J. Crittenden, nominated as a judge of the Supreme Court. But a very different course was pursued at the last session. The retiring President laid his hands on all appointments within his reach. He made no less than one hundred and forty-six nominations at the last session, of which twenty-four were during the three days in March-ministers, charges, consuls, collectors, marshals, district attorneys, navy agents,postmasters, and other subordinate officers-and the Senate had no difficulty in confirming them, notwithstanding the rule in the case of Mr. Adams. Mr. Hannegan was nominated and confirmed at the last gasp. This anticipation of the incoming President constituted, in myjudgment, a serious grievance, which demanded a more full redress than it has received. By removal of such as obtained their places by proscribing others; and this will usually involve the restoration of long-tried and faithful public officers, as as in the cases of the Second and Third Auditor' offices. Mr. Grundy, in the extract from his speech already quoted, recognised this as a sufficient grouni for removal. 5. By ditto, in cases where there is incapacity, inattention to duty, immorality, or other irregularity 6f conduct. 6. By ditto, where there has been an Open interference with elections, either municipal, State, or'hational. I deny that any man can be deemed truly competent who is a brawler on such occasions. Capacity; properly considered, is a 'large word. It comprehends not only intellect, sound morals, sufficient education, and business habits, but also acceptability to the people. What right has any administration to quarter oh any community a public officer (deputy postmastet for exatsple) who has made himself odious by political impertinence to a majority of the pe6ple, at the Ideality where he is to exercise his functions? When, therefore, the President said that the want of capacity would be a sufficient cause for dismissal, it necessarily involved the exclusion of all this class. 7. By ditto, where there has been no positive misconduct, official or otherwise, and nothing appeats against the officer but inaptitude, in point of temper or habits, to the place which he fills. This is recognised by Mr. Shipley, one of the honorable Senator's Democratic predecessors, as sufficient cause' for removal: "A man may prove a bad public officer from constitutional traits of character. He may be slow in the discharge of duty, where expedition is required. He may have an irritable temper, where great patience is desirable or necessary. These, and a great variety of other causes, may prevent the dischare of his official duties as they ought to be discharged, and yet he may not be chargeable with any intentional misconduct. And' must the people suffer under these inconveniences without any effectual remedy! The injury and inconvenience to the individual, by removal, is not at all to be comparedeto the public injury by his continuance in such cases."-Vide Gales & Seaton's Debates, vol. 11, pt. 1, p. 453. 8. By ditto, where there are good and sufficient reasons to suspect frauds, defalcations, or other misconduct. I can say, in the language of Mr. Shipley, that since General Taylor came into power"Many instances of defalcation and corruption, where the incumbents were supposed to be good officers while in office, have been discovered on their retiring by virtue of a law, or on tteir removal, and their names could be given; but I forbear to do it, as it is not necessary to the argument."-Vide Gales & Seaton's Cong. Deb., vol. 11, pt. 1, p. 452. 9. By ditto, with a view to the general advantage; but this ground must be acted on with great caution, otherwise it will run into abuse. Mr. Shipley says, (Gales & Seaton's Cong. Deb., vol. 11, pt. 1,p. 453:) "I would not necessarily require any positive fault in an officer, in order to remove him from office." * * * '"It is just and proper, and useful, without regard to party or party favors, to change public officers. It is in accordance with our system of government, which holds out equal rights and equal privileges to all." This Democratic Senator from Maine did not deem these views at all inconsistent with positive pledges of Gen. Jackson and his friends against the proscriptive policy. If the honorable Senator (Mr. B.) should suggest (and indeed he does so in effect in his resolution) that the parties in interest should, before semoval, have notice, and a hearing, or an opportunity to make a defence, then I must call on Mr. Shipley again to correct his errors, and bring him to a proper understanding of this subject. Mr. Shipley says: " If the President is required to give satisfactory reasons for a removal, he must first have the proof of misconduct; and if the proof is attempted, as long as parties exist, the tesiimony will be contradictory, and the people will never be enabled to procure a removal, until a case is made so clear as to authorize and justify an impeachment. The voice of the people is lost. They can no longer be heard, or, if heard, respected.-Vide Gales - Seaton's Cong. Deb., vol. 11, p. 453. Or will the Senator (Mr. BRADBURY) insist that it is a grievous wrong to displace a party who have been a quarter of a century in office, and that Democratic office-holders have at least a possessory right to their places, to say nothing of an tstate for life or in fee? In answer, I must ask my honorable friend to hear the sentiments of General Jackson, as expressed in his first annual message to Congress-sentiments which were promulged in face of his assurance that " the patronage of the Government should not be brought in conflict with the freedom of elections:" " In a country where offices are created solely for the benefit of the people, no one man has any more intrinsic right to official station than another. Offices are not established to give support to particular men at the public expense No individual wrong is done by removal, since neither appointment to nor continuance in office is matter of right. The incumbent became an officer with a view to public benefits; and when these require his removal, they are not to be sacrificed to private interests. It is the people, and they alone, who have a right to complain when a bad officer is substituted for a good one. He who is removed has the same means of obtaining a living that are enjoyed by millions who never held offile." 32 Or will the Senator contend that the President has made some mistakes, and has failed in some instances to observe the rules of moderation and equity by which he has endeavored to regulate his conduct? Very likely; in such vast concerns, mistakes are unavoidable; but I hope he will let the distinguished Senator from Missouri (Mr. BENTOP) apologize for the President. "Doubtless President Jackson has made some unfortunate appointments. I myself have made some unfortunate recommendations, though I have made but few.-Vide Cong. Deb., vol. 11, pt. 1, p. 374. Hear, also, Mr. Grundy to the same effect; ' It is urged that worthy men have been removed from office without sufficient cause. Of this I have no doubt. The Chief Magistrate has, in some instances, been imposed on by the representations of others. Another fact, however, is equally clear, that others have been retained who should have been dismissed. Many such, Mr. President-many such! and I hope President Taylor's Cabinet will look them all up ere long. I will not say that the President and his Cabinet have acted on the principles here developed. I do not speak at their instance or by their authority. I desire it may be distinctly understood that all I have offered on the present occasion is submitted on my sole responsibility. I do not intend that the idea shall be entertained for a moment that the distinguished citizens who now administer the Government, are responsible in the slightest degree for what I have now said, or may hereafter say or do, as a member of this body. On the other hand, it is but just that I should disclaim responsibility for the course of events since the 4th of March, 1849.There are not half a dozen appointments out of my own State that can be traced to any opinions expressed by me to the Executive. The President and Cabinet have not needed the aid of my feeble arm. I have thus, Mr. President, endeavored to show that the course of President Taylor has been modesate, just, and reasonable--such as to commend itself to patriotic and impartial men every where. My sole object in entering on this exposition (I fear too protracted by far) has been to defend his consistency, honor, and rectitude. I know that any effort of mine cannot stop for a moment the floodgates of calumny and abuse. All that ingenuity can devise, malice suggest, or uncharitableness conceive, has been and will continue to be used to poison public sentiment, and to prevent an impartial judgment by the people on his course. Many adventitious circumstances have occurred to embarrass him and his administration; but these must soon pass away. Justice will be done him by the men of the present day; he will receive it at the hands of posterity. But, whatever may be his fortunes, he is sure to be sustained by conscious rectitude, and by the promptings of a heart which has ever beat in unison with the honor of his country and the true glory of the American people. He may exclaim, in the language of Washington, in a letter to Mr. Lee, of Virginia: "IN WHAT WILL THIS ABUSE TERMINATE? FoI THE RESULT, AS IT RESPECTS MYSELF, I CARE 1OT4 FOR I HAVE A CONSOLATION WITHIN THAT NO EARTHLY EFFORTS CAN DEPRIVE ME OF: AND THAT 185 THAT NEITHER AMBITIOUS NOR INTERESTED MOTIVES HAVE INFLUENCED MY CONDUCT. THE ARROWS OF MALEVOLENCE, THEREFORE, HOWEVER BARBED AND WELL POINTED, NEVER CAN REACH THE MOST VULNERABLE PART OF ME, THOUGH, WHILE I AM UP FOR A MARK, THEY WILL BE CONTINUALLY AIMED.,"